People v. Jesus
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused, Jose de Jesus, was serving a sentence of destierro imposed by the Court of First Instance of Manila, which commenced on May 20, 1946. While serving this sentence, he entered the City of Manila in May and June of 1946, thereby committing a robbery and subsequently being arrested and prosecuted for that offense. Procedural History: For the act of entering Manila while under sentence of destierro, the accused was charged in the present case for the quebrantamiento (breach) of his sentence. He pleaded guilty to this charge. The Court of First Instance of Manila, presided over by Judge Mamerto Roxas, convicted him and imposed a penalty of two years, four months, and one day of prision correccional, considering the mitigating circumstance of his plea of guilty. The Appeal: The accused appealed the sentence, contending that he was entitled to an indeterminate sentence of four months and one day of arresto mayor to two years and four months of prision correccional. He argued that due to the mitigating circumstance of his plea of guilty, the penalty should have been imposed in its lower degree. He also argued for the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
Issue(s)
Whether the penalty imposed by the trial court for breach of sentence is in accordance with law. Whether the Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable to the offense of breaching a sentence of destierro.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, holding that the penalty imposed was in accordance with law and that the Indeterminate Sentence Law was not applicable to the case. The Court ruled that the accused must suffer his penalty.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that the penalty imposed by the trial court was in accordance with law. The penalty prescribed by Article 157 of the Revised Penal Code for one who breaches a sentence is prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, ranging from two years, four months, and one day to six years. The minimum of this penalty is two years, four months, and one day to three years, six months, and twenty days. The trial court correctly imposed the minimum of this range. The appellant's contention that the penalty should be in its lower degree due to the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty was rejected. Article 64, Rule 2 of the Revised Penal Code states that when there are mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstances, the penalty shall be imposed in its minimum degree within the range provided by law. Rule 5 of Article 64 only allows for the imposition of the penalty immediately lower than that prescribed by law when there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstances. Therefore, the penalty imposed was not erroneous. On Issue 2: The Court ruled that the Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable to the offense committed. The Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 4225, explicitly provides that its provisions do not apply to those who escape while deprived of liberty or who breach their sentence. In this case, the accused breached his sentence of destierro, which prohibited him from entering the City of Manila. Although he was not completely deprived of his liberty, he violated the condition of his sentence by entering the prohibited area. The Court emphasized that the accused, despite not being in strict confinement, was under a conditional sentence and chose to infringe upon it, thus forfeiting the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the penalty imposed on the accused for breaching his sentence of destierro, holding that the Indeterminate Sentence Law is inapplicable to such cases. The Court clarified that the penalty for violating a conditional sentence is correctional imprisonment in its medium and maximum periods, and the application of mitigating circumstances must adhere to the specific rules outlined in Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code, which does not automatically warrant imposing the next lower penalty.