ISLAW

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 law because 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.