People vs Estoista [G.R. No. L-5793. August 27, 1953.]

 

Prosecuted in the Court of First Instance of Lanao for homicide through reckless imprudence and illegal possession of firearm under one information, the appellant was acquitted of the first offense and found guilty of the second, for which he was sentenced to one year imprisonment. This appeal is from that sentence raising factual, legal and constitutional questions. The constitutional question, set up after the submission of the briefs, has to do with the objection that the penalty — from 5 to 10 years of imprisonment and fines — provided by Republic Act No. 4 is cruel and unusual.

Without deciding whether the prohibition of the Constitution against infliction of cruel and unusual punishment applies both to the form of the penalty and the duration of imprisonment, it is our opinion that confinement from 6 to 10 years for possessing or carrying firearm is not cruel or unusual, having due regard to the prevalent conditions which the law proposes to suppress or curb. The rampant lawlessness against property, person, and even the very security of the Government, directly traceable in large measure to promiscuous carrying and use of powerful weapons, justify imprisonment which in normal circumstances might appear excessive. If imprisonment from 5 to 10 years is out of proportion to the present case in view of certain circumstances, the law is not to be declared unconstitutional for this reason. The constitutionality of an act of the legislature is not to be judged in the light of exceptional cases. Small transgressors for which the heavy net was not spread are, like small fishes, bound to be caught, and it is to meet such a situation as this that courts are advised to make a recommendation to the Chief Executive for clemency or reduction of the penalty. (Art. 5, Revised Penal Code; People v. De la Cruz, 92 Phil. 906.)

The sentence imposed by the lower court is much below the penalty authorized by Republic Act No. 4. The judgment is therefore modified so as to sentence the accused to imprisonment for five years. However, considering the degree of malice of the defendant, application of the law to its full extent would be too harsh and, accordingly, it is ordered that copy of this decision be furnished to the President, thru the Secretary of Justice, with the recommendation that the imprisonment herein imposed be reduced to six months. The appellant will pay the costs of both instances.

Paras, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo, Bautista Angelo and Labrador, JJ., concur.