G.R. No. 111568 - People vs. De la Cruz y Baluga

The accused, Jose de Jesus, had been sentenced by the Juzgado de Primera Instancia of Manila in criminal case No. 72531.
He was originally condemned to the penalty of destierro, which commenced on May 20, 1946.

While serving his destierro, the accused unlawfully entered the City of Manila during the months of May and June 1946.
During this unauthorized stay, he committed a robbery, leading to his arrest and subsequent prosecution under criminal case No. 490.

Upon being informed of the querella (complaint) for violating the conditions of his destierro, the accused pleaded guilty.
The Honorable Judge Mamerto Roxas, in his ruling, imposed a sentence of two years, four months, and one day of prision correccional.
In his decision, the judge considered the mitigating circumstance of the accused’s declaration of guilt.

The accused contended that due to the mitigating circumstance of his guilty plea, he was entitled to a sentence corresponding to the lower end of the penalty scale.

He argued for an indeterminate sentence: four months and one day of arrest higher than two years and four months of prision correccional.

The defense further argued that based on the provisions of the Law on Sentencing Indeterminada (as amended by Law No. 4225), an indeterminate sentence should be imposed.
The accused’s assertion was premised on the notion that his penalty should correspond to the minimum degree reduced by his declaration of guilt.

Under Article 157 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for breaking a sentence of destierro is prision correccional in its medium to maximum degrees, ranging from two years, four months, and one day to six years.
The minimum degree of such penalty is defined as spanning from two years, four months, and one day to three years, six months, and twenty days.
Article 64, rule 2 of the Revised Penal Code provides that within the specified degree, the trial court determines the exact duration based on the circumstances of the case.
A reduction to the immediately lower penalty is allowed only when two or more mitigating circumstances exist and no aggravating circumstances are present (Article 64, rule 5).
The Law on Sentencing Indeterminada, as amended by Law No. 4225, explicitly excludes its application to those who escape confinement or break their sentence, applicable in this case as the accused broke his destierro.

Whether the lower court erred in imposing the sentence of two years, four months, and one day of prision correccional despite the mitigating circumstance of the accused’s declaration of guilt.

Whether the accused is entitled to an indeterminate sentence, specifically a reduced penalty based on the mandatory guidelines under the Revised Penal Code and the Law on Sentencing Indeterminada.

Whether the trial court properly applied the provisions of Article 157 and Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code in determining the applicable range and duration of the penalty.

The admissibility of the defense’s contention that the law mandates a reduction immediately below the prescribed penalty range when a mitigating circumstance is present.