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.