People vs.

Mercado (notes) under Dean Roys Syllabus in Introduction to law Ratio Decidendi Marvin Mercado, for petitioner People of the Philippines, for respondent I. What Happened? a. MARVIN MERCADO, together with Rommel Flores, Michael Cummins, Mark Vasques and Enrile Bertumen, was charged with and convicted of violation of R.A. 6538 or The Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972, as amended, for which he and his co-accused were sentenced to a prison term of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal as maximum.1[1] b. Marvin Mercado where he assails his conviction, and arguing that the Court of Appeals having increased the penalty imposed by the court a quo to a prison term of seventeen (17) years and four (4) months to thirty (30) years, should have certified the case to this Court as the penalty of thirty (30) years was already reclusion perpetua, pursuant to the last paragraph of Sec. 13, Rule 124,2[2] of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure. c. What is the Court trying to resolve? a. What are the Issues? Should the Court of Appeals have brought the case to the Supreme Court since it is classified as Reclusion Perpetua as allegated by the petitioner? b. What is the Court trying to resolve? What are the Evidences? a.

II.

III.

Decision penned by Judge Sixto Marella, Jr., RTC-Br. 138, Makati City; Original Records, pp. 160-172; CA Rollo, pp. 32-45.
1[1]

Sec. 13. Quorum of the court; certification of appeal of cases to Supreme Court. -x x x Whenever the Court of Appeals finds that the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment should be imposed in a case, the court, after discussion of the evidence and the law involved, shall render judgment imposing the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment as the circumstances warrant. However, it shall refrain from entering the judgment and forthwith certify the case and elevate the entire record thereof to the Supreme Court for review.
2[2]