Scribd
Upload
44 views3 pages

Crimpro - 2 - 90625 - People vs. Dapitan

(1) Benedicto Dapitan was convicted of robbery with homicide for the death of Rolando Amil and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. He argued on appeal that his sentence deprived him of due process and was cruel. (2) The court found that all the requirements for due process were satisfied as Dapitan was given a fair trial and opportunity to present his case. (3) The court also found that reclusion perpetua was not a cruel or inhuman punishment as it is recognized in the Philippine Constitution and penal code as a valid punishment. Therefore, Dapitan's arguments lacked merit.

Uploaded by

Amiel Gian Mario Zapanta
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
44 views3 pages

Crimpro - 2 - 90625 - People vs. Dapitan

(1) Benedicto Dapitan was convicted of robbery with homicide for the death of Rolando Amil and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. He argued on appeal that his sentence deprived him of due process and was cruel. (2) The court found that all the requirements for due process were satisfied as Dapitan was given a fair trial and opportunity to present his case. (3) The court also found that reclusion perpetua was not a cruel or inhuman punishment as it is recognized in the Philippine Constitution and penal code as a valid punishment. Therefore, Dapitan's arguments lacked merit.

Uploaded by

Amiel Gian Mario Zapanta
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/ 3

(2) PEOPLE VS.

DAPITAN 
 
NATURE OF THE CASE
Ordinary Appeal of a Criminal Case 

FACTS

Orencia Amil, principal witness for the prosecution testified that at around 8:30 in the
morning of May 16,1986, she left for her farm which was about 50 meters away, leaving
behind in her house his adopted son Rolando (the victim) very much alive. Rolando
refused to go with her because he chose to play in the house instead; and that because she
heard the barking of her dog which aroused her suspicion, she immediately returned and
saw the accused Benedicto Dapitan and his co-accused Fred de Guzman passing through
her fence; and that when she entered her house calling her child's name, and seeing the
backdoor open, she entered and saw Rolando's body sprawled on the floor and his brain
"scattered". Near his body was a piece of wood, also bloodied. Thinking her son to be
still alive she took her in her arms, placed him on the table and that was the time she
realized he was dead.

She likewise testified that she lost two watches worth P1,180; pants at P250.00 and cash
amounting to P75.00; and after her son's burial she further found that her child's toy
worth P500.00, a flashlight and a bolo worth P45.00 and P120.00, respectively, were
missing. Orencia Amil's testimony is likewise corroborated on its material points by the
testimony of Celo Nilo, another prosecution witness. He testified that between the hours
of 8:00 to 9:00 in the morning of May 16, 1986, he saw two persons entering the house of
Mrs. Orencia Amil, one of whom he identified as Benedicto Dapitan. He positively
identified Benedicto Dapitan who was in Court. He likewise testified that when the two
suspects entered the house of Mrs. Amil, he heard the voice of a child. 

Benedicto Dapitan was convicted of Robbery with Homicide with a penalty of Reclusion
Perpetua for the death of Rolando Amil. His co-accused Fred de Guzman, remained at
large. On 11 May 1989, accused-appellant filed his Notice of Appeal, manifesting therein
that he was appealing the decision to this Court. 10 However, in the Order of 11 May
1989, Judge Cipriano de Roma erroneously directed the transmittal of the records of the
case to the Court of Appeals. 11 The Court of Appeals transmitted to this Court on 4
March 1989 the records which were erroneously transmitted to it. Dapitan argued, that in
support of the assigned error the imposition over him of the penalty of reclusion temporal
by the trial court is "tantamount to deprivation of life or liberty without due process of
law or is tantamount to a cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment prohibited by the
Constitution" and he submits that "the righteous and humane punishment that should
have been meted out should be indeterminate sentence" with "all mitigating
circumstances as well as the legal provisions favorable to the accused- appellant . 
ISSUE
Whether Dapitan’s argument of being deprive of due process of law is with merit? (NO)

RULING

Due process is satisfied if the following conditions are present: (1) there must be a court
or tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear and determine the matter before it; (2)
jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired by it over the person of the defendant or over the
property which is the subject of the proceeding; (3) the defendant must be given an
opportunity to be heard; and (4) judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing. 

In People vs. Castillo, et al., We ruled that if an accused has been heard in a court of
competent jurisdiction, and proceeded against under the orderly processes of law, and
only punished after inquiry and investigation, upon notice to him, with opportunity to be
heard, and a judgment awarded within the authority of the constitutional law, then he has
had due process. 

We reiterated the above doctrine in People vs. Muit. 


All the requisites or conditions of due process are present in this case. The records further
disclose that accused-appellant was given the fullest and unhampered opportunity not
only to reflect dispassionately on his expressed desire to plead guilty to a lesser offense
which prompted the court to cancel the hearing of 10 February 1987, but also to confront
the witnesses presented against him and to present his own evidence.

If indeed accused-appellant had been deprived of due process, he would have faulted the
trial court not just for failure to apply the Indeterminate Sentence Law, but definitely for
more. Yet, he found it futile to go any farther.

Neither is the penalty of reclusion perpetua cruel, degrading, and inhuman. To make that
claim is to assail the constitutionality of Article 294, par. 1 of the Revised Penal Code, or
of any other provisions therein and of special laws imposing the said penalty for specific
crimes or offenses. The proposition cannot find any support. Article 294, par. 1 of the
Revised Penal Code has survived four Constitutions of the Philippines, namely: the 1935
Constitution, the 1973 Constitution, the Freedom Constitution of 1986 and the 1987
Constitution. All of these documents mention life imprisonment or reclusion perpetua as
a penalty which may be imposed in appropriate cases.  As a matter of fact, the same
paragraph of the section of Article III (Bill of Rights) of the 1987 Constitution which
prohibits the imposition of cruel, degrading and inhuman punishment expressly
recognizes reclusion perpetua. Thus:
"Section 19(1). Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman
punishment inflicted. Neither shall the death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling
reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides it. Any death penalty
already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
As to the appreciation of mitigating circumstances, We also agree with the Solicitor
General that since robbery with homicide under paragraph 1 of Article 294 of the Revised
Penal Code is now punishable by the single and indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua
in view of the abolition of the death penalty, it follows that the rule prescribed in the first
paragraph of Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code shall apply. Consequently, reclusion
perpetua must be imposed in this case regardless of the presence of mitigating or
aggravating circumstances.

You might also like