Scribd
Upload
238 views2 pages

Case Digest - PPL V Robios

- MELECIO ROBIOS killed his pregnant wife by stabbing her 41 times, resulting in her death and the death of the unborn baby. He claimed insanity but there was no evidence he was insane at the time of the crime. - The RTC rejected his insanity defense but erroneously imposed the death penalty without considering aggravating or mitigating circumstances. - The Supreme Court ruled the penalty should be for the graver offense of parricide, which is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. But in the absence of aggravating circumstances, the lower penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed.

Uploaded by

Chek Ibabao
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
238 views2 pages

Case Digest - PPL V Robios

- MELECIO ROBIOS killed his pregnant wife by stabbing her 41 times, resulting in her death and the death of the unborn baby. He claimed insanity but there was no evidence he was insane at the time of the crime. - The RTC rejected his insanity defense but erroneously imposed the death penalty without considering aggravating or mitigating circumstances. - The Supreme Court ruled the penalty should be for the graver offense of parricide, which is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. But in the absence of aggravating circumstances, the lower penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed.

Uploaded by

Chek Ibabao
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Complex Crime

G.R. No. 138453

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. MELECIO ROBIOS y DOMINGO, Appellant.

Facts

- MELECIO ROBIOS killed his pregnant wife by stabbing her 41 times which resulted to death both
of his wife and the unborn baby.

- MELECIO ROBIOS does not refute the factual allegations of the prosecution that he indeed killed
his wife but seeks exoneration from criminal liability by interposing the defense of insanity
because, he was clearly acting insane in prison after committing the crime. However, there was
no clear evidence that he was insane during the commission of the crime. When insanity is
alleged as a ground for exemption from criminal responsibility, the evidence must refer to the
time preceding the act under prosecution or to the very moment of its execution. If the
evidence points to insanity subsequent to the commission of the crime, the accused cannot be
acquitted.

- RTC's decision: Rejected the defense of insanity, and imposed death penalty

Issue
Whether or not, death penalty should be the penalty imposed on this case, wherein MELECIO ROBIOS was charged
for the crime of parricide with unintentional abortion.

Decision

Although the RTC correctly rejected the defense of insanity, it nonetheless erred in imposing the death
penalty on appellant. It imposed the maximum penalty without considering the presence or the absence
of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The imposition of the capital penalty was not only baseless,
but contrary to the rules on the application of penalties as provided in the Revised Penal Code. Even the
Office of the Solicitor General concedes this error in the imposition of the death penalty.

Since appellant was convicted of the complex crime of parricide with unintentional abortion, the penalty
to be imposed on him should be that for the graver offense which is parricide. This is in accordance with
the mandate of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, which states: When a single act constitutes two or
more grave or less grave felonies, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed.

The law on parricide, as amended by RA 7659, is punishable with reclusion perpetua to death. In all
cases in which the law prescribes a penalty consisting of two indivisible penalties, the court is mandated
to impose one or the other, depending on the presence or the absence of mitigating and aggravating
circumstances. The rules with respect to the application of a penalty consisting of two indivisible
penalties are prescribed by Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, the pertinent portion of which is
quoted as follows:

In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the following
rules shall be observed in the application thereof:

2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the deed,
the lesser penalty shall be applied. (Italics supplied)

Hence, when the penalty provided by law is either of two indivisible penalties and there are neither
mitigating nor aggravating circumstances, the lower penalty shall be imposed. Considering that neither
aggravating nor mitigating circumstances were established in this case, the imposable penalty should
only be reclusion perpetua.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy