You are on page 1of 2

Revisiting Indeterminate Sentence Law

By Atty. Harold Huliganga




In my five years now as a Court Attorney, I had, on several occasions, come across lower court decisions
incorrectly applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law (I. S. Law) or Act No. 4103. It is seriously disturbing that
despite its seeming simplicity and brevity, some judges had been perpetually misapplying it.
The basic mandate of the I. S. Law is the imposition of an indeterminate sentence which is comprised by a
MINIMUM term and a MAXIMUM term. It is indeterminate in the sense that after serving the MINIMUM, the
convict may be released on parole, or if he is not fitted for release, he shall continue serving his sentence until the
end of the MAXIMUM. It is the fixing of the MINIMUM and MAXIMUM terms which generates a lot
of confusion and is the constant source of error of some judges.
There is not much difficulty in ascertaining the indeterminate sentence if the crime is a violation of
a special lawbecause in such a case, the I. S. Law merely requires that the MAXIMUM term thereof shall not
exceed the maximum fixed by the special law while the MINIMUM shall not be less than the minimum prescribed
therein. Accordingly, if a special law imposes a penalty of three (3) to nine (9) years of imprisonment, the
MINIMUM of the indeterminate sentence cannot be less than 3 years while the MAXIMUM thereof cannot
be more than 9 years. Hence, the indeterminate sentence may be decreed as 3-9 years, 3 years & 9 months - 7
years & 8 months, 3-4 years, 3-5 years, 5-8 years, 8-9 years, etc., depending on the sound discretion of the
judge.
However, it should be stressed that the reference to special law in this regard refer to those which provide
for one specific penalty or a range of penalties with definitive durations, such as imprisonment for eight years or
for one year to five years but without division into periods or any technical statutory cognomen. Where the penalty
in the special law adopts the technical nomenclature and signification of the penalties under the Revised Penal
Code (RPC), such as prision mayor, prision correccional maximum, etc., the ascertainment of the
indeterminate sentence will be based on the rule intended for those crimes punishable under the RPC.
The rule for ascertaining the indeterminate sentence for crimes punishable under the RPC is much arcane
and complicated than the rule applied in those crimes punishable under a special law. In crimes punishable under the
RPC, the indeterminate sentence is arrived at by determining the MAXIMUM term, which, in view of the attending
circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the RPC, and the MINIMUM term, which shall
be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the RPC for the offense.
Prior to the effectivity of the I. S. Law, prison sentences were imposed and fixed as a straight penalty
exactly as provided for under the RPC, modified only by the applicable rules therein, to wit: Articles 46, 48, 50 to
57, 61, 62, 64, 65, 68, 69, and 71. The MAXIMUM term of the indeterminate sentence is determined exactly in that
manner as if the Indeterminate Sentence Law had never been enacted.Thus, same rules and provisions (except par. 5
of Art. 62) must be taken into account in determining the MAXIMUM term of the indeterminate penalty. In
determining the MAXIMUM of the indeterminate sentence, the following questions may be asked by way of a guide
or checklist: (a) What is the imposable penalty for the crime?, (b) Is the convicted felon a principal, accessory or
accomplice?, (c) Was the crime consummated, frustrated or attempted?, (d) Is the crime committed a complex
crime?, (e) Is the commission of the crime attended by any mitigating or aggravating circumstances?, (f) Is the
penalty for the crime indivisible or composed of three periods, i.e. minimum, medium and maximum periods?, and
(g) Is the accused entitled to a privilege mitigating circumstance?
For instance, if a person is convicted as a principal in the crime of homicide, the imposable penalty under
Art. 249 of the RPC is reclusion temporal, a divisible penalty. In the absence of any mitigating or aggravating
circumstance, the MAXIMUM of the indeterminate penalty will be taken anywhere within the range of reclusion
temporal medium, i.e. from 14 years, 8 months and 1 day to 17 years and 4 months. The emphasis is on the
phrase within the range which means that anywhere within that period may be fixed the MAXIMUM term of the
indeterminate sentence. Thus, the judge, at his sound discretion, may fix it at 14 years, 10 months and 26 days,
17 years, 2 months and 6 days, 16 years, etc.
A greater difficulty in fixing the MAXIMUM term of the indeterminate penalty arises where the range of
the penalty provided for in the RPC is composed of only two periods. For example, in the crime ofestafa under
Article 315 of the RPC, the imposable penalty is prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum. In such
case, the total number of years included in the two periods should be divided into three equal periods of time,
forming one period for each of the three portions. Thus: minimum period 4yrs., 2mos. & 1day to 5yrs., 5mos. &
10days; medium period 5yrs., 5mos. & 11daysto 6yrs., 8mos. & 20days; and maximum period 6yrs., 8mos. &
21days to 8yrs.
In determining the MINIMUM term of the indeterminate sentence, the I. S. Law mandates that the same be
within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the RPC for the offense. In this regard, wide latitude
of discretion is given to the courts to fix the MINIMUM of the indeterminate penalty anywhere within the range of
the penalty next lower, without regard to any modifying circumstances and without reference to the periods into
which it may be subdivided. In the previous example involving the crime of homicide, the imposable penalty
is reclusion temporal. The penalty next lower would therefore be prision mayor. Within the range of prision
mayor, the court may fix the MINIMUM of the indeterminate penalty. Thus, the judge may fix it at 6 years and 1
day, 6 years and 5 months, 8 years, 12 years, etc. While ample discretion is given to courts in fixing the
MINIMUM of the indeterminate sentence, the determination thereof nonetheless presents two aspects: first, the
more or less mechanical determination of the extreme limits of the minimum imprisonment period; and second, the
broad question of the factors and circumstances that should guide the discretion of the court in fixing the minimum
penalty within the ascertained limits.
The common practice has been to fix the MINIMUM of the indeterminate sentence exactly
one degree lower to the MAXIMUM arrived at. Thus, for example, if the MAXIMUM fixed by the court isreclusion
temporal medium, the MINIMUM is usually fixed at prision mayor medium, which is exactly a degree lower. While
the MINIMUM arrived at in that case is technically correct, such nonetheless ignores the theoretical signification of
the phrase penalty next lower under the I. S. Law.
Conscientious adherence to the provisions of the I. S. Law is an indispensable component of a fair and
impartial judgment. For what could be the difference of even only one day in the period of imprisonment of a
convict could mean so much to the precious and cherished liberty of the person.

You might also like