People v. Lucas
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
The Antecedents: The case involves a resolution on a motion for clarification filed by the appellee concerning the nature of the penalty of reclusion perpetua in light of Section 21 of R.A. No. 7659. The original decision, promulgated on 25 May 1994, had touched upon this issue and applied Article 65 of the Revised Penal Code to divide reclusion perpetua into three periods, imposing a penalty of thirty-four (34) years, four (4) months and one (1) day in Criminal Case No. Q-91-18465 due to the aggravating circumstance of relationship. Procedural History: The appellee, in its motion for clarification, asked the Court to correct the duration of the maximum period of reclusion perpetua. The First Division, considering the importance and novelty of the issue, referred the motion to the Court en banc. The Petition: The Court en banc deliberated on the motion and re-examined the legislative history of R.A. No. 7659 to determine if the amendment to Article 27 had converted reclusion perpetua into a divisible penalty.
Issue(s)
Whether the amendment of Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code by Section 21 of R.A. No. 7659 has made reclusion perpetua a divisible penalty. Whether Article 65 of the Revised Penal Code is applicable in dividing the periods of reclusion perpetua.
Ruling
The Court resolved to modify its previous decision by deleting the disquisitions on whether reclusion perpetua is a divisible penalty and setting aside its division into three periods. The dispositive portion of the original decision was amended to affirm the trial court's decision, with modifications regarding indemnification and the penalty for attempted rape in Criminal Case No. Q-91-18466.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether reclusion perpetua is a divisible penalty: The Court concluded that despite Section 21 of R.A. No. 7659 fixing the duration of reclusion perpetua from twenty (20) years and one (1) day to forty (40) years, there was no clear legislative intent to alter its classification as an indivisible penalty. The legislative history, particularly the deliberations of the Bicameral Conference Committee, indicated that the elimination of the proposed penalty of "life imprisonment" led to the extension of the period of reclusion perpetua. Senator Tolentino's statements, while initially describing it as "flexible or divisible," later clarified that it remained one of the two indivisible penalties in the Revised Penal Code. If reclusion perpetua were to be considered divisible, Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, which governs the application of penalties based on aggravating and mitigating circumstances, would lose its purpose and basis for existence. The Court noted that numerous serious crimes, including treason, parricide, murder, and plunder, are punishable by reclusion perpetua to death, and the application of Article 63 is crucial in determining the imposable penalty in such cases. The absence of amendments to Article 63 and Article 76 of the Revised Penal Code further supports the conclusion that reclusion perpetua retains its character as an indivisible penalty. The fixing of its duration merely restated existing jurisprudence, particularly the implication that its maximum service should not exceed forty (40) years as per prior rulings and Article 70 of the Code. On the applicability of Article 65: Since reclusion perpetua was maintained as an indivisible penalty, Article 65 of the Revised Penal Code, which deals with the application of penalties in divisible ones by dividing them into periods, is not applicable. The original decision's application of Article 65 to divide reclusion perpetua into minimum, medium, and maximum periods was therefore erroneous and was set aside by the en banc resolution.
Main Doctrine
The amendment of Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code by Section 21 of R.A. No. 7659, which fixed the duration of reclusion perpetua from twenty (20) years and one (1) day to forty (40) years, did not alter its classification as an indivisible penalty. Consequently, the rules on the application of penalties under Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code remain applicable.