INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW

(Act No. 4103 as amended by Act No. 4225)

WHEN AN ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO RECLUSION PERPETUA, HE IS NOT ENTITLED

TO THE APPLICATION OF THE INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW
Accused-appellant cannot avail of the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law because
Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply to persons convicted of offenses punishable with
reclusion perpetua.
(People v. Aquino; GR 125906, Jan. 16, 98)

APPLICATION OF INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW EXPLAINED

In the case of People vs. Gabres, the Court has had occasion to so state that
"Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum term of the penalty shall be 'that which,
in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed' under the Revised Penal
Code, and the minimum shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed' for
the offense. The penalty next lower should be based on the penalty prescribed by the Code for
the offense, without first considering any modifying circumstance attendant to the commission of
the crime. The determination of the minimum penalty is left by law to the sound discretion of the
court and it can be anywhere within the range of the penalty next lower without any reference to
the periods into which it might be subdivided. The modifying circumstances are considered only
in the imposition of the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence.
"The fact that the amounts involved in the instant case exceed P22,000.00 should not be
considered in the initial determination of the indeterminate penalty; instead, the matter should
be so taken as analogous to modifying circumstances in the imposition of the maximum term of
the full indeterminate sentence. This interpretation of the law accords with the rule that penal
laws should be construed in favor of the accused. Since the penalty prescribed by law for the
estafa charge against accused-appellant is prision correccional maximum to prision mayor
minimum, the penalty next lower would then be prision correccional minimum to medium. Thus,
the minimum term of the indeterminate sentence should be anywhere within six (6) months and
one (1) day to four (4) years and two (2) months . . ."
(People v. Saley; GR 121179, July 2, 98)

INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW; APPLICABLE ALSO IN DRUG CASES:

The final query is whether or not the Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable to the case now
before us. Apparently it does, since drug offenses are not included in nor has appellant
committed any act which would put him within the exceptions to said law and the penalty to be
imposed does not involve reclusion perpetua or death, provided, of course, that the penalty as
ultimately resolved will exceed one year of imprisonment. The more important aspect, however,
is how the indeterminate sentence shall be ascertained. It is true that Section 1 of said law, after
providing for indeterminate sentence for an offense under the Revised Penal Code, states that
"if the offense is punished by any other law, the court shall sentence the accused to an
indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by

said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same" We
hold that this quoted portion of the section indubitably refers to an offense under a special law
wherein the penalty imposed was not taken from and is without reference to the Revised Penal
Code, as discussed in the preceding illustrations, such that it may be said that the "offense is
punished" under that law. There can be no sensible debate that the aforequoted rule on
indeterminate sentence for offenses under special laws was necessary because of the nature of
the former type of penalties under said laws which were not included or contemplated in the
scale of penalties in Article 71 of the Code, hence there could be no minimum "within the range
of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense," as is the rule for
felonies therein. In the illustrative examples of penalties in special laws hereinbefore provided,
this rule applied, and would still apply, only to the first and last examples. Furthermore,
considering the vintage of Act No. 4103 as earlier noted, this holding is but an application and is
justified under the rule of contemporanea expositio. Republic Act No. 6425, as now amended by
Republic Act No. 7659, has unqualifiedly adopted the penalties under the Revised Penal Code
in their technical terms, hence with their technical signification and effects. In fact, for purposes
of determining the maximum of said sentence, we have applied the provisions of the amended
Section 20 of said law to arrive at prision correccional and Article 64 of the Code to impose the
same in the medium period. Such offense, although provided for in a special law, is now in the
effect punished by and under the Revised Penal Code.
(People v Martin Simon)
WHEN THE BENEFITS OF INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW IS NOT APPLICABLE;
a. Offenses punished by death or life imprisonment.
b. Those convicted of treason (Art. 114), conspiracy or proposal to commit treason (Art. 115).
c. Those convicted of misprision of treason (Art. 116), rebellion (Art. 134), sedition (Art. 139), or
espionage
(Art. 117).
d. Those convicted of piracy (Art. 122).
e. Habitual delinquents (Art. 62, par. 5).
f. Those who escaped from confinement or those who evaded sentence.
g. Those granted conditional pardon and who violated the terms of the same (Art. 159). (People
v. Corral, 74
Phil. 359).
h. Those whose maximum period of imprisonment does not exceed one year.
i. Those who are already serving final judgment upon the approval of the Indeterminate
Sentence Law.
j. those offenses or crimes not punishable by imprisonment such as distierro and suspension.

RECIDIVISTS ARE ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS OF THE INDETERMINATE SENTENCE

Recidivists are entitled to an indeterminate sentence. (People v. Jaramilla, L-28547, Feb. 22,
1974). Offender is not disqualified to avail of the benefits of the law even if the crime is
committed while he is on parole. (People v. Clareon, CA 78 O.G. 6701, Nov. 19, 1982). (Bacar
v. De Guzman)

NATURE OF PENALTY OF RECLUSION PERPETUA

In "People -vs- Conrado Lucas, 240 SCRA 66, the Supreme Court declared that despite the

amendment of Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code, reclusion perpetua remained an indivisible
penalty. Hence, the penalty does not have any minimum, medium and maximum period. Hence,
there is no such penalty of medium period of reclusion perpetua. (People versus Tiburcio Baculi,
246 SCRA)
IMPOSITION OF WRONG PENALTY: IT DOES NOT OBTAIN FINALITY
Suppose the court imposed a penalty of 25 years of reclusion perpetua for the crime of rape and
the accused did not appeal, does the judgment become final and executory? No, such judgment
is null and void because it imposed a non-existent penalty. Hence, the court may nevertheless
correct the penalty imposed on the accused, that is, reclusion perpetua, it is merely performing
a duty inherent in the court. (People versus Nigel Gatward, GR No. 119772-73, February 7,
1997)
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RECLUSION PERPETUA AND LIFE IMPRISONMENT
The penalty of reclusion perpetua is different from life imprisonment. The former carries with it
accessory penalties, whereas life imprisonment does not carry with it any accessory penalties;
reclusion perpetua is that provided for under the Revised Penal Code and under crimes defined
by special laws using the nomenclature under the Revised Penal Code ; life imprisonment is
that provided for violations of the Revised Penal Code. Reclusion Perpetua may be reduced by
one or two degrees while life imprisonment cannot be so reduced. (People -vs- Rolnando
Madriaga, GR No. 82293, July 23, 1992.)
WHICH IS MORE BURDENSOME LIFE IMPRISONMENT OF RECLUSION PERPETUA
Reclusion perpetua has accessory penalties while life imprisonment does not. However, life
imprisonment does not have a fixed duration or extent while reclusion perpetua has a duration
of from twenty years and one day to forty years. life imprisonment may span the natural life of
the convict. (People -versus- Rallagan, 247 SCRA 537)
RECLUSION PERPETUA AND LIFE IMPRISONMENT CANNOT BE INTER-CHANGE WHEN
IMPOSED AS PENALTY
Where the law violated provides for the penalty of reclusion perpetua, impose the said penalty
and not the penalty of life imprisonment. Where the law imposes the penalty of life
imprisonment, do not impose reclusion perpetua. (People -vs- Rolando Madriaga, 211 SCRA
698)
THE REASON WHY RECLUSION PERPETUA HAS A RANGE DESPITE THE SAME BEING
INDIVISIBLE
There we also said that "if reclusion perpetua was reclassified as a divisible penalty, then Article
63 of the Revised Penal Code would lose its reason and basis for existence." The imputed
duration of thirty (30) years of reclusion perpetua, therefore, only serves as the basis for
determining the convict's eligibility for pardon or for the application of the three-fold rule in the
service of multiple penalties. (People -vs- Aspolinar Raganas, et al., GR No. 101188, October
12, 1999)

RARE CASE OF APPLICATION OF RPC IN A SUPPLETORY CHARACTER DESPITE THE

PENALTY BEING LIFE IMPRISONMENT
Where the accused committed qualified violation of PD 704 (fishing with the use of explosives),
the imposable penalty for which is life imprisonment to death. If the accused is entitled to a
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, the court should impose life imprisonment
applying, in a suppletory character, Articles 13 and 63 of the Revised Penal Code. (People -vsPriscilla Balasa, GR No. 106357, September 3, 1998)
ACCUSED WHO IS SENTENCED TO RECLUSION PERPETUA IS STILL ENTITLED TO
EITHER FULL OR OF HIS PREVENTIVE IMPRISONMENT
If, during the trial, the accused was detained but, after trial, he was meted the penalty of
reclusion perpetua, he is still entitled to the full credit of his preventive imprisonment because
Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code does not distinguish between divisible and indivisible
penalties. (People -vs- Rolando Corpuz, 231 SCRA 480)