GR L 1414; (April, 1948) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-1414; April 16, 1948
EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSE DE JESUS, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
The accused, Jose de Jesus, was serving a sentence of destierro (banishment) imposed in another criminal case. While serving this sentence, he entered the City of Manila in May and June 1946, thereby violating the terms of his banishment, and committed robbery. He was arrested, prosecuted for the robbery, and also charged in the present case for violation of his banishment sentence. He pleaded guilty to the charge of violating the banishment order. The trial court, considering the mitigating circumstance of a plea of guilty, sentenced him to the minimum penalty of two years, four months, and one day of prision correccional.
ISSUE
1. Whether the trial court erred in imposing the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum degree instead of the penalty immediately inferior (arresto mayor in its maximum degree to prision correccional in its minimum degree) due to the mitigating circumstance of a plea of guilty.
2. Whether the accused is entitled to the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
RULING
1. No. The penalty prescribed by Article 157 of the Revised Penal Code for violation of a sentence is prision correccional in its medium and maximum degrees (2 years, 4 months, and 1 day to 6 years). The minimum degree of this penalty ranges from 2 years, 4 months, and 1 day to 3 years, 6 months, and 20 days. Under Article 64, Rule 2 of the Revised Penal Code, when a mitigating circumstance is present and no aggravating circumstance offsets it, the court shall impose the penalty in the minimum period of the prescribed penalty. The penalty immediately inferior is imposed only when there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstance (Article 64, Rule 5). Therefore, the trial court correctly imposed the penalty within the minimum degree of prision correccional.
2. No. The Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended by Act No. 4225, expressly provides that its provisions shall not apply to persons who escape from prison or violate the conditions of their sentence while serving it. The accused violated his sentence of destierro by entering Manila. Although not completely deprived of liberty, he was prohibited from entering within a radius of 25 kilometers from the city hall. By violating this condition, he forfeited the benefit of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
The appealed judgment was affirmed.
AI Generated by Armztrong.