GR 119772; (February, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 119772 -73 February 7, 1997
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NIGEL RICHARD GATWARD and U AUNG WIN, accused. NIGEL RICHARD GATWARD, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Nigel Richard Gatward and accused U Aung Win were separately charged with violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 ( R.A. No. 6425 ). Gatward was charged with transporting heroin, while U Aung Win was charged with importing heroin. The cases were consolidated for trial. U Aung Win pleaded guilty to the capital offense, but the trial court still received evidence to prove his guilt and degree of culpability. The prosecution evidence established that on August 30, 1994, U Aung Win arrived at the NAIA from Bangkok and abandoned a bag found to contain 5,579.80 grams of heroin. A subsequent operation led to Gatward, who was found in possession of packages containing 5,237.70 grams of heroin intended for delivery. The trial court convicted both accused. Gatward appealed his conviction, while U Aung Win did not appeal.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the penalty of reclusion perpetua, as redefined with a fixed duration of forty (40) years under Republic Act No. 7659 , is a divisible penalty that can be subjected to the rules for applying mitigating or aggravating circumstances and the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions but modified the penalty. The Court held that reclusion perpetua, as amended by R.A. No. 7659 , is an indivisible penalty. Its fixed duration of forty (40) years does not convert it into a divisible penalty with minimum, medium, and maximum periods. Being an indivisible penalty, it is imposed in its entirety regardless of the presence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances. Consequently, the rules for adjusting divisible penalties and the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law do not apply. The trial court erred in imposing reclusion perpetua with a range of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to forty (40) years. The correct penalty is reclusion perpetua in its full duration. The Court modified the sentences for both accused to reflect this correction, affirming the judgment in all other respects.