Bansilan v. People
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The case originated from an Information filed on November 13, 2012, charging Alemar A. Bansilan with Robbery in an Inhabited House, as defined and penalized under Article 299 of the Revised Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that on May 18, 2012, Bansilan broke into the house of Jayme Malayo, stole a laptop and P500.00, and later pawned the laptop. Bansilan was arrested and pleaded not guilty to the charge. The prosecution presented witnesses who testified to the alleged confession of Bansilan to Malayo and the identification of Bansilan by the pawnbroker, Lanie Maduay. Bansilan interposed the defenses of denial and alibi. 2. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 10, Davao City, found Bansilan guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to imprisonment and to pay restitution. Bansilan appealed the conviction to the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that his alleged extrajudicial admission was inadmissible hearsay and that the identification by Maduay was also hearsay as she was not presented as a witness. The CA affirmed the RTC's decision, finding the extrajudicial confession admissible and corroborated by circumstantial evidence. Subsequently, Bansilan filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court. 3. The Petition: Bansilan filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking to reverse the CA's decision. He also sought alternative relief for his release if the judgment was affirmed, based on his detention period. However, before the case was submitted for decision, Bansilan submitted a Letter requesting to withdraw his appeal, stating his acceptance of the lower court's decision and his intent to avail of parole review. The Supreme Court treated this letter as a Motion to Withdraw the Petition and granted it, thereby dismissing the petition and considering the case closed and terminated. The Court, however, modified the imposable penalty pursuant to Republic Act No. 10951.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioner's letter requesting withdrawal of his appeal should be granted. Whether the testimonies of Malayo and SPO1 Arado regarding Bansilan's alleged admission and Maduay's identification constitute hearsay evidence. Whether Bansilan's oral admission to Malayo was admissible as evidence, despite being made without counsel. Whether the penalty imposed on Bansilan should be modified in light of Republic Act No. 10951.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted Bansilan's letter to withdraw his appeal, thereby dismissing the petition for review on certiorari. The Court considered the letter as a Motion to Withdraw the Petition, which was permissible as it was filed before the case was submitted for decision. By withdrawing his appeal, Bansilan is deemed to have accepted the decision of the Court of Appeals. However, the Court modified the imposable penalty against Bansilan pursuant to Article 299 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 79 of Republic Act No. 10951, sentencing him to suffer the penalty of Three (3) years and Two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to Six (6) years and Ten (10) months of prision mayor in its minimum period, as maximum, and ordered him to pay private complainant Jayme Malayo the amount of ₱500.00 as restitution.
Ratio Decidendi
On the withdrawal of appeal: The Court granted Bansilan's request to withdraw his appeal, treating his letter as a Motion to Withdraw the Petition. The Court cited Section 1, Rule 13 of the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court, stating that a case is deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum. Since Bansilan's letter was filed before this submission, the withdrawal was permissible. By withdrawing his appeal, petitioner is deemed to have accepted the decision of the appellate court, and must face the consequences, such as the decision of the court a quo becoming final and executory. On the admissibility of testimonies as hearsay: The Court held that the testimonies of Malayo and SPO1 Arado were not hearsay. Malayo testified to an admission of guilt made by Bansilan in his presence, and SPO1 Arado testified to Maduay's identification of Bansilan in his presence. These witnesses testified to facts derived from their own perception. Furthermore, the Court noted that even if the testimonies were considered hearsay, Bansilan was barred from assailing their admission for failure to object at the time they were offered. The Court reiterated the rule that objections to evidence must be made as soon as the grounds become apparent, otherwise, the objection is waived. On the admissibility of the oral admission: The Court affirmed the admissibility of Bansilan's oral admission to Malayo, citing Section 26 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, which states that the act, declaration, or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him. The Court emphasized that Bansilan's confession was replete with details only the culprit could have supplied. Moreover, the Court clarified that the admission was not given during a custodial investigation and was not elicited through questioning by authorities, thus not covered by Article III, Section 12 (1) and (3) of the Constitution. Such spontaneous statements given in an ordinary manner are admissible. On the modification of penalty: The Court modified the penalty imposed on Bansilan in accordance with Republic Act No. 10951, which adjusts penalties based on the value of property and damages. The Court noted the retroactive application of RA 10951 to those already serving sentence by final judgment. Applying Section 79 of RA 10951 to Article 299 of the Revised Penal Code, the Court determined the proper imposable penalty for unarmed robbery where the value of property does not exceed P50,000.00. The Court reasoned that the minimum term should be taken from the entirety of prision correccional, not just its maximum period, to avoid an absurd situation where the minimum penalty for unarmed robbers is higher than for armed robbers. Considering the recovery of the laptop and the ₱500.00 cash stolen, the Court imposed an indeterminate penalty of three (3) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to six (6) years and ten (10) months of prision mayor in its minimum period, as maximum.
Main Doctrine
A petitioner's letter requesting withdrawal of appeal, filed before the case is submitted for decision, is permissible and signifies acceptance of the appellate court's decision. The Court also modified the penalty based on the retroactive application of RA 10951.