GR L 7616; (May, 1955) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-7616 May 10, 1955
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. VICTORIO HERNANDEZ, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
Victorio Hernandez, a truck driver, was charged with homicide through reckless imprudence for running over and killing a seven-year-old child. He pleaded guilty in the Court of First Instance of Cavite. The trial court allowed him to prove the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. Consequently, the court sentenced him to suffer one year of prision correccional and to pay the costs. The private prosecutor reserved the right to pursue civil liability, so no pronouncement was made on that matter. Despite his guilty plea, Hernandez appealed the decision, raising a purely legal question, which led to the certification of the case to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
The sole issue raised on appeal is whether the trial court erred in failing to apply the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law in favor of the appellant, Victorio Hernandez.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The Court held that the Indeterminate Sentence Law ( Act No. 4103 ) does not apply when the maximum term of imprisonment imposed by the court does not exceed one year. In this case, the crime fell under Article 365(6) of the Revised Penal Code, prescribing a penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods. While Republic Act No. 384 granted discretion to the court in imposing penalties under Article 365 without strict regard to the rules on mitigating and aggravating circumstances, the trial court, in its discretion, reduced the penalty by one degree due to the presence of two mitigating circumstances (plea of guilty and voluntary surrender). The reduced penalty ranged from arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period (4 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months). The straight penalty of one year of prision correccional imposed by the trial court was within this legal range. The Court cited the precedent in People vs. Ducosin, which allows the imposition of a straight penalty within the range provided by law. Since the penalty actually imposed was one year, which does not exceed one year, the Indeterminate Sentence Law was inapplicable pursuant to its Section 2. The Court further cited People vs. Dimalanta, stating that the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law is based on the penalty actually imposed, not on a penalty that could have been imposed in the court’s discretion. Therefore, no error was committed by the trial court.