Rosal Hubilla y Carillo vs.

People
G.R. No. 176102. November 26, 2014
Note: The focus of the case is on the penalty
imposed to the accused
FACTS:
Rosal Hubille was only 17 year, 4 months and 2
days old when he killed Jayson Espinola with a
knife. He was charged with Homicide.
RTC - convicted him of homicide and imposed
the penalty of indeterminate sentence of
imprisonment of four years and one day of
prision correcional as minimum, to eight years
and one day of prision mayor, as maximum.
CA – Rosal’s sentence was modified in that he
was sentenced to six months and one day of
prision correctional as minimum, to six years
and one day of prision mayor, as maximum. The
civil aspect was also modified
On motion for reconsideration, the CA partially
granted the appeal and imposed on him the
penalty of six months and one day of prision
correccional, as minimum, to eight years and
one day of prision mayor, as maximum.
Issue:
WON the CA should have suspended Rosal’s
sentence in accordance with RA 9344; that he is
entitled to probation or suspension of sentence
Held:
Article 249 of the RPC prescribes the penalty of
reclusion temporal for homicide. His minority
was a privileged mitigating circumstance that
lowered the penalty to prision mayor.
In Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum of
the indeterminate sentence should be within the
penalty next lower than the imposable penalty,
which, herein, was prision correccional. So the
CA imposed the indeterminate penalty of
imprisonment of six months and one day of
prision correccional, as minimum, to eight years
and one day of prision mayor, as maximum.
Petitioner insists that the maximum of his
indeterminate sentence should be reduced to
only six years of prision correccional to enable
him to apply for probation under PD 968.
A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC - the restrictions on the
personal liberty of the child shall be limited to
the minimum
Sec. 38 of RA 9344 which allows the suspension
of the sentence is available only until the child
offender turns 21 years of age.
Since he is over 23 years of age at the time of
his conviction in the RTC, suspension was no
longer feasible.
RA 9344 reveals that imprisonment of children
in conflict with the law is by no means
prohibited. Restrictions on the imposition of
imprisonment:
(a) the detention or imprisonment is a
disposition of last resort, and
(b) the detention or imprisonment shall be for
the shortest appropriate period of time
Imprisonment was imposed on the petitioner as
a last recourse after holding him to be
disqualified from probation and from the
suspension of his sentence, and the term of his
imprisonment was for the shortest duration
permitted by the law