People v. Basan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Francisco Basan y Gobot was charged with two counts of homicide in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur. He pleaded guilty to both charges and invoked the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and plea of guilty, which the prosecution did not contest. The trial court sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum, to ten (10) years of prision mayor as maximum, ordered him to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of P15,000.00, and to pay the costs. Procedural History: Following the trial court's decision, the petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the Indeterminate Sentence Law was not correctly applied. He contended that the penalty should have been reduced by one degree, placing the minimum of the indeterminate sentence within the range of prision correccional. When his motion was denied, he appealed to the Supreme Court. The case was initially treated as an appeal by notice, but the Court directed the petitioner to file a petition for review under Section 17 of the Judiciary Act, as amended by Republic Act 5440, as the case was not appealable by mere notice of appeal. The Solicitor General, representing the respondent, filed a comment agreeing that the penalty imposed was not in accordance with law and requested immediate decision and imposition of the proper penalty. The Petition: The petitioner sought review of the trial court's decision, specifically challenging the imposition of the penalty. He argued that the Indeterminate Sentence Law mandated a reduction of the penalty by one degree, meaning the minimum of the indeterminate sentence should fall within the periods of prision correccional. The Supreme Court, considering the petition as a special civil action and the Solicitor General's comment as an answer, agreed with the petitioner. The Court found that while the trial court correctly appreciated the mitigating circumstances, it erred in determining the minimum of the indeterminate penalty. The Court modified the sentence to an indeterminate penalty of six (6) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum, for each offense.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in its application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law by setting the minimum term of the indeterminate penalty within the range of prision mayor instead of prision correccional.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The penalty imposed upon the accused in Criminal Cases Nos. 704 and 705 of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, Branch I, is modified to impose upon the petitioner the indeterminate penalty in each case of from six (6) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the trial court incorrectly determined the minimum term of the petitioner's indeterminate sentence. Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act No. 4103, as amended), if the offense is punishable under the Revised Penal Code (RPC), the minimum penalty must be within the range of the penalty next lower in degree to that prescribed by law. In this instance, the presence of two mitigating circumstances (plea of guilty and voluntary surrender) without any offsetting aggravating circumstances required the reduction of the penalty for homicide by one degree, from reclusion temporal to prision mayor. Consequently, the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence must fall within the range of prision mayor, which the trial court correctly identified as ten years (medium period). However, for the minimum term, the court must look at the penalty next lower in degree to that which the law prescribes after considering the mitigating circumstances. Since the applicable penalty was prision mayor, the penalty next lower in degree is prision correccional, which ranges from six months and one day to six years. By setting the minimum at six years and one day, the trial court placed the minimum within the range of prision mayor itself, effectively denying the petitioner the lower minimum range required by the ISL. Therefore, the Supreme Court exercised its discretion to modify the sentence to a minimum of six months and one day of prision correccional and a maximum of eight years and one day of prision mayor to conform with legal standards.
Main Doctrine
The Indeterminate Sentence Law mandates that the minimum of the indeterminate penalty should be within any of the periods of the penalty next lower in degree to that prescribed by law, and the maximum thereof should be within the proper period of the penalty that may be imposed were the sentence a straight penalty, after considering mitigating and aggravating circumstances.