This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2016-01-13 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Nevertheless, "[k]eeping in mind the basic purpose of the Indeterminate Sentence Law 'to uplift and redeem valuable human material, and prevent unnecessary and excessive deprivation of personal liberty and economic usefulness[,]'"[68] we lower the minimum of the indeterminate penalty to six (6) months and one (1) day of prision correccional. Petitioner is, thus, sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six (6) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum. | |||||
|
2015-04-20 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Section 1. Hereafter, in imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by the Revised Penal Code, or its amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the said Code, and the minimum which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense; and if the offense is punished by any other law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same. (As amended by Act No. 4225) The CA justifiably deemed it necessary to correct the indeterminate sentence. Under Section 1, supra, the minimum of the indeterminate sentence is a penalty "within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the [Revised Penal] Code for the offense," and the maximum is "that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the said Code." Considering that the clear objective of the Indeterminate Sentence Law is to have the convict serve the minimum penalty before becoming eligible for release on parole pursuant to the Indeterminate Sentence Law,[16] both the minimum and the maximum penalties must be definite, not ranging. This objective cannot be achieved otherwise, for determining when the convict would be eligible for release on parole would be nearly impossible if the minimum and the maximum were as indefinite as the RTC fixed the indeterminate sentence. Indeed, that the sentence is an indeterminate one relates only to the fact that such imposition would leave the period between the minimum and the maximum penalties indeterminate "in the sense that he may, under the conditions set out in said Act, be released from serving said period in whole or in part."[17] | |||||
|
2009-10-02 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| We first determine the minimum term of the indeterminate sentence to be imposed on accused-appellant. The minimum term is arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its medium period, or four (4) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and two (2) months. Under Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court may impose a minimum term which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower prescribed by the Revised Penal Code. In determining the minimum penalty, the law confers upon the courts in fixing the penalties the widest discretion that the courts have ever had. The determination of the minimum term is left entirely within the discretion of the court to fix it anywhere within the range of the penalty next lower without reference to the periods into which it may be subdivided.[4] In the exercise of Our discretion, and considering the circumstances (i.e., gainfully employed for the past 15 years in a reputable company and involvement in civic activities) that have arisen after the commission of the felony, we lower the minimum of the indeterminate sentence to four (4) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor. | |||||
|
2008-12-17 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In the case at bar, the foregoing elements are present. Appellant, in conspiracy with her co-accused, misrepresented to have the power, influence, authority and business to obtain overseas employment upon payment of a placement fee which was duly collected from complainants Rogelio Legaspi, Dennis Dimaano, Evelyn Estacio, Soledad Atle and Luz Minkay. Further, the certification[8] issued by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) and the testimony of Ann Abastra Abas, a representative of said government agency, established that appellant and her co-accused did not possess any authority or license to recruit workers for overseas employment. And, since there were five (5) victims, the trial court correctly found appellant liable for illegal recruitment in large scale. | |||||
|
2008-07-23 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| The Court's application of the penalty imposed under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to the Indeterminate Sentence Law is in consonance with the legislative intent to favor the defendant in a criminal case with a view to shorten his term of imprisonment. The purpose of the law is "to uplift and redeem valuable human material, and prevent unnecessary and excessive deprivation of personal liberty and economic usefulness."[38] | |||||
|
2003-12-10 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| However, in imposing penalties for crimes, the courts must bear in mind that Philippine penal law is based on the Spanish penal code and has adopted features of the positivist theory of criminal law. The positivist theory states that the basis for criminal liability is the sum total of the social and economic phenomena to which the offense is expressed. The adoption of the aspects of the theory is exemplified by the indeterminate sentence law, Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code (impossible crime), Article 68 and Articles 11 to 14, not to mention Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code (penalties for heinous and quasi-heinous crimes). Philippine penal law looks at the convict as a member of society. Among the important factors to be considered in determining the penalty to be imposed on him are (1) his relationship towards his dependents, family and their relationship with him; and (2) his relationship towards society at large and the State. The State is concerned not only in the imperative necessity of protecting the social organization against the criminal acts of destructive individuals but also in redeeming the individual for economic usefulness and other social ends.[15] The purpose of penalties is to secure justice. The penalties imposed must not only be retributive but must also be reformative, to give the convict an opportunity to live a new life and rejoin society as a productive and civic-spirited member of the community. The court has to consider not only the primary elements of punishment, namely, the moral responsibility of the convict, the relation of the convict to the private complainant, the intention of the convict, the temptation to the act or the excuse for the crime - was it done by a rich man in the insolence of his wealth or by a poor man in the extremity of his need? The court must also take into account the secondary elements of punishment, namely, the reformation of the offender, the prevention of further offenses by the offender, the repression of offenses in others.[16] As Rousseau said, crimes can be thoroughly repressed only by a system of penalties which, from the benignity they breathe, serve rather than to soften than to inflame those on whom they are imposed.[17] There is also merit in the view that punishment inflicted beyond the merit of the offense is so much punishment of innocence.[18] | |||||
|
2000-05-31 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| In the second place, in applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the court shall fix minimum and maximum penalties.[21] If the offense is punished by the Revised Penal Code, as in this case, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate penalty, the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the Revised Penal Code, and the minimum term of which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense.[22] The court shall fix the minimum penalty within the number of months or years covered by the penalty next lower in degree to that prescribed by the Code for the offense without regard to any modifying circumstance attendant to the commission of the crime.[23] The court has the unqualified discretion to fix the term of the minimum penalty.[24] The only limitation is that it must be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense committed, without regard to its three (3) periods[25] or reference to the degrees into which it may be subdivided.[26] Then, the court shall fix the maximum period. In doing so, the court shall now consider the attending circumstances, finding whether any modifying circumstance attended the commission of the crime. In this case, there was no modifying circumstance, hence, the maximum penalty imposable must be within the range of the medium period of the penalty prescribed by the Code for the offense.[27] The penalty prescribed by law for serious slander by deed under Article 359 of the Revised Penal Code is arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional minimum or four (4) months and one (1) day to two (2) years and four (4) months or a fine ranging from P200.00 to P1,000.00. The penalty next lower in degree is arresto mayor minimum and medium periods, or one (1) month and one (1) day to four (4) months. Consequently, the minimum shall be taken from any of its periods, but must be definite, say, one (1) month and one (1) day, as minimum. The maximum shall be taken from the medium period of the prescribed penalty, that is, within the range of one (1) year and one (1) day to one (1) year and eight (8) months of prision correccional but also a specific, definite, fixed period, say, one (1) year and one (1) day, as maximum. Notice that the trial court imposed five months of arresto mayor as minimum, exceeding the range provided by law. However, the minimum fixed by the Court of Appeals was correct, that is, one (1) month and one (1) day of arresto mayor. The maximum fixed by the trial court of two (2) years, eleven (11) months and eleven (11) days was wrong as it exceeded the prescribed range because that period is within the maximum of the penalty prescribed by the Code, which could not be imposed in the absence of any aggravating circumstance. The maximum penalty fixed by the Court of Appeals (two (2) years and four (4) months of prision correccional) was also wrong because it exceeded the range of the medium period of the prescribed penalty. | |||||
|
2000-05-31 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| In the second place, in applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the court shall fix minimum and maximum penalties.[21] If the offense is punished by the Revised Penal Code, as in this case, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate penalty, the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the Revised Penal Code, and the minimum term of which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense.[22] The court shall fix the minimum penalty within the number of months or years covered by the penalty next lower in degree to that prescribed by the Code for the offense without regard to any modifying circumstance attendant to the commission of the crime.[23] The court has the unqualified discretion to fix the term of the minimum penalty.[24] The only limitation is that it must be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense committed, without regard to its three (3) periods[25] or reference to the degrees into which it may be subdivided.[26] Then, the court shall fix the maximum period. In doing so, the court shall now consider the attending circumstances, finding whether any modifying circumstance attended the commission of the crime. In this case, there was no modifying circumstance, hence, the maximum penalty imposable must be within the range of the medium period of the penalty prescribed by the Code for the offense.[27] The penalty prescribed by law for serious slander by deed under Article 359 of the Revised Penal Code is arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional minimum or four (4) months and one (1) day to two (2) years and four (4) months or a fine ranging from P200.00 to P1,000.00. The penalty next lower in degree is arresto mayor minimum and medium periods, or one (1) month and one (1) day to four (4) months. Consequently, the minimum shall be taken from any of its periods, but must be definite, say, one (1) month and one (1) day, as minimum. The maximum shall be taken from the medium period of the prescribed penalty, that is, within the range of one (1) year and one (1) day to one (1) year and eight (8) months of prision correccional but also a specific, definite, fixed period, say, one (1) year and one (1) day, as maximum. Notice that the trial court imposed five months of arresto mayor as minimum, exceeding the range provided by law. However, the minimum fixed by the Court of Appeals was correct, that is, one (1) month and one (1) day of arresto mayor. The maximum fixed by the trial court of two (2) years, eleven (11) months and eleven (11) days was wrong as it exceeded the prescribed range because that period is within the maximum of the penalty prescribed by the Code, which could not be imposed in the absence of any aggravating circumstance. The maximum penalty fixed by the Court of Appeals (two (2) years and four (4) months of prision correccional) was also wrong because it exceeded the range of the medium period of the prescribed penalty. | |||||