People v Estoista; G.R. No. L-5793; 27 Aug 1953; 93 Phil 647

in Legal Chyme by

Appellant was prosecuted for homicide through reckless imprudence and illegal possession of firearm. He was acquitted of the first offense and found guilty of the second for which he was sentenced to one year imprisonment.

Whether or not the form of the penalty and the duration of the imprisonment imposed on the appellant infringe the constitutional provision against cruel and harsh punishment.

NO. 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.

Judgment is MODIFIED, sentencing the appellant to imprisonment for five years.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.