Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISLAW): How to determine maximum and minimum penalties

(Act no 4103 as amended)

The Indeterminate Sentence Law is mandatory in all cases, EXCEPT if the accused will fall in any of the following exceptions:

1. if sentenced with a penalty of death or life imprisonment
2. if convicted of treason, conspiracy, proposal to commit treason
3. if convicted of misprision of treason, sedition, rebellion or espionage
4. if convicted of piracy
5. if the offender is a habitual delinquent
6. those who escaped from prison or evaded sentence
7. those who violated the terms of conditional pardon of the chief executive
8. where the maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed 1 year (important!)
9. if convicted by final judgement at the time of the effectivity of Act No. 4103
10. if penalized with suspension or distierro

If accused fall in any of the foregoing exceptions. DO NOT APPLY ISLAW!

ISLAW applies to offenses punished by Special Law and Revised Penal Code.

Why is ISLAW mandatory?

In the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law the judge will get the maximum penalty and likewise the minimum penalty. If the accused was already able to serve the minimum term of his indeterminate sentence and upon the approval of the Board, the accused now becomes eligible for parole. ISLAW is favorable to the accused.

If the accused was granted parole and violated some conditions of the parole, What will happen?

A warrant of arrest will be issued by the court and the accused will be made to serve the rest of the remaining or unexpired portion of his sentence. (But in probation you go back to number 1, serving of sentence will be from the beginning)

Application of ISLAW:

How to get maximum and minimum penalty in Special Law:
1. The maximum penalty should NOT exceed the maximum provided for by that law.
2. The minimum penalty should NOT fall below the minimum provided by the law.

How to get maximum and minimum penalty in Revised Penal Code:
Example: In the crime of homicide, under the Revised Penal Code, the offender is sentenced to reclusion temporal.

The maximum penalty under the Indeterminate Sentence Law is reclusion temporal. But reclusion temporal is a divisible penalty consisting of maximum, medium and minimum periods. Which period will we place the maximum term of the Indeterminate Sentence?

Guide for determining the maximum penalty:
1. Determine the entire range of the penalty
2. Determine if there is mitigating or aggravating circumstance

Which period will the maximum penalty be placed?

In pursuant to art 64, when there is no mitigating and no aggravating circumstance, it should be placed at the medium period. Thus, the maximum penalty for the example above is reclusion temporal in the medium period.

What is the minimum penalty now?

In getting the minimum penalty, the rule is to simply get the penalty one (1) degree lower from the maximum penalty without taking into account the mitigating and aggravating circumstance. Thus, the penalty one degree lower from reclusion temporal, without taking into account any mitigating or aggravating circumstance, is prision mayor. Prision mayor is now the minimum penalty for our example.

Important: If your maximum penalty is wrong, it follows that the minimum penalty will also be wrong.

Again, prision mayor is a divisible penalty. Which period can it be placed?
Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, it would depend upon the discretion of the court on which period to place it. Thus, the minimum penalty is prision mayor in any of its period.

Factors that could affect the imposition of minimum penalty:
1. Age
2. Conduct during trial
3. Mental or physical condition

Suppose in the example above, 1 aggravating circumstance was proven. What is now the maximum penalty?
It would still be reclusion temporal, but it shall be placed in the maximum period because of the presence of 1 aggravating circumstance.

How about the minimum penalty?
It would still be 1 degree lower from reclusion temporal, which is prision mayor. In which period? It shall be discretionary upon the court.

(More examples)

1 mitigating but NO aggravating
maximum penalty: reclusion temporal in the minimum period
minimum penalty: prision mayor in any period

2 mitigating, NO aggravating (privileged mitigating)
maximum penalty: prision mayor in the medium period
minimum penalty: prision correctional any period

The preceding example is an exception to the rule. If there is a privileged mitigating circumstance, we take it into account first in order to obtain the proper maximum penalty. Then, from that maximum penalty, we obtain the proper minimum penalty by getting the penalty 1 degree lower. Same rule applies as to the period of the minimum penalty.

Remember: It will never become a privileged mitigating circumstance if there is an aggravating circumstance present. 8 mitigating and 1 aggravating will never become privileged mitigating circumstance.

3 mitigating, NO aggravating
maximum penalty: prision mayor in the minimum period
minimum penalty: prision correctional any period

In the preceding example, there are 3 mitigating circumstance present and no aggravating circumstance. The first two mitigating circumstance shall be a privileged mitigating circumstance. Thus, the penalty will be reduced by 1 degree from reclusion temporal to prision mayor. The 3rd mitigating circumstance shall place the penalty in the minimum period.

4 mitigating, NO aggravating
maximum penalty: prision correctional in the medium period (2 privileged circumstance. Thus we lower by 2 degrees)
minimum penalty: arresto mayor any period

5 mitigating, NO aggravating
maximum penalty: prision correctional in the minimum period
minimum penalty: arresto mayor any period

At most we can only lower by 2 degrees. Thus, if there are 6 mitigating circumstance and NO aggravating:
maximum penalty: prision correctional in the minimum period
minimum penalty: arresto mayor any period

How is Indeterminate Sentence Law applied in complex crimes (Article 48)?
A complex crime is punished by the most serious offense and shall be imposed in its maximum period.

Example: Estafa through falsification of public documents.

Under the Revised Penal Code, falsification of public documents (Article 171) is a more serious offense punished by prision mayor than estafa (Article 315), punished only by prision correctional.

Thus, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum penalty for estafa through falsification of public documents shall be prision mayor in the maximum period. Minimum penalty shall be prision correctional, any period.

Suppose there was 1 mitigating circumstance proven. Maximum penalty would still be prision mayor in the maximum period. In pursuant to Article 48, even if there is a mitigating circumstance present, it should still be imposed at the maximum period.

How about if there are 2 mitigating circumstance and no aggravating?
The rule is, if it is a privileged mitigating circumstance, we lower by the penalty by one degree but still place it at the maximum period. Thus, the maximum penalty shall be prision correctional in the maximum period.

4 mitigating, NO aggravating
maximum penalty: arresto mayor in its maximum period

AMBROSIO RONQUILLO V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (614 SCRA 704) Case Digest

FACTS:

On September 8, 1988 at about 1:00 o’clock in the morning , Tomas Ronquillo upon arriving home from their poultry and copra dryer summoned his wife to open the door. Just as the wife did and Tomas was about to enter the house, the accused and brother of deceased, Ambrosio Ronquillo appeared from behind Tomas and stabbed him several times. Allegedly, Perlinda Ronquillo, wife of the accused, was also at the scene, and upon seeing that Tomas was still alive, commanded her husband to add more strike to the victim. The accused thereby complied with his wife’s command. The incident was also witnessed by the five year old daughter of the victim Snooky Ronquillo and Porieria Lingaya. Physician’s post mortem findings indicate that the victim suffered 4 stub wounds that resulted in acute blood loss and in the instantaneous death of the victim.

Accused admits having stabbed to death his brother but professed that he did it in self-defense. He testified that he was at home when, unexplainably, Tomas threw a piece of wood inside the house; that he picked up the wood and used it to parry the bolo thrusts of the victim; that the bolo fell from the victim’s hand; and that, seizing the bolo, he then stabbed the victim to death.

A case was filed at the Regional Trial Court of Lianga, Surigao, and upon evaluating the evidence, the accused, Ambrosio Ronquillo was found guilty, and his wife, Perlinda Ronquillo innocent of the crime charged. P30,000.00 was awarded for the indemnity of the life of the victim, P10,000.00 as moral damages, P10,000.00 for exemplary damages and P6,000.00 for funeral and burial assistance.

Thus, the appeal to this Court.

ISSUES:

1.  Whether or not the court a quo erred in not appreciating self defense in favor of the accused;
2. Whether or not the court a quo erred in finding the accused guilty of murder instead of homicide since no qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation was proven and neither was the qualifying circumstance of treachery;
3. Whether or not the court a quo erred in appreciating nocturnity as an aggravating circumstance.

RULING:

1. The accused has the burden of substantiating the claim for self-defense. He must prove clearly and convincingly 3 elements, i.e. (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. Based on the evidence submitted and the testimony of eyewitness Ponferia Lingaya, the Court finds that the court a quo was correct in rejecting the claim for self-defense.
2. The essence of treachery was sufficiently established by the prosecution. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on an unsuspecting victim depriving the latter any chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring without risk its commission. In this case, the coming out from hiding behind the house of the victim instantly and without warning delivered the bolo thrust on the unwary victim.
3. The Court finds that aggravating circumstance of nocturnity cannot be appreciated since it was not shown to have been deliberately sought by the accused. No such evidence has been presented and nocturnity is deemed ordinarily absorbed in trachery.

The decision of the lower court was AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION to indemnify the heirs in the amount of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00), in line with current jurisprudence.

Subsidiary Civil Liability (Article 102 of the Revised Penal Code)

Article 102 of the Revised Penal Code deals with the subsidiary liability of innkeepers, tavernkeepers, and proprietors of establishments.

Under paragraph 1 of Article 102, innkeepers, tavernkeepers, and proprietors of establishments are subsidiarily liable when all of the following elements are present:

1. The innkeeper, tavernkeepers, and proprietor of establishments or his employee committed a violation of a municipal ordinance or some general or police regulation.

2. A crime is committed in such inn, tavern or establishment.

3. The person criminally liable is insolvent.

In the second paragraph of Article 102, when all of the following elements are present, the innkeeper is subsidiarily liable:

1. The guests have notified in advance the innkeeper or the person representing him of the deposit of their goods within the inn.

2. The guests have followed the direction of the innkeeper or his representative with respect to the care and vigilance of their goods.

3. Such goods of the guests lodging in therein were taken by robbery or theft

Even if the guests did not deposit their goods and a notice of disclaimer of liability was posted in a hotel, it does not free the owner from subsidiary liability. It is enough that the goods were stolen within the inn.