Digest.ph

This case involves the appeal of Pedro Ladines, who was convicted of homicide by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and had his conviction affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). Ladines appealed the decision, arguing that there was reasonable doubt in his guilt due to the admission of his co-accused, Herman Licup, that he had stabbed the victim. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, stating that the appeal raised factual questions that were improper for consideration in an appeal by petition for review on certiorari. The Court also ruled that Licup's res gestae statement did not constitute newly-discovered evidence that created a reasonable doubt as to Ladines' guilt. Additionally, the Court found that the lower courts erred in imposing the maximum penalty without specifying the justification for doing so. The Court modified the sentence to an indeterminate penalty of 10 years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to 14 years, eight months, and one day of the medium period of reclusion temporal as maximum. The Court also increased the civil liability to include civil indemnity, moral damages, and temperate damages, with all items of civil liability earning interest of 6% per annum.

To impose the highest penalty within a period of the imposable penalty without specifying the justification for doing so is an error that should be corrected on appeal. In the absence of such justification, the penalty to be imposed is the lowest of the period.