AT DENIECE CORNEJO?
By Atty. Florante A. Zagada.
According to the records of the RTC Taguig, Cedric Lee and Deniece Cornejo, were all convicted of the crime of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention for Ransom and the penalty imposed by the trial court for the said crime is Reclusion Perpetua, a single indivisible penalty, with a range of 20 years and 1 day to 40 years.
This penalty is not covered by indeterminate sentence law where the convicts can apply for a PAROLE in order apply for an early release after serving the Minimum penalty or Term of the Indeterminate sentence which is usually one degree lower if the penalty is divisible and the accused is not disqualified.
But why should they be released this early although they have just served about four years in prison? Are they not supposed to be in jail up to the maximum penalty of 40 years unless pardoned by the President?
The reason for their early release is because they appealed the decision of conviction of the RTC Taguig to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court in its decision revised or amended the findings of RTC Taguig from Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention to GRAVE COERCION under Art. 286 of the Revised Penal Code.
What is a GRAVE COERCION punished under Art 286 of the RPC? the said crime punishes the following:
1. By preventing another, by means of violence, threats or intimidation, from doing something not prohibited by law;
2. By compelling another, by means of violence, threats or intimidation, to do something against his will, whether it be right or wrong.
MODES OF COMMISSION OF THE CRIME:
1. By preventing another, by means of violence, threats or intimidation, from doing something not prohibited by law;
EXAMPLES:
Pedro threatened to kill Maria if she would watch the concert of Taylor Swift in Singapore. He prevented Maria to watch the concert by means of threat. Peter prevented Maria by means of intimidation from doing something not contrary to law.
2. By compelling another, by means of violence, threats or intimidation, to do something against his will, whether it be right or wrong.
Pedro compels Maria to dance by threatening or intimidating to slap her. Pedro is liable for Grave Coercion because he compels Maria to do something against her will by means of threat or intimidation.
EXAMPLE 2: Mario warns Berto with injury if would attend bible study in the church. Here Mario prevents Pedro to do an act by means of threat.
Example 3: Mario said to Maria “pag hindi mo binalik ang inutang mo, kukunin ko ang cellphone mo?” “Pag hindi mo ko pinakasalan, ibubunyag ko mga sekreto mo sa social media”, “Pag hindi mo ko pinahiram ng pera, isusumbong kita sa asawa mo sa pambabae mo”, they are coercions because you compel another to do an act against his will by means of threats or intimidation, whether it be right or wrong.
How about if someone would tell you “pag hindi mo ko pinautang, hindi na rin kita pauutangin or e unfriend na kita sa FB? That is not grave coercion. There is no threat or intimidation or it is not sufficient or enough to create fear upon the person. But if the someone tells you, “pag hindi mo ko pinautang, may masamang magyayari saiyo.” That is already GRAVE COERCION. You are compelled by that person to lend him money by means of intimidation.
AMENDMENT OF DECISION FROM KIDNAPPING AND SERIOUS ILLEGAL DETENTION FOR RANSOM to GRAVE COERCION.
I cannot comment why Court of Appeals downgraded or modified the crime to Grave Coercion because the decision of the Court of Appeals is not yet published. It is not available in the internet and we cannot speculate. But the Court of Appeals where there three justices in every division deemed it proper to modify the findings of the trial judge which decided alone the case based on the evidence presented by both parties.
They have different opinions about the case as we have different opinions about the threshold votes required to remove VP. Sara. We have to respect that decision because we are not familiar with the facts and evidence of the case. Let us not attribute corruption, bribery, or bias. I believe of the integrity and competence of our courts.
BUT WHY ARE LEE AND CORNEJO SCHEDULED TO BE RELEASED AT ANYTIME NOW?
The reason is this. Penalty for the crime of GRAVE COERCION is much lower that penalty of KIDNAPPING AND SERIOUS ILLEGAL DETENTION. The former is Reclusion Perpetua and the latter is merely PRISION CORRECTIONAL AND A FINE OF NOT EXCEEDING P100,000.00.
The range of penalty for PRISION CORRECTIONAL is 6 MONTHS AND ONE (1) DAY TO 6 YEARS ONLY.
APPLY THE INDERTERMINATE SENTENCE LAW,
WHERE TO FIX THE PENALTY IN THAT DURATION OF PRISION CORRECTIONAL? In that case, both Lee and Cornejo are now entitled to INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW. In applying the INTERTERMINATE SENTENCE, the judge fixes the MAXIMUM TERM and the MINIMUM TERM.
To determinate MAXIMUM TERM, consider the penalty imposable by law. In that penalty prescribed by law, look for Privileged Mitigating Circumstances under Art. 64., par. 5 for divisible penalty, Art 68, par. 2 for minority and Art. 69 for Incompelete Justifying and Exempting Circumstances.
Also consider the stages of execution and the persons criminally liable in accordance with Arts. 50-57, to lower the penalty by a DEGREE.
If there is no privileged mitigating, look for the available ordinary mitigating and generic aggravating by applying Art. 64 for divisible penalty and Art. 63 for Indivisible Penalties.
If there is no presence of ordinary mitigating circumstance and generic aggravating, fix the proper period to the MEDIUM PERIOD OF PRISION CORRECTIONAL. (Observe the Rule under Art. 64, RPC for Divisible Penalty)
And then, FIX THE MINIMUM TERM, which according to the Indeterminate Sentence Law is ONE DEGREE LOWER of the MAXIMUM TERM - which is this case is ARRESTO MAYOR with a duration of penalty from 1 Month and 1 day to 6 MONTHS imprisonment.
SUMMARY:
MAXIMUM TERM: PRISION CORRECTIONAL MEDIUM PERIOD: (2 years and 4 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months.)
MINIMUM TERM - ARRESTO MAYOR in any of its period subject to the discretion of the court. here the judge may fix the penalty from 1 months and 1 day to 6 months.(Bahala na si Judge)
Note: Once the convict has served the MINIMUM TERM, he/she may not apply for a PAROLE so that he/she can be released without serving the maximum term of the penalty.
APPLY GOOD CONDUCT TIME ALLOWANCE LAW. (GCTA)
With the aforesaid penalties, can LEE AND CORNEJO avail of GCTA? Yes, they are qualified and entitled.
ALLOWABLE DEDUCTIONS UNDER THE GCTA LAW:
Under Section 3 of GCTA LAW, the good conduct of any offender qualified for credit for PREVENTIVE IMPRISONMENT pursuant to Article 29 of this Code, or of any CONVICTED PRISONER in any penal institution, rehabilitation or detention center or any other local jail shall entitle him to the following deductions from the period of his sentence:
1. During the first two years of imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of twenty (20 DAYS) days for each month of good behavior during detention;
2. During the third to the fifth year, inclusive, of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a reduction of twenty-three days for each month of good behavior during detention;
3. During the following years until the tenth year, inclusive, of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of twenty-five days for each month of good behavior during detention;
4. During the eleventh and successive years of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of thirty days for each month of good behavior during detention; and
5. At any time during the period of imprisonment, he shall be allowed another deduction of fifteen days, in addition to numbers one to four hereof, for each month of study, teaching or mentoring service time rendered.
An appeal by the accused shall not deprive him of entitlement to the above allowances for good conduct."
WHO MAY GRANT THE TIME ALLOWANCES:
Under Sec. 5 of the GCTA law, whenever lawfully justified, the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, the Chief of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology and/or the Warden of a provincial, district, municipal or city jail shall grant allowances for good conduct. Such allowances once granted shall not be revoked.
Therefore, the law allows the DEDUCTION from their prison terms the TIME SPENT AT THE BJMP during their preventive imprisonment and the TIME SPENT at the national penitentiary as CONVICTED CRIMINALS while serving their sentences.
CONCLUSION:
If you will consider the length of time they have been in jail since they were arrested and incarcerated and add the period of their preventive imprisonment at BJMP and the GOOD CONDUCT TIME ALLOWANCE of additional 20 days per month in their service of sentence, perhaps they have already served more than 4 YEARS in jail.
Since the maximum penalty for GRAVE COERCION is only 4 YEARS AND 2 MONTHS, both CEDRIC LEE AND DENIECE CORNEJO are now deemed to have served their maximum term in prison sentence. Hence, they are not eligible to be release at anytime under the INDETERMINATE SENTENCE for completed service of sentence. No need to apply for parole if the maximum term is already served.
PURPOSE OF THE LAW TO CONVICTED CRIMINALS IS NOT ONLY PUNISHMENT BUT REFORMATION.
The purpose of the law is not only punishment under the classical theory but REFORMATION under the Positivist theory. There is a mandatory application for qualified convicted criminals under Indeterminate Sentence Law in order to avoid prolonged imprisonment because it is proven to be more destructive than constructive to the offender, to shorten possible detention of the convict in jail is to save valuable human resources, to preserve economic usefulness for these people for having committed a crime, to reform them rather than to deteriorate them, and, at the same time, to save the government expenses of maintaining the convicts on a prolonged confinement in jail.
End-
No comments:
Post a Comment