SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 149375. November 26, 2002.]

MARVIN MERCADO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS:

Marvin Mercado, Rommel Flores, Michael Cummins, Mark Vasques and Enrile Bertumen were charged
and convicted of violation of RA 6538 or the Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972, Sentenced to12 years to 17
years of Reclusion Temporal.

Marvin Mercado assails and argues that the court of appeals having increased the penalty imposed by
the court a quo to a prison term of 17 years and 4 months to 30 years, should have certified the case to
the Supreme Court as the penalty of 30 years is already reclusion perpetua, pursuant to the last
paragraph of Sec. 13, Rule 124 of the 2000 rules of criminal procedure.

The Court of Appeals denied the prayer of the petitioner for the reason that the provision of Sec. 13,
Rule 124, relied on by the petitioner, is only applicable when the penalty imposed was reclusion
perpetua or higher as a single indivisible penalty. Hence, the penalty imposed by the appellate court on
the accused was clearly in accordance with Sec. 14 of RA 6538, which is not considered reclusion
perpetua for the purposes of Sec 13, Rule 124.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the court of appeals was correct in ruling for the conviction of the accused

Whether or not the court of appeals, having increased the penalty imposed by the court a quo to a
prison term of 17 years and 4 months to 30 years, should have certified the case to the Supreme Court
as the penalty of 30 years is already reclusion perpetua pursuant to the last paragraph of Sec. 13, rule
124

RULING:

As to the first issue, the CA is correct in ruling for the convction of the accused because the petitioner
raised questions of facts which is not proper when the case is already elevated to the Supreme Court.
Findings of the fact of the trial court, when affirmed by the court of appeals, are binding upon the
Supreme Court.

As to the second issue, Art. 27 of the revised penal code states that the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua
shall be from 20 years and 1 day to 40 years. Even though 30 years falls within that range, reclusion
perpetua nevertheless is a single indivisible penalty which cannot be divided into different periods. The
30 year period for Reclusion Perpetua is only for purposes of successive service of sentence under Art.
70 of the Revised Penal Code.

The crime commited by the Petitioner is penalized under RA 6538 or the Anti Carnapping Act of 1972
which is a special law and not under the Revised Penal code. Special laws have their own penalties for
the offenses they punish, which penalties are not taken from nor refer to those in the Revised Penal
Code.