CRIMINAL LAW CASE DIGEST/ PEOPLE V. DUCOSIN, 59 PHIL. 109

PEOPLE V. DUCOSIN,

59 PHIL. 109

TOPIC/DOCTRINE

Under section 1 of Act No. 4103 the court must, instead of a single fixed penalty, determine two penalties, referred to in the Indeterminate Sentence Act as the "maximum" and "minimum". The prisoner must' serve the minimum penalty before he is eligible for parole under the provisions of Act No. 4103, which leaves the period between the minimum and maximum penalty indeterminate in the sense that he may, under the conditions set out in said Act, be released from serving said period in whole or in part. He must be sentenced, therefore, to imprisonment for a period which is not more than the "maximum" nor less than the "minimum", as these terms are used in the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

FACTS

This appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila convicting the appellant of the crime of frustrated murder was referred by the first division to the court in banc for the proper interpretation and application of Act No. 4103 of the Philippine Legislature approved on December 5, 1933, commonly known as the "Indeterminate Sentence Law". As this is the first case which has come before us involving the Indeterminate Sentence Law, it will be convenient to set out here some of its provisions.

ISSUE

What is the proper interpretation of the "minimum" penalty in the indeterminate sentence law?

RULING

The court held that the Indeterminate Sentence Law, Act No. 4103, simply provides that the "minimum" shall "not be less than the minimum imprisonment period of the penalty next lower." In other words, it is left entirely within the discretion of the court to fix the minimum imprisonment anywhere within the range of the next lower penalty without reference to the degrees into which it may be subdivided. Act No. 4103 does not require the court to fix the minimum term of imprisonment in the minimum period of the degree next lower to the maximum penalty. Keeping in mind the basic purpose of the Indeterminate Sentence Law "to uplift and redeem valuable human material, and prevent unnecessary and excessive deprivation of "personal liberty and economic usefulness" (Message of the GovernorGeneral, Official Gazette No. 92, vol. XXXI, August 3, 1933), it is necessary to consider the criminal, first, as an individual and, second, as a member of society. In a word, the Indeterminate Sentence Law aims to individualize the administration of our criminal law to a degree not heretofore known in these Islands. Some factors to be taken into consideration are indicated.

It is our duty now to assess the minimum imprisonment period under Act No. 4103 in the case before us on this appeal. Unfortunately, as this defendant was convicted before Act No. 4103 became effective, and as we know nothing of his antecedents because his plea of guilty rendered it unnecessary to take any testimony, we are confined to the record before us. He plead guilty to all of the acts which constitute the crime of murder and only the timely intervention of medical assistance prevented the death of his victim and the prosecution of the appellant for murder. He was given the f ull benefit of the plea of guilty in the fixing of the maximum of the sentence. With such light as we have received from the record in this case, we have concluded that a reasonable and proper minimum period of imprisonment should be seven years, which is within the "range of the penalty next lower in degree to the maximum, that is to say, within the range from four years, two months and one day to ten years of prisión correccional in its maximum period to prisión mayor in its medium period. We repeat that Act No. 4103 does not require the court to fix the minimum term of imprisonment in the minimum period of the degree next lower to the maximum penalty.

Popular posts from this blog

CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ BACLAYON V. MUTIA, 129 SCRA 148

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I CASE DIGEST | THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD V. COMELEC G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTIONS CASE DIGEST/ BPI FAMILY BANK VS. FRANCO/ G. R. NO. 123498/ 23 NOVEMBER 2007

REMEDIAL LAW | Riviera Golf Club v. CCA G.R. No. 173783, June 17 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ MINA VS. PASCUAL/ 25 PHIL. 540 (1923)

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ QUINTOS VS. BECK/ 69 PHIL. 108 (1939)

LAW ON PROPERTY | ACOSTA V. OCHOA, ET AL., G.R. NO. 211559; G.R. NO. 215634, OCTOBER 15, 2019

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION | HYGIENIC PACKAGING CORPORATION VS. NUTRI-ASIA, INC ., G.R. NO. 201302, JANUARY 23, 2019

LEGAL ETHICS | MAURICIO C. ULEP VS. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC Bar Matter No. 553. June 17, 1993

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ DELOS SANTOS VS. JARRA/ G. R. NO. L-4150/ 10 FEBRUARY 1910/ 15 PHIL. 147