GR L 39483; (November, 1974) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-39483 November 29, 1974
FRANCISCO BASAN Y GOBOT, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Francisco Basan y Gobot was charged with two homicides. Upon arraignment, he pleaded guilty to both charges. He invoked the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and plea of guilty, which the prosecution did not contest. The trial court, appreciating these two mitigating circumstances with no aggravating circumstances to offset them, sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of six years and one day of prision mayor, as minimum, to ten years of prision mayor, as maximum, for each case, plus indemnity and costs.
Basan filed a motion for reconsideration, contending that the trial court misapplied the Indeterminate Sentence Law. He argued that after reducing the penalty by one degree due to the mitigating circumstances, the minimum of the indeterminate sentence should be within the range of the penalty next lower in degree, specifically prision correccional. The trial court denied his motion. The case reached the Supreme Court via a petition for review, treated as a special civil action, with the Solicitor General supporting Basan’s position on the erroneous penalty.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court correctly applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law in imposing the penalty upon the petitioner.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court erred in its application. The legal logic is anchored on the proper construction of the Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act No. 4103, as amended) in relation to the Revised Penal Code’s rules on mitigating circumstances. When an offense is punishable under the Revised Penal Code, the Indeterminate Sentence Law requires that the minimum penalty be within the range of any period of the penalty next lower in degree to that prescribed by law for the offense. The maximum penalty must be within the proper period of the penalty that would be imposed as a straight penalty.
Here, for homicide, the prescribed penalty is reclusion temporal. Given the two mitigating circumstances (plea of guilty and voluntary surrender) with no aggravating circumstances, the penalty is reduced by one degree to prision mayor under Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code. Consequently, for the indeterminate sentence, the minimum must be within the range of the penalty next lower to prision mayor, which is prision correccional (6 months and 1 day to 6 years). The maximum must be within the proper period of prision mayor as the straight penalty. Considering the mitigations, the proper period is the medium period of prision mayor (8 years and 1 day to 10 years).
The trial court’s imposed minimum of six years and one day of prision mayor was incorrect, as it fell within the minimum period of prision mayor itself, not within prision correccional. Therefore, the Supreme Court modified the sentence, imposing an indeterminate penalty of six months and one day of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight years and one day of prision mayor, as maximum, for each homicide case. The petition was granted.