Lawyerly

GR No. 183891

2010-08-03

CARPIO MORALES, J.

Taking into account the misappropriated P421,151.09 and the Court's discourse in People v. Gabres[17] on the proper imposition of the indeterminate penalty in Article 315, the appropriate penalty in this case should range from four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum.

GR No. 171121

2008-08-26

GINA DIAZ Y JAUD v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The penalty prescribed in the afore-quoted provision is composed of two, not three, periods, in which case, Article 65[48] of the same code requires the division of the time included in the penalty into three equal portions of time included in the penalty imposed, forming one period of each of the three portions.[49] Applying the latter provisions, the minimum, medium and maximum periods of the penalty given are: Minimum - 4 years, 2 months, 1 day to 5 years, 5 months, 10 days

GR No. 174405

2008-08-26

FLORA BAUTISTA v. FELICIDAD CASTILLO MERCADO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

1st. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000.00 pesos; and if such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed and for the purpose of the other provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be. The penalty prescribed in the aforementioned provision is composed of two, not three, periods, in which case, Article 65[14] of the same code requires the division of the time included in the penalty into three equal portions of time included in the penalty imposed forming one period of each of the three portions.[15] Applying the latter provision, the minimum, medium and maximum periods of the penalty given are: Minimum - 4 years, 2 months, 1 day to 5 years, 5 months, 10 days

GR No. 159404

2008-06-27

RIZZA LAO v. PEOPLE

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Based on law and jurisprudence, the penalty imposed on petitioner by the trial court should be modified, based on previous rulings of the Court. Under the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for the estafa charged against petitioner is prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum; hence, the penalty next lower would be prision correccional minimum to medium. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law,[88] the minimum term of the indeterminate sentence should be anywhere within six (6) months and one (1) day, to four (4) years and two (2) months; while the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence should at least be six (6) years and one (1) day;[89] and because the amounts involved exceeded P22,000.00, an additional one (1) year imprisonment should be imposed for each additional P10,000.00, but the total should not exceed 20 years.

GR No. 166246

2008-04-30

ANTONIO NEPOMUCENO v. PEOPLE

QUISUMBING, J.

In People v. Gabres, [28] the Court explained the imposition of the minimum penalty, as follows:Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum term of the penalty shall be "that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed" under the Revised Penal Code, and the minimum shall be "within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed" for the offense. The penalty next lower should be based on the penalty prescribed by the Code for the offense, without first considering any modifying circumstance attendant to the commission of the crime. The determination of the minimum penalty is left by law to the sound discretion of the court and it can be anywhere within the range of the penalty next lower without any reference to the periods into which it might be subdivided. The modifying circumstances are considered only in the imposition of the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence.

GR NO. 156248

2007-08-28

MARISSA CENIZA-MANANTAN v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

We now apply the Indeterminate Sentence Law in computing the proper penalty. Since the penalty prescribed by law for the estafa charge against Manantan is prision correcional maximum to prision mayor minimum, the penalty next lower would then be prision correccional in its minimum to medium periods. Thus, the minimum term of the indeterminate sentence should be anywhere from 6 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months, while the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence should be 20 years.[51]

GR NO. 167084

2006-10-31

MONINA PUCAY v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The penalty for estafa with abuse of confidence is provided in paragraph 1, Article 315, Revised Penal Code: 1st. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos, and if such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed and for the purpose of the other provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be. Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law,[23] the maximum term of the penalty shall be "that which in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed" under the Revised Penal Code and the minimum shall be "within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed" for the offense.

GR NO. 150443

2006-01-20

SYLVIA PEREZ v. PEOPLE

CARPIO, J.

In People v. Gabres,[22] the Court explained the imposition of the minimum penalty, as follows:Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum term of the penalty shall be "that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed' under the Revised Penal Code, and the minimum shall be "within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed" for the offense. The penalty next lower should be based on the penalty prescribed by the Code for the offense, without first considering any modifying circumstance attendant to the commission of the crime. The determination of the minimum penalty is left by law to the sound discretion of the court and it can be anywhere within the range of the penalty next lower without any reference to the periods into which it might be subdivided. The modifying circumstances are considered only in the imposition of the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence.

GR No. 119858

2003-04-29

EDWARD C. ONG v. CA

CARPIO, J.

Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum indeterminate sentence can be anywhere within the range of the penalty next lower in degree to the penalty prescribed by the Code for the offense. The minimum range of the penalty is determined without first considering any modifying circumstance attendant to the commission of the crime and without reference to the periods into which it may be subdivided.[31] The modifying circumstances are considered only in the imposition of the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence.[32] Since the penalty prescribed in Article 315 is prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum, the penalty next lower in degree would be prision correccional minimum to medium. Thus, the minimum term of the indeterminate penalty should be anywhere within 6 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months.[33]

GR No. 127694

2000-05-31

QUIRICO MARI v. CA

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.

	GR No. 183891 2010-08-03	ROMARICO J. MENDOZA v. PEOPLE CARPIO MORALES, J.
Taking into account the misappropriated P421,151.09 and the Court's discourse in People v. Gabres[17] on the proper imposition of the indeterminate penalty in Article 315, the appropriate penalty in this case should range from four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
	GR No. 171121 2008-08-26	GINA DIAZ Y JAUD v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The penalty prescribed in the afore-quoted provision is composed of two, not three, periods, in which case, Article 65[48] of the same code requires the division of the time included in the penalty into three equal portions of time included in the penalty imposed, forming one period of each of the three portions.[49] Applying the latter provisions, the minimum, medium and maximum periods of the penalty given are: Minimum - 4 years, 2 months, 1 day to 5 years, 5 months, 10 days
	GR No. 174405 2008-08-26	FLORA BAUTISTA v. FELICIDAD CASTILLO MERCADO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
1st. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000.00 pesos; and if such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed and for the purpose of the other provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be. The penalty prescribed in the aforementioned provision is composed of two, not three, periods, in which case, Article 65[14] of the same code requires the division of the time included in the penalty into three equal portions of time included in the penalty imposed forming one period of each of the three portions.[15] Applying the latter provision, the minimum, medium and maximum periods of the penalty given are: Minimum - 4 years, 2 months, 1 day to 5 years, 5 months, 10 days
	GR No. 159404 2008-06-27	RIZZA LAO v. PEOPLE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Based on law and jurisprudence, the penalty imposed on petitioner by the trial court should be modified, based on previous rulings of the Court. Under the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for the estafa charged against petitioner is prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum; hence, the penalty next lower would be prision correccional minimum to medium. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law,[88] the minimum term of the indeterminate sentence should be anywhere within six (6) months and one (1) day, to four (4) years and two (2) months; while the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence should at least be six (6) years and one (1) day;[89] and because the amounts involved exceeded P22,000.00, an additional one (1) year imprisonment should be imposed for each additional P10,000.00, but the total should not exceed 20 years.
	GR No. 166246 2008-04-30	ANTONIO NEPOMUCENO v. PEOPLE QUISUMBING, J.
In People v. Gabres, [28] the Court explained the imposition of the minimum penalty, as follows:Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum term of the penalty shall be "that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed" under the Revised Penal Code, and the minimum shall be "within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed" for the offense. The penalty next lower should be based on the penalty prescribed by the Code for the offense, without first considering any modifying circumstance attendant to the commission of the crime. The determination of the minimum penalty is left by law to the sound discretion of the court and it can be anywhere within the range of the penalty next lower without any reference to the periods into which it might be subdivided. The modifying circumstances are considered only in the imposition of the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence.
	GR NO. 156248 2007-08-28	MARISSA CENIZA-MANANTAN v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We now apply the Indeterminate Sentence Law in computing the proper penalty. Since the penalty prescribed by law for the estafa charge against Manantan is prision correcional maximum to prision mayor minimum, the penalty next lower would then be prision correccional in its minimum to medium periods. Thus, the minimum term of the indeterminate sentence should be anywhere from 6 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months, while the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence should be 20 years.[51]
	GR NO. 167084 2006-10-31	MONINA PUCAY v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The penalty for estafa with abuse of confidence is provided in paragraph 1, Article 315, Revised Penal Code: 1st. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos, and if such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed and for the purpose of the other provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be. Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law,[23] the maximum term of the penalty shall be "that which in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed" under the Revised Penal Code and the minimum shall be "within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed" for the offense.
	GR NO. 150443 2006-01-20	SYLVIA PEREZ v. PEOPLE CARPIO, J.
In People v. Gabres,[22] the Court explained the imposition of the minimum penalty, as follows:Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum term of the penalty shall be "that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed' under the Revised Penal Code, and the minimum shall be "within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed" for the offense. The penalty next lower should be based on the penalty prescribed by the Code for the offense, without first considering any modifying circumstance attendant to the commission of the crime. The determination of the minimum penalty is left by law to the sound discretion of the court and it can be anywhere within the range of the penalty next lower without any reference to the periods into which it might be subdivided. The modifying circumstances are considered only in the imposition of the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence.
	GR No. 119858 2003-04-29	EDWARD C. ONG v. CA CARPIO, J.
Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum indeterminate sentence can be anywhere within the range of the penalty next lower in degree to the penalty prescribed by the Code for the offense. The minimum range of the penalty is determined without first considering any modifying circumstance attendant to the commission of the crime and without reference to the periods into which it may be subdivided.[31] The modifying circumstances are considered only in the imposition of the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence.[32] Since the penalty prescribed in Article 315 is prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum, the penalty next lower in degree would be prision correccional minimum to medium. Thus, the minimum term of the indeterminate penalty should be anywhere within 6 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months.[33]
	GR No. 127694 2000-05-31	QUIRICO MARI v. CA 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.

PEOPLE v. LUCRECIA GABRES