BERNARDINO, DONITA

BSCRIM3C

Prof. Daquioag

Quiz#9

1. DISCUSS THE INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW ITS APPLICATION OF

MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM SENTENCE.

Act No. 4103, otherwise known as Indeterminate Sentence Law [ISLAW] is a

Statute which generally favors persons convicted for the commission of a
crime. The ISLAW applies to individuals convicted of crimes under the
Revised Penal Code [RPC] and Special Law.
Indeterminate sentencing and parole spread rapidly through the United States. In 1907, New
York became the first state to formally adopt all the components of a parole system:
indeterminate sentences, a system for granting release, post-release supervision and specific
criteria for parole violation. By 1927, only three states (Florida, Mississippi and Virginia) were
without a parole system, and by 1942, all states and the federal government had such systems
(Clear and Cole 1997).

In imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by the Revised Penal Code, or its
amendments, 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 ba properly
imposed under the rules of the said Code, and the minimum which shall be within the range of
the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense; and 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.

Although the same generally appears to be favorable with those convicted

of crimes, it does not, however, tolerate commission of an offense. In its
application, there are certain exceptions to which this law will not be
applicable, just the same.
Hence, it clearly appears that, even though ISLAW considers that convict
may reform and later become a better person for the society, it does not
forsake the gravity of the crime committed and some other factors which
show that a person is not capable of reformation.

In the determination of the minimum penalty, the law gives the court a
wide discretion. This means that it is all up to the court to decide which
among the periods, from where the minimum penalty will be reckoned,
shall be imposed upon the accused.

In this article, few questions will be answered in connection with the

Indeterminate Sentence Law.

Please bear in mind, incidentally, that: Whenever the Revised Penal Code
provides, prescribes, and imposes a penalty, that in itself is a DEGREE, as
distinguished from a mere PERIOD [minimum, medium, maximum].

determinate Sentence Law works in a sense that it favors the person

convicted of a crime. It limits the highest possible penalty a convict could
suffer, depending, of course, upon the penalty of the crime being
committed. At the same time, it provides a possible lower penalty that a
court may provide based on their discretion.

For instance, in a violation of a special law where the penalty is an

imprisonment of one year and one day to five years. The court can impose
an imprisonment from two years and one day to three years as the
minimum term or three years and one day to five years as the maximum
term.

Maximum

In this situation, the maximum term does not exceed the maximum penalty
prescribed by law and the minimum term is not less than what the law
prescribes.
 For a violation under Revised Penal Code, it is first needed to identify the
penalty for the offense itself. Let us say that the penalty for an offense
committed is reclusion temporal.

Such penalty is divisible in three periods and the maximum period of the
penalty that can be imposed under indeterminate sentence law in the
absence of any aggravating or mitigating circumstances is reclusion
temporal in its medium period.

Minimum

In determining the minimum penalty, it is the penalty one degree lower

from the maximum penalty without considering any mitigating or
aggravating circumstances.

These determinations would of course change when aggravating or

mitigating circumstances attended the commission of the offense.

Purpose of indeterminate sentence law?

Indeterminate sentence law favoring the accused is supported by legal

basis and principles. The first of these is the in dubio pro reo which means
“when in doubt, rule for the accused”.

2. DIFFERENCIATE THE GAYRAMA RULE TO GONZALES RULE

Felix Gayrama was charged in the Court of First Instance of Leyte in two cases
with murder with assault upon agents of persons in authority, the victim in the
former case being policeman Placido Delloro (criminal case No. 8922), and in the
latter chief of police Fernando Corpin (criminal case No. 8923); with frustrated
murder with assault upon an agent of persons in authority in another case
(criminal case No. 8924), and furthermore with serious physical injuries in another
(criminal case No. 8925).

The accused was convicted in all said cases but the trial court declared him guilty
only of homicide with assault upon agents of persons in authority in each of the
former two cases and of slight physical injuries in the latter two. In the latter cases
he was sentenced to pay a fine of P300 and to indemnity Eugenio Nierras in the
sum of P192.70 (case No. 8924), and to two months of arresto mayor (case No.
8925), with costs; and in each of the former cases he was sentenced to sixteen
years of reclusion temporal with the corresponding accessories of the law, and to
indemnify the heirs of each of his victims in the sum of P1,000 also with costs. He
did not appeal from the sentence imposing upon him the penalties of fine and
arresto mayor but appealed from that sentencing him to sixteen years of
reclusion temporal with the accessories of the law plus indemnities in the sum of
P1,000.

2.This is a petition for the writs of certiorari and prohibition to set aside “acts,
issuances, and orders” of respondents Secretary of Justice Raul M. Gonzalez
(respondent Gonzales) and the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC),
particularly an NTC “press release” dated 11 June 2005, warning radio and
television stations against airing taped conversations allegedly between President
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Commissioner
Virgilio Garcillano (Garcillano)1 under pain of suspension or revocation of their
airwave licenses.

The Facts

On 24 June 2004, Congress, acting as national board of canvassers, proclaimed

President Arroyo winner in the 2004 presidential elections.2 President Arroyo
received a total of 12,905,808 votes, 1,123,576 more than the votes of her
nearest rival, Fernando Poe, Jr. Sometime before 6 June 2005, the radio station
dzMM aired the Garci Tapes where the parties to the conversation discussed
“rigging” the results of the 2004 elections to favor President Arroyo. On 6 June
2005, Presidential spokesperson Ignacio Bunye (Bunye) held a press conference in
Malacañang Palace, where he played before the presidential press corps two
compact disc recordings of conversations between a woman and a man. Bunye
identified the woman in both recordings as President Arroyo but claimed that the
contents of the second compact disc had been “spliced” to make it appear that
President Arroyo was talking to Garcillano.

However, on 9 June 2005, Bunye backtracked and stated that the woman’s voice
in the compact discs was not President Arroyo’s after all.3 Meanwhile, other
individuals went public, claiming possession of the genuine copy of the Garci
Tapes.4 Respondent Gonzalez ordered the National Bureau of Investigation to
investigate media organizations which aired the Garci Tapes for possible violation
of Republic Act No. 4200 or the Anti-Wiretapping Law.

On 11 June 2005, the NTC issued a press release warning radio and television
stations that airing the Garci Tapes is a “cause for the suspension, revocation
and/or cancellation of the licenses or authorizations” issued to them.5 On 14 June
2005, NTC officers met with officers of the broadcasters group, Kapisanan ng mga
Broadcasters sa Pilipinas (KBP), to dispel fears of censorship. The NTC and KBP
issued a joint press statement expressing commitment to press freedom.6

On 21 June 2005, petitioner Francisco I. Chavez (petitioner), as citizen, filed this

petition to nullify the “acts, issuances, and orders” of the NTC and respondent
Gonzalez (respondents) on the following grounds: (1) respondents’ conduct
violated freedom of expression and the right of the people to information on
matters of public concern under Section 7, Article III of the Constitution, and (2)
the NTC acted ultra vires when it warned radio and television stations against
airing the Garci Tapes.