GR L 48065; (March, 1979) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-48065. March 30, 1979.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LEOPOLDO TRAYA alias ‘Daddy’, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Leopoldo Traya, along with others, was charged with murder for the fatal shooting of Dr. Pedro Alvero, Vice-Mayor of Abuyog, Leyte. The information alleged treachery, evident premeditation, and aggravating circumstances. The trial court, however, found the evidence insufficient to prove the qualifying circumstances and thus convicted Traya only of the lesser offense of homicide, sentencing him within the range of prision mayor to reclusion temporal.
Leopoldo Traya appealed to the Court of Appeals. After evaluating the evidence, particularly eyewitness testimonies, the appellate court formed an opinion contrary to the trial court. It found that the killing was indeed attended by treachery, thereby qualifying the crime as murder. Consequently, the Court of Appeals believed the proper penalty should be reclusion perpetua.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly followed the procedural rule in certifying the case to the Supreme Court upon its opinion that the penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed.
RULING
The Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for the rendition of a proper judgment, in accordance with a new procedural directive. The legal logic centers on the interpretation of Section 12, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court. The traditional procedure, as noted in the Separate Opinion, required the Court of Appeals to simply certify the case to the Supreme Court without rendering judgment when it believed a penalty of death or reclusion perpetua was warranted.
However, in People vs. Daniel (L-40330, November 20, 1978), the Supreme Court overruled this long-standing doctrine. The new directive mandates that when the Court of Appeals, in an appealed case where the trial court imposed a penalty lower than reclusion perpetua, concludes that death or reclusion perpetua should be imposed, it must first render a comprehensive judgment expressly imposing that penalty. Only after rendering such a judgment does it refrain from entering it and then certify the entire record to the Supreme Court for final review. This ensures the Supreme Court reviews a complete appellate decision. Since the Court of Appeals in this case merely certified its opinion without first rendering the required judgment, the Supreme Court ordered remand for compliance with the new rule established in Daniel.