Indeterminate Sentence Law by CJ Renato Corona

G.R. No. 173473 – PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES versus BETH TEMPORADA.

Separate Opinion

Jurisprudence shows that there are two schools of thought on the incremental penalty in estafa vis-à-vis the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Under the first school of thought, the minimum term is fixed at prision correccional while the maximum term can reach up to reclusion temporal. This is the general interpretation. It was resorted to in People v. Pabalan,⁹ People v. Benemerito,¹⁰ People v. Gabres¹¹ and in a string of cases.¹²

On the other hand, under the second school of thought, the minimum term is one degree away from the maximum term and therefore varies as the amount of the thing stolen or embezzled rises or falls. It is the line of jurisprudence that follows People v. De la Cruz.¹³ Among the cases of this genre are People v. Romero,¹⁴ People v. Dinglasan¹⁵ and Salazar v. People.¹⁶

The Court is urged in this case to adopt a consistent position by categorically discarding one school of thought. Hence, our dilemma: which of the two schools of thought should we affirm?

The First School of Thought Is
More Favorable To The Accused

Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, in imposing a sentence, the court must determine two penalties composed of the "maximum" and "minimum" terms, instead of imposing a single fixed penalty.¹⁷ Hence, the indeterminate sentence is composed of a maximum term taken from the penalty imposable under the Revised Penal Code and a minimum term taken from the penalty next lower to that fixed in the said Code.

The maximum term corresponds to "that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the [Revised Penal] Code." Thus, "attending circumstances" (such as mitigating, aggravating and other relevant circumstances) that may modify the imposable penalty applying the rules of the Revised Penal Code is considered in determining the maximum term. Stated otherwise, the maximum term is arrived at after taking into consideration the effects of attendant modifying circumstances.

On the other hand, the minimum term "shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the [Revised Penal] Code for the offense." It is based on the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code for the offense without considering in the meantime the modifying circumstances.¹⁸

^{xxx xxx xxx}

The Second School Of Thought
And Its Shortcomings

The primary defect of the so-called second school of thought is that it contradicts the in dubio pro reo principle. It also violates the lenity rule. Instead, it advocates a stricter interpretation with harsher effects on the accused. In particular, compared to the first school of thought, it lengthens rather than shortens the penalty that may be imposed on the accused. Seen in its proper context, the second school of thought is contrary to the avowed purpose of the law that it purportedly seeks to promote, the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

The second school of thought limits the concept of "modifying circumstance" to either a mitigating or aggravating circumstance listed under Articles 13 and 14 of the Revised Penal Code. It contends that the respective enumerations under the said provisions are exclusive and all other circumstances not included therein were intentionally omitted by the legislature. It further asserts that, even assuming that the circumstance that more than P22,000 was embezzled may be deemed as analogous to aggravating circumstances under Article 14, the said circumstance cannot be considered as an aggravating circumstance because it is only in mitigating circumstances that analogous circumstances are allowed and recognized.²³ The second school of thought then insists that, since the circumstance that more than P22,000 was involved is not among those listed under Article 14, the said circumstance is not a modifying circumstance for purposes of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

source:  http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_173473rc_2008.html