PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. LOPE VIENTE y MAPILI.
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 103299
- Promulgated: 1993-08-17
- Ponente: Davide, Jr., J.
Doctrine
An uncounselled written statement not squarely challenged need not be relied upon where there is independent evidence; independent evidence apart from an uncounselled confession may sustain conviction.
When a special law prescribes a penalty, the Indeterminate Sentence Law requires sentencing by indeterminate terms: maximum not exceeding the special law's maximum, and minimum not less than the prescribed minimum.
Imposition of a straight fixed penalty where the Indeterminate Sentence Law applies is erroneous; the Court will modify the sentence to conform with the ISL.
Facts
Appellant was convicted of carnapping under R.A. No. 6539 and sentenced to thirty (30) years imprisonment, with costs (trial court judgment).
Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal which the trial court approved; the Supreme Court accepted the appeal on 19 February 1992.
On 7 May 1992, appellant wrote this Court claiming his counsel failed to file a formal offer of evidence and later abandoned him, requesting court‑appointed counsel.
The primary contested factual issue became whether the appellant's alibi should be believed after attempts to discredit the prosecution witness Narciso Cabatas failed.
Although appellant's uncounselled written statements exist, the Court found independent evidence sufficient to sustain conviction despite admissibility issues not being squarely raised.
Issues
Whether the appellant's defense of alibi should be favorably considered to negate criminal liability.
Whether the trial court erred in imposing a straight fixed penalty instead of an indeterminate sentence under the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
Ruling
The Court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of carnapping under R.A. No. 6539 and affirmed the conviction.
The Court modified the sentence: the fixed thirty‑year term was set as the maximum and the indeterminate minimum was fixed at seventeen years and four months under the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
Costs were imposed against the appellant; the appealed judgment was affirmed in all other respects.
Keywords
G.R. No. 103299, Republic Act No. 6539, Anti-Carnapping Act, carnapping, conspiring and confederating, intent of gain, force, violence and intimidation, unlawfully and feloniously, damage and prejudice, guilty beyond reasonable doubt, imprisonment of thirty (30) years, subsidiary imprisonment, counsel de oficio, demurrer to evidence, alibi, Sinumpaang Salaysay, handwritten statement, voluntarily executed and understood his affidavit, without the assistance of counsel, appellant