People v. Veneracion
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The cadaver of a young girl, Angel Alquiza, was found floating in Binondo, Manila. The victim was clad only in a duster, without panties, and bore gaping wounds on her face, chin, and ear, lacerations on her genitalia, and a bashed-in head. Two Informations were filed charging Henry Lagarto y Petilla and Ernesto Cordero y Maristela, along with others, with the crime of Rape with Homicide. Procedural History: The two criminal cases were consolidated. All accused, except Abundio Lagunday who died, pleaded not guilty. After trial, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 47, Manila, presided over by respondent Judge Lorenzo B. Veneracion, found Henry Lagarto y Petilla and Ernesto Cordero y Maristela guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Rape with Homicide and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua with all accessories. The City Prosecutor filed a Motion for Reconsideration praying for the imposition of the death penalty. Respondent Judge denied the motion for lack of jurisdiction, stating that the accused had perfected their appeal. The Petition: The People of the Philippines filed a petition for certiorari, praying that respondent Judge be found to have acted with grave abuse of discretion and in excess of jurisdiction for failing and/or refusing to impose the mandatory penalty of death under Republic Act No. 7659.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion and in excess of jurisdiction in imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua instead of the mandatory penalty of death for the crime of Rape with Homicide. Whether the trial court loses jurisdiction over the case after the accused perfect their appeal, precluding it from acting on a motion for reconsideration seeking to impose a higher penalty.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The case is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court for the imposition of the penalty of death upon private respondents. The trial court's decision imposing reclusion perpetua is set aside for having been rendered with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the mandatory penalty for Rape with Homicide: The Court held that Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659, which amended Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, unequivocally provides that when homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of rape, the penalty shall be death. The law leaves no room for discretion on the part of the trial judge to impose any other penalty. The trial court's finding of guilt for Rape with Homicide necessitated the imposition of the death penalty as mandated by law. The Court emphasized that judges are bound by the provisions of the law and cannot deviate from them based on personal beliefs or misgivings. The Court stressed that obedience to the rule of law is paramount. Judges must apply the law as written, regardless of their personal opinions or beliefs. The wisdom or morality of a law is within the province of the legislature, not the judiciary. The Court cited People vs. Limaco to underscore that judicial officers must respect and apply the law as long as it remains in the statute books, even if they personally regard it as harsh, unwise, or morally wrong. The judiciary's function is to interpret and apply the law, not to question its wisdom. The trial court, after weighing the evidence, found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Rape with Homicide. At the time of the commission of the crime, Republic Act No. 7659 was in force. Therefore, the trial judge was bound by its provisions, which mandated the death penalty for the crime committed. The judge's refusal to impose the death penalty, despite being aware of the law, constituted grave abuse of discretion amounting to a lack of jurisdiction. The Court characterized the petition as a special civil action for certiorari to correct an erroneous judgment rendered without or in excess of jurisdiction. It distinguished this from an ordinary appeal, which seeks to reverse the finding of guilt. The corrective action on the penalty had to precede the appellate review of the guilt or innocence of the accused. On the issue of jurisdiction after appeal: The Court clarified that while generally, jurisdiction is lost by the trial court upon perfection of an appeal, this principle does not apply when the judgment rendered is void. In this case, the judgment imposing reclusion perpetua for Rape with Homicide was void for having been rendered with grave abuse of discretion and in excess of jurisdiction, as it failed to impose the mandatory death penalty. Therefore, the appeal attempted to be taken from a void judgment was inefficacious, and the trial court retained jurisdiction to correct its erroneous imposition of penalty. The Court reiterated that a void judgment does not divest the court of jurisdiction.
Main Doctrine
When homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of rape, the penalty shall be death, and the trial judge has no discretion to impose a lesser penalty. Failure to impose the mandatory death penalty constitutes grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.