People v. Ignacio
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: An information for estafa thru falsification of a commercial document, specifically a Philippine National Bank Check for P4,608.62, was filed against Jose Ignacio y Santos. Procedural History: Upon arraignment, Jose Ignacio y Santos pleaded guilty. The Court of First Instance of Manila sentenced him to suffer one (1) year, eight (8) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to four (4) years, nine (9) months and eleven (11) days of prision correccional, as maximum; to indemnify the Philippine National Bank in the sum of P4,608.62; and to pay a fine of P3,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. The accused moved for reconsideration, which was denied. He then appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Petition: The Court of Appeals certified the case to the Supreme Court as the only question for determination was one of law.
Issue(s)
Whether the penalty imposed by the trial court, considering the Indeterminate Sentence Law, is correct. Whether the mitigating circumstance of a plea of guilty should be considered in determining the minimum of the indeterminate sentence.
Ruling
The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the penalty for the complex crime and the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law: The appellant pleaded guilty to the complex crime of estafa thru falsification of a commercial document. The penalty for estafa, with the amount involved, is arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period. The penalty for falsification of a commercial document is prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not more than P5,000.00. For a complex crime, the penalty is that provided for the more serious crime, applied in its maximum period, which is prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum of the indeterminate sentence should be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense. The penalty next lower to prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods is arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period, which is four (4) months and one (1) day to two (2) years and four (4) months. The minimum of the sentence imposed by the court a quo, one (1) year, eight (8) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, falls within this prescribed range. The discretion of the court a quo to fix the minimum term within the legal range will not be interfered with in the absence of abuse. On the consideration of the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty in determining the minimum of the indeterminate sentence: The appellant's error lies in contending that the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty should also be considered in determining the minimum of his indeterminate sentence, contrary to the holding in People vs. Mape. The Supreme Court reiterated that for purposes of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty next lower should be determined without regard as to whether the basic penalty provided by the Code should be applied in its maximum or minimum period as the circumstances modifying liability may require. The court a quo rightly considered the plea of guilty as a simple mitigating circumstance in fixing the maximum term of the sentence, but it does not affect the determination of the penalty next lower for the purpose of the minimum indeterminate sentence. The fine of P3,000.00 is also in order, as Article 172, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code provides for a fine of not more than P5,000.00 in addition to imprisonment.
Main Doctrine
The penalty for a complex crime is that prescribed for the more serious crime, to be applied in its maximum period. The minimum of the indeterminate sentence should be determined from the penalty next lower to the basic penalty provided by the Code, without regard to whether the basic penalty should be applied in its maximum or minimum period due to modifying circumstances.