G.R. No. L-49602 & L-49938 May 17, 1980
BERNABE ZAFRA Y CUBILLO, LAURENCIO ZAFRA, TERESO ZAFRA Y TABANAS and CELERINO TABOADA Y DE LA CERNA, petitioners, vs. THE CITY WARDEN, CEBU CITY JAIL, respondents; THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BERNABE ZAFRA Y CUBILLO, LAURENCIO ZAFRA @ “Boy Zafra”, TERESO ZAFRA Y TABANAS and CEFERINO TABOADA Y DE LA CERNA, accused-appellants.

FACTS

Petitioners were charged as accessories after the fact to the crime of Robbery in Band. They pleaded guilty and were convicted by the Circuit Criminal Court of Cebu. The trial court sentenced them to an indeterminate penalty ranging from two years and one day to four years, two months, and one day of prision correccional. They were also ordered to indemnify the offended party jointly and severally in the amount of P201,230.00. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the proper penalty should only be 21 days of arresto menor. This motion was denied. They then perfected their appeal, raising a pure question of law. Their subsequent motion to fix bail for their provisional liberty pending appeal was also denied by the trial court, which claimed it had lost jurisdiction after the perfection of the appeal. This denial prompted the filing of a petition for habeas corpus (G.R. No. L-49602). Their appeal of the criminal case (G.R. No. L-49938) was later consolidated with the habeas corpus petition.

ISSUE

The primary legal issue is whether the trial court correctly imposed the penalty for the crime of accessory after the fact to Robbery in Band. A subsidiary procedural issue is whether the denial of the motion to fix bail pending appeal was proper.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the penalty. The legal logic centered on the proper classification of the crime and the applicable penalty for an accessory. The trial court erred in applying the penalty for Robbery in Band under Article 296 of the Revised Penal Code. The Court clarified that the qualifying circumstance of “band” (involving at least four armed robbers) under Article 296 applies only to principals. For an accessory, the penalty is based on the penalty prescribed for the principal crime, but is reduced by two degrees pursuant to Article 52. The principal crime here was simple robbery under Article 299, punishable by prision correccional to prision mayor. Reducing this by two degrees results in the penalty of destierro. Considering the mitigating circumstance of a plea of guilty, the penalty was fixed at destierro in its maximum period. On the civil liability, the Court affirmed the joint and several indemnity for the full amount, as the liability of an accessory is solidary under Article 110 of the Revised Penal Code. Regarding the habeas corpus aspect, the Court found that since petitioners had already been detained for a period exceeding the maximum of the corrected penalty (destierro), their immediate release was warranted. The judgment was modified to impose the penalty of destierro in its maximum period and petitioners were ordered discharged.