GR L 70230; (June, 1985) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-70230 June 24, 1985
TEODORICO CASTILLO, petitioner, vs. JUDGE PROCORO J. DONATO, Branch 24, Regional Trial Court of Isabela and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
On January 25, 1978, Teodorico Castillo, while recklessly driving a Philippine National Railways bus, bumped a jeepney on a highway in Cordon, Isabela. This single negligent act resulted in the deaths of the jeepney driver and a passenger, and the total wreckage of the jeepney. Consequently, he was charged with and convicted of double homicide and damage to property through reckless imprudence.
The trial court sentenced Castillo to two indeterminate penalties of imprisonment and a fine of P25,000 for the damaged jeepney. This judgment was affirmed by the Appellate Court. Castillo’s subsequent application for probation was denied because the total imprisonment penalty imposed exceeded six years. He then filed the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition, challenging the penalty imposed.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in imposing two separate penalties for the offenses resulting from a single act of reckless imprudence.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition but clarified the correct penalty. The Court held that Castillo committed a complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. His single act of bumping the jeepney produced two homicides and damage to property through reckless imprudence. For such a complex crime, only one penalty for the most serious offense should be imposed, albeit in its maximum period. Therefore, the trial court erred in meting out two distinct indeterminate prison sentences.
However, the Court emphasized that the conviction had already become final and executory. As a rule, a final judgment can no longer be altered by the judiciary, even if the penalty is erroneous or excessive. The proper remedy for the correction of an excessive penalty in a final judgment lies with the Executive Department through the prerogative of clemency. Consequently, while the Court could not modify the penalty, it invoked Article 5 of the Revised Penal Code to refer the matter to the Chief Executive, through the Minister of Justice, for possible executive clemency, noting that only one indeterminate penalty should have been imposed.