Page 1

Crash Course on
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW
By: Atty. Ronel U. Buenaventura

(1) Ieuan is convicted of homicide, which, under the Revised Penal Code, is punishable by reclusion temporal. What is
the first step in imposing the proper penalty?

The first step in imposing the proper penalty is to consider the provisions of Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISLAW). Section
1 of the ISLAW provides that, in imposing sentence for offense punished by the Revised Penal Code (RPC), the court shall sentence
the accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances,
could be properly imposed under the rules of the RPC, and the minimum which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower
to that prescribed by the RPC for the offense.

Section 1 speaks of two terms of the indeterminate sentence: (a) maximum term – the term which, in view of the attending
circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the RPC; and (b) minimum term – the term which shall be within the
range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the RPC for the offense.

(2) How is the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence determined?

The maximum term of the indeterminate sentence is determined by applying the rules under the RPC taking into consideration
the attending circumstances. Hence the phrase: “xxx the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending
circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the said Code [RPC] xxx”.

Attending circumstances refer to the aggravating, mitigating, alternative, and other circumstances that may alter or affect the
imposition of penalties.

In the example given, Ieuan is convicted of homicide, punishable by reclusion temporal. There is no aggravating, mitigating,
alternative, and other circumstance that may alter or affect the imposition of penalties. Since reclusion temporal is a divisible
penalty, having three periods (minimum, medium, and maximum), we refer to Article 64(1), RPC, as the applicable rule under the
RPC. The said article provides that, in cases in which the penalties prescribed by law contain three periods, when there is neither
aggravating nor mitigating circumstance, the penalty to be imposed is that prescribed by law in its medium period.

Hence, the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence is to be taken from the range of reclusion temporal in its medium
period, e.g., 16 years.

Note: The penalty prescribed by the RPC for a felony is a degree. Each of the three equal parts of a divisible penalty – minimum,
medium, and maximum – is a period.

(3) How is the minimum term of the indeterminate sentence determined?

The minimum term of the indeterminate sentence is determined by considering what is within the range of the penalty next
lower to that prescribed by the RPC for the offense. Hence the phrase: “xxx the minimum which shall be within the range of the
penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code [RPC] for the offense xxx”. As will be discussed later on, the better rule in
determining the minimum term of the indeterminate sentence is to first determine the maximum term, and whatever the penalty
next lower to that is the minimum term in any of its range [see Note on Number 9].

In the example given, the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence is reclusion temporal in its medium period. The penalty
next lower to reclusion temporal is prision mayor.

Hence, the minimum term of the indeterminate sentence is to be taken from the range of prision mayor in any of its range, e.g.,
10 years.

(4) In the example given, what is the proper penalty to be imposed to Ieuan?

The proper penalty to be imposed to Ieuan is an indeterminate sentence of reclusion temporal in its medium period, as
maximum, and prision mayor in any of its range, as minimum.

Crash Course on ISLAW (v.2022)

 Page 2

(5) In practice, what is the actual penalty to be imposed to Ieuan?

Now, the proper penalty is not really the actual penalty imposed by the judges in their decisions. The judge is given the
discretion to choose within the proper penalty – in both the maximum and minimum terms of the indeterminate sentence – the
specific period of time which a convict will serve prison sentence.

The medium period of reclusion temporal has duration of 14 years, 8 months and 1 day to 17 yrs and 4 months. Hence, the
judge can choose any of the specific number of years, months, and days as the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence as long
as it is within this duration of said penalty. For purpose of this example, let us choose, 15 years, 11 months, and 20 days of reclusion
temporal in its medium period.

As to minimum term of the indeterminate sentence, the phrase [w]ithin the range means that the actual minimum term of the
indeterminate sentence is within the discretion of the judge to decide for as long as it is within the duration of the minimum term
penalty. The prision mayor ranges from 6 years and 1 day to 12 years. Hence, the judge can choose any specific number of years,
months, and days as the minimum term as long as it is within this range. For purpose of this example, let us choose, 10 years, 2
months, and 2 days of prision mayor.

If we are the judge, the actual penalty we are to impose is an indeterminate sentence of 15 years, 11 months, and 20 days of
reclusion temporal in its medium period, as maximum, and 10 years, 2 months, and 2 days of prision mayor, as minimum.

For purposes of answering the bar examination, however, there is no need to impose an actual penalty; the proper
penalty suffices, e.g., an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which is to be taken from within the range of reclusion
temporal in its medium period, and the minimum term of which is to be taken from within the range of prision mayor in its full
extent. Thus, there is no need to memorize the duration of penalties in their minimum, medium, and maximum period. This number
(6) is only shown for a complete understanding of how ISLAW works.

(6) Does the ISLAW apply to offenses punished by special laws?

Yes. Section 1 of the ISLAW provides that if the offense is punished by any other law – meaning, special 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.

For instance, Ieuan is convicted of violation of Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act – a special law, punishable by
imprisonment of not less than three (3) years but not more than seven (7) years.

The maximum term of the indeterminate sentence shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law. Hence, in this case, the
judge can choose as maximum term of the indeterminate sentence any specific number of years, months, and days as long as it does
not exceed seven (7) years. For purpose of this example, let us choose 6 years, 6 months, and 6 days.

The minimum term of the indeterminate sentence shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same. Hence, in
this case, the judge can choose as minimum term of the indeterminate sentence any specific number of years, months, and days, as
long as it is not less than three (3) years. For purpose of this example, let us choose 3 years, 3 months, and 3 days.

Hence, the proper penalty to be imposed is an indeterminate sentence of 6 years, 6 months, and 6 days, as maximum, and 3
years, 3 months, and 3 days, as minimum.

(7) What is a straight penalty?

A straight penalty is the penalty imposed where the indeterminate sentence under the ISLAW is inapplicable. Section 2 of the
ISLAW provides that it does not apply to persons (a) punished with death penalty or life imprisonment; (b) convicted of treason,
conspiracy or proposal to commit treason, misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition, espionage, piracy; (c) who are habitual
delinquents; (d) who shall have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence; (e) who violated the terms of conditional pardon
granted by the President; (f) whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year; and (g) who, upon approval of law,
had been sentenced by final judgment. ISLAW does not also apply where the penalty is not imprisonment, such as destierro, as
Section 1 states that indeterminate sentence is applied only in imposing a prison sentence.

A Crash Course on Computation of Penalties and Probation (v.2018)

 Page 3

For instance, Ieuan is convicted of alarms and scandals, punishable by arresto menor. Arresto menor has a period of 1 day to
30 days. Since arresto menor does not exceed one year, ISLAW does not apply. Hence, there being neither aggravating nor
mitigating circumstance, the proper penalty is a straight penalty of arresto menor in its medium period (wherein the judge can
choose a specific number of days from 11 to 20 days, the duration of arresto menor in its medium period).

(8) Summarize the rules on ISLAW.

First, in imposing a sentence, whether under the RPC or special laws, ISLAW applies, except otherwise provided. When
ISLAW does not apply, a straight penalty – not an indeterminate penalty – is imposed.

Second, an indeterminate sentence consists of a maximum term and a minimum term. The maximum term of the indeterminate
sentence is determined by applying the rules under the RPC taking into consideration the attending circumstances. The minimum
term is whatever the penalty next lower to the maximum term, in any of its range.

(9) Explain the rules on mitigating circumstances in relation to penalties.

There is no problem in determining the minimum term of the indeterminate sentence since it will always be the penalty next
lower to the maximum term. The problem lies in determining the maximum term as it requires the application of rules on penalties
under the RPC. Let us take for instance the appreciation of mitigating circumstances.

As a rule, mitigating circumstances generally lower the imposable penalty. Mitigating circumstances are either ordinary or
privileged mitigating circumstances. Ordinary mitigating circumstances lower the imposable penalty by one period and can be
offset by an aggravating circumstance. These are generally provided in Article 13, RPC. Privileged mitigating circumstances lower
the imposable penalty by one degree and cannot be offset by an aggravating circumstance. These can be found in Articles 68 and
69, RPC. Note that, as provided under Article 69, RPC, in case of incomplete justifying or exempting circumstances where the
majority of the conditions are present, the imposable penalty may be lowered by two (2) degrees.

(a) Take this example: Ieuan is convicted of homicide, punishable by reclusion temporal. He has one ordinary mitigating
circumstance.

Ordinarily, if there is neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstance, the penalty to be imposed is that prescribed by law in
its medium period [see Number 2]. Since there is one mitigating circumstance, the penalty is to be lowered by one period.

Hence, the penalty to be imposed is reclusion temporal in its minimum period, which is the maximum term of the
indeterminate sentence. Applying the ISLAW, the penalty to be imposed is an indeterminate sentence of reclusion temporal in its
minimum period, as maximum, and prision mayor in any of its range, as minimum.

(b) In the same example, if Ieuan is entitled to two ordinary mitigating circumstances and there is no aggravating
circumstance, the penalty will be reduced by one degree pursuant to Article 64(5), RPC. Article 64(5) provides that
when there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstance are present, the penalty to be
imposed is the penalty next lower to that prescribed by law.

Hence, the penalty to be imposed is prision mayor in its medium period, which is the maximum term of the indeterminate
sentence. Applying the ISLAW, the penalty to be imposed is an indeterminate sentence of prision mayor in its medium period, as
maximum, and prision correcional in any of its range, as minimum.

(c) In the same example, if Ieuan is entitled to one privileged mitigating circumstance, the penalty will be reduced by one
degree [see Articles 68 and 69].

Hence, the penalty to be imposed is prision mayor in its medium period, which is the maximum term of the indeterminate
sentence. Applying the ISLAW, the penalty to be imposed is an indeterminate sentence of prision mayor in its medium period, as
maximum, and prision correcional in any of its range, as minimum.

(d) In the same example, if Ieuan is entitled to one privileged mitigating circumstance and one ordinary mitigating
circumstance, the penalty will be reduced by one degree, and by one period.

Hence, the penalty to be imposed is prision mayor in its minimum period, which is the maximum term of the indeterminate
sentence. Applying the ISLAW, the penalty to be imposed is an indeterminate sentence of prision mayor in its minimum period, as
maximum, and prision correcional in any of its range, as minimum.

Crash Course on ISLAW (v.2022)

 Page 4

(e) In the same example, if Ieuan is entitled to one privileged mitigating circumstance and two ordinary mitigating
circumstances, the penalty will be reduced by two degrees.

Hence, the penalty to be imposed is prision correccional in its medium period, which is the maximum term of the indeterminate
sentence. Applying the ISLAW, the penalty to be imposed is an indeterminate sentence of prision correccional in its medium period,
as maximum, and arresto mayor in any of its range, as minimum.

(f) Finally, in the same example, if Ieuan is entitled to two privileged mitigating circumstances and two ordinary
mitigating circumstances, the penalty will be reduced by three degrees.

Hence, the penalty to be imposed is a straight penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period. ISLAW does not apply since
arresto mayor, having a duration of one month and one day to six months, does not exceed one year [see Number 7].

Note: In Number 3, it was mentioned that the better rule in determining the minimum term of the indeterminate sentence is
to first determine the maximum term, and whatever the penalty next lower to that is the minimum term in any of its range. This is
to avoid a conflict in strictly following the ISLAW in the determination of the minimum term. Under ISLAW, the minimum term
of the indeterminate sentence is determined by considering what is within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by
the RPC for the offense. If strictly followed, it may happen that the maximum term is lowered by several degrees due to presence
of mitigating circumstances, yet the minimum term is only the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the RPC. Say in example
(e), the maximum term is determined to be prision correccional in its medium period. If ISLAW is strictly followed, the minimum
term would be prision mayor, the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the RPC for the offense of homicide. It is illogical if the
maximum term of the indeterminate sentence is lower to that of its minimum term.

(10) Explain the rules on aggravating circumstances in relation to penalties.

As a rule, aggravating circumstances increase the imposable penalty, but not to exceed the maximum penalty provided by
law. An aggravating circumstance can either be: (a) generic – those that apply to all crimes; (b) specific – those that apply only to
particular crimes; (c) qualifying – those that change the nature of the crime; (d) inherent – those that must of necessity accompany
the commission of the crime; and (e) special – those that increases the imposable penalty, regardless of the presence of mitigating
circumstances.

For purposes of computation of penalties, we shall only consider the generic (specific included therein) and special
aggravating circumstances. Under Article 62(1) and (2), because they are included in defining the crime or of must necessity
accompany the commission of the crime, qualifying and inherent aggravating circumstances are no longer taken into account for
purposes of increasing the penalty. An example of qualifying aggravating circumstance is treachery in homicide, changing the
nature of the crime into murder. An example of inherent aggravating circumstance is evident premeditation in the crime of robbery.
In this cases, the qualifying and inherent aggravating circumstances will no longer be used to increase the penalty.

Generic aggravating circumstances increase the imposable penalty by one period and can be offset by a mitigating
circumstance. These are generally provided in Article 14, RPC. Special aggravating circumstances increase the imposable penalty
by one degree, and cannot be offset by a mitigating circumstance. These can be found in different provisions of law, e.g. advantage
taken by offender in public position (Article 62[1][a], RPC).

(a) Take this example: Ieuan is convicted of homicide, punishable by reclusion temporal. He has one generic aggravating
circumstance.

Again, if there is neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstance, the penalty to be imposed is that prescribed by law in its
medium period [see Number 2]. Since there is one generic aggravating circumstance, the penalty is increased by one period.

Hence, the penalty to be imposed is reclusion temporal in its maximum period, which is the maximum term of the
indeterminate sentence. Applying the ISLAW, the penalty to be imposed is an indeterminate sentence of reclusion temporal in its
maximum period, as maximum, and prision mayor in any of its range, as minimum.

(b) In the same example, if Ieuan has two generic aggravating circumstances and there is no mitigating circumstance, the
penalty is still increased by one period. Unlike in the case of mitigating circumstances where two or more mitigating
circumstances will lower the penalty by one degree, the presence of two or more generic aggravating circumstances
and no mitigating circumstance will not increase penalty by one degree, only by one period. Aggravating
circumstances, whatever the kind, cannot exceed the maximum penalty provided by law, which in this case is reclusion
temporal.

A Crash Course on Computation of Penalties and Probation (v.2018)

 Page 5

Hence, the penalty to be imposed is reclusion temporal in its maximum period, which is the maximum term of the
indeterminate sentence. Applying the ISLAW, the penalty to be imposed is an indeterminate sentence of reclusion temporal in its
maximum period, as maximum, and prision mayor in any of its range, as minimum.

(c) In the same example, if Ieuan has one special aggravating circumstance, the penalty is increased by one period.

Hence, the penalty to be imposed is reclusion temporal in its maximum period, which is the maximum term of the
indeterminate sentence. Applying the ISLAW, the penalty to be imposed is an indeterminate sentence of reclusion temporal in its
maximum period, as maximum, and prision mayor in any of its range, as minimum.

This is true no matter how many special aggravating circumstances or generic aggravating circumstances, or both, are attendant
in the commission of the crime.

(d) In the same example, if Ieuan is entitled to one ordinary mitigating circumstance and has one generic aggravating
circumstance, one shall offset the other pursuant to Article 64(4). In this case, offsetting one ordinary mitigating
circumstance against one generic aggravating circumstance will leave the penalty to be imposed in its medium period.

Hence, the penalty to be imposed is reclusion temporal in its medium period, which is the maximum term of the indeterminate
sentence. Applying the ISLAW, the penalty to be imposed is an indeterminate sentence of reclusion temporal in its medium period,
as maximum, and prision mayor in any of its range, as minimum.

(e) In the same example, if Ieuan is entitled to three ordinary mitigating circumstances and has one generic aggravating
circumstance, one ordinary mitigating circumstance shall offset the lone generic aggravating circumstance, leaving
two ordinary mitigating circumstances. These two ordinary mitigating circumstances, however, will not lower the
penalty by one degree, only by one period. Article 64(5) provides that when there are two or more mitigating
circumstances and no aggravating circumstance are present, the penalty to be imposed is the penalty next lower to
that prescribed by law. Since there is one aggravating circumstance, although offset already, this provision will not
apply.

Hence, the penalty to be imposed is reclusion temporal in its minimum period, which is the maximum term of the indeterminate
sentence. Applying the ISLAW, the penalty to be imposed is an indeterminate sentence of reclusion temporal in its minimum
period, as maximum, and prision mayor in any of its range, as minimum.

(f) In the same example, if Ieuan is entitled to one or more ordinary mitigating circumstances and has one special
aggravating circumstance, the ordinary mitigating circumstance cannot offset the special aggravating circumstance.
The ordinary mitigating circumstances, no matter how many they are, are disregarded and the penalty shall still be
increased by one period.

Hence, the penalty to be imposed is reclusion temporal in its maximum period, which is the maximum term of the
indeterminate sentence. Applying the ISLAW, the penalty to be imposed is an indeterminate sentence of reclusion temporal in its
maximum period, as maximum, and prision mayor in any of its range, as minimum.

(g) In the same example, if Ieuan is entitled to one privileged mitigating circumstance and has one special aggravating
circumstance, the privileged mitigating circumstance will not offset the special aggravating circumstance. The
privilege mitigating circumstance will first lower the penalty by one degree, and, applying the special aggravating
circumstance, the lowered penalty is imposed in its maximum period.

Hence, the penalty to be imposed is prision mayor in its maximum period, which is the maximum term of the indeterminate
sentence. Applying the ISLAW, the penalty to be imposed is an indeterminate sentence of prision mayor in its maximum period,
as maximum, and prision correccional in any of its range, as minimum.

(11) Explain how the stages of execution – attempted, frustrated, and consummated – and degree of participation –
principal, accomplice, and accessory – affect the imposition of penalties.

The stages of execution and degree of participation affect the imposition of penalties by lowering the penalty by one degree.
Consider the following table:

Crash Course on ISLAW (v.2022)

 Page 6

Consummated Frustrated Attempted

Principals 0 1 2
Accomplices 1 2 3
Accessories 2 3 4

“0” represents the penalty prescribed by law in defining the crime, which penalty is imposed on the principal in a
consummated offense. If the crime is frustrated, the penalty is lowered by one degree; if attempted, by two degrees. If the crime is
committed by an accomplice, the penalty is lowered by one degree; if by an accessory, two degrees.

The interplay of stages of execution and degree of participation in relation to penalties is shown in the table. Following the
table, if the crime is frustrated and committed by an accessory, then the penalty prescribed by law must be reduced by three degrees.

For instance, Ieuan is convicted as accomplice in an attempted homicide. Homicide is penalized by reclusion temporal. As
Ieuan is an accomplice in an attempted homicide, the penalty prescribed by law – reclusion temporal – must be reduced by three
degrees, following the table. There being neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstance, the proper penalty to be imposed to
Ieuan is a straight penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period [ISLAW does not apply, see Number 9(f)].

-o0o-

A Crash Course on Computation of Penalties and Probation (v.2018)