8/12/2019 1 People v. Ramirez

1/1

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. PEDRO RAMIREZ

G.R. No. 138261; April 17, 2001

Panganiban, J.

FACTS:

In the evening of May 23, 1993, in Ormoc City, Montano Banez invited the private offended

party, Jonathan Jojo Alkuinoto a drinking session at a nearby sari-sari store. While the two

were in the middle of their drinking spree, the accused/appellant, Pedro Ramirez calmly

approached the two, and suddenly and without any warning, stabbed Alkuino on the right

side of his body just below his ribs.

Alkuino was immediately brought to the hospital but died eventually died the next day due to

massive blood loss. While on the throes of death, Alkuino related to his father the identity ofhis assailant. This, in turn, was presented as testimonial evidence during trial as a dying

declaration of the victim.

The trial court found Pedro Ramirez guilty of Murder and sentencing him to "suffer

imprisonment of forty (40) years reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Trial Court correctly sentenced the accused/appellant to "suffer

imprisonment of forty (40) years reclusion perpetua.

HELD: NO.

RATIONALE::

The Supreme Court has held that the Trial Court erred in sentencing appellant "to suffer

imprisonment of forty (40) years reclusion perpetua", which is an indivisible penalty under

the Revised Penal Code. The Supreme Court has held in People v. Diquit that since

reclusion perpetua is an indivisible penalty, it has no minimum, medium or maximum

periods. It is imposed in its entirety regardless of any mitigating or aggravatingcircumstances that may have attended the commission of the crime as provided under Art.

63, RPC.

Reclusion perpetua is imprisonment for life but the person sentenced to suffer it may be

pardoned after serving thirty (30) years imprisonment, unless by reason of his conduct or

some other serious cause, he shall be considered by the Chief Executive as unworthy of

pardon Art. 27, RPC.

Digested by Benjamin C. Roque