Monday, September 13, 2021

[CASE DIGEST] People v. Estoista (G.R. No. L-5793)

August 27, 1953

FACTS:

Alberto Estoista and his father, Bruno Estoista, lived in the same house. A little distance from their house was a 27-hectare property belonging to their family. The property was partly covered with cogon grass, tall weeds, and second growth trees.

From a spot in the plantation 100 to 120 meters from the house, Alberto took a shot at a wild rooster and hit Diragon Dima, a laborer of the family who was setting a trap for wild chicken and whose presence was allegedly not known by Alberto.

There was a disparity in how the incident came about. According to Alberto, he was told by his father Bruno to shoot a wild rooster crowing near their house. But according to Bruno, he gave his gun to his sharp-shooting son Alberto upon the latter's request in order to shoot the wild chickens on the plantation.

In any event, the trial court acquitted Alberto for homicide through reckless imprudence but held him guilty for illegal possession of firearm. The trial court ruled that Alberto be imprisoned from 5 to 10 years and to pay fines.

Alberto filed the instant petition to challenge the constitutionality of the sentence meted out to him, arguing that the imprisonment of 5 to 10 years is cruel and unusual.

ISSUE:

Is imprisonment from 5 to 10 years for possessing or carrying firearm cruel or unusual? -- NO.

HELD:

  1. Imprisonment from 5 to 10 years for possessing of 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.

  2. 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.

  3. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court erred when it imposed a penalty below than that provided under the law.

  4. However, considering the degree of malice of Alberto, application of the law to its full extent would be too harsh and, accordingly, it is ordered that the imprisonment imposed be reduced to six months.