Rigor Vs Superintendent NBP

PROMULGATION Moreover, imposing the maximum penalty of
imprisonment of four years, four months and one day

11. RIGOR vs SUPERINTENDENT NBP of prision correccional is also incorrect as it is outside
FACTS: Petitioner was convicted of illegal sale and the range of the penalty imposable in this case.
possession of shabu. The RTC of Mandaluyong Republic Act No. 7659, which took effect on
convicted the accused of the said crime and imposed December 13, 1993, modified the penalties
upon him a penalty of 6 months and 1 day of arresto prescribed by Republic Act No. 6425. Where the
mayor maximum to 4 years and 4 months and 1 day quantity of prohibited drugs involved is less than 250
of prision correccional and a fine of 5, 000 while in grams, the penalty to be imposed shall be prision
Criminal Case No. MC-99-1236-D: 6months and 1 correccional. Applying further the Indeterminate
day of arresto mayor maximum to 4 years and 1 day Sentence Law, and there being no aggravating or
of prision correccional and a fine of P5,000.00. mitigating circumstances, the penalty imposable is
Petitioner admits that he did not appeal from said reduced to any period within arresto mayor, as
conviction, hence, it became final and executory. As minimum term, to the medium period of prision
of the filing of the petition, Rigor had already served correccional as the maximum term, or an
one year and five months of imprisonment. A further indeterminate sentence of six months of arresto
review of his petition reveals that what petitioner mayor as minimum to prision correccional in its
medium period ranging from two years and four
actually asks for is the reduction of his penalty to only
six months and one day of prision correccional in months and one day to four years and two months, as
maximum. Hence, the penalty of imprisonment in
each of his convictions so that he may be deemed to
have served the maximum penalty in both instances, each of Criminal Case No. MC-99-1235-D and
Criminal Case No. MC-99-1236-D, should have been
and should now be released
from six months of arresto mayor as minimum, to four
ISSUE: Should the Court modify the penalties in years and two months of prision correccional, as
criminal cases nos. MC-99-1235 and MC-99-1236-D maximum. The error of the trial court in the present
by reducing the same to six (6) months and one (1) case can be corrected to make it conform to the
day of prision correccional in each case? penalty prescribed by law as it is within the Courts
duty and inherent power. Thus, the correction to be
RULING: NO. The relief prayed for cannot be granted made by this Court is meant only for the penalty
for the simple reason that the Joint Decision of the imposed against petitioner to be in accordance with
trial court in Criminal Cases Nos. MC-99-1235-D and law and nothing else. It is not tantamount to a
MC-99-1236-D is already final and executory, reduction in order to be favorable to the petitioner nor
petitioner having failed to timely appeal therefrom. an increase so as to be prejudicial to him. Even
Hence, the Court is bereft of any jurisdiction to revise, assuming that the petition seeks that Rep. Act No.
modify or alter the penalties imposed, as prayed for in 7659 be retroactively applied to his benefit, still, he
the present petition. However, the Court noted a cannot be released from detention at this point. As
palpable error apparent in the Joint Decision of the aptly pointed out by the OSG, petitioner first must
trial court that must be rectified in order to avoid its successively serve the penalty of imprisonment
repetition. The trial court erroneously included an imposed on his two convictions up to its maximum
additional one day on the maximum period of arresto term before he can be released. Under Article 70 of
mayor imposed on petitioner, which is incorrect, as it the Revised Penal Code, when an offender has to
is outside the range of said penalty. The duration of serve two or more penalties, he should serve them
arresto mayor is only from one month and one day to simultaneously if the nature of the penalties will so
six months. Adding one day to the maximum penalty permit. Otherwise said penalties shall be executed
will place it within the range of prision correccional.
successively, following the order of their respective
severity, in such case, the second sentence will not
commence to run until the expiration of the first. The
nature of petitioner’s sentences does not allow its
simultaneous service; hence he must serve it
successively. Not only that he must serve it
successively, he must also serve it up to its maximum
term. Petitioner must therefore first serve the penalty
in Crim. Case No. MC-99-1235-D up to its maximum
term, before service of the penalty in Crim. Case No.
MC-99-1236-D also up to its maximum term, or a total
maximum period of eight years and four months.

Rigor Vs Superintendent NBP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rigor Vs Superintendent NBP

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rigor Vs Superintendent NBP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PROMULGATION Moreover, imposing the maximum penalty of

imprisonment of four years, four months and one day

You might also like