G.R. No. L-7616 May 10, 1955 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, VICTORIO HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant

G.R. No.
L-7616 May 10, 1955
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
VICTORIO HERNANDEZ, defendant-appellant.
Assistant Solicitor General Francisco Carreon and Solicitor Juan T. Alano for appellee. Arsenio San
Pascual for appellant.
BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:
Victorio Hernandez, driver of a truck, was charged with homicide through reckless imprudence in the
Court of First Instance of Cavite for having run over and killed a child seven years old. At the trial, he
pleaded guilty to the charge, and, having been allowed to prove the mitigating circumstance of
voluntary surrender, the trial court sentenced him to suffer one year of prision correccional and to
pay the costs. No pronouncement was made as to his civil liability because of the reservation made
by the private prosecutor. Notwithstanding his plea of guilty, the defendant appealed from the
decision, and the case was certified to this court because the question raised is one purely of law.
The only error assigned by appellant is that the trial court failed to appreciate in his favor the benefits
of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. He claims that considering the presence of two mitigating
circumstances the imposable penalty should be arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision
correccional in its minimum period, the duration of which is 4 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4
months. This, he says, should be further divided into three periods, the medium of which is 1 year
and 1 day to 1 year and 8 months of prision correccional, which should be the one to be considered
because of lack of additional qualifying circumstance. And the penalty next lower, following the
provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, is arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods,
the minimum of which is 1 month and 1 day to 2 months of arresto mayor. The penalty that should
therefore be imposed upon appellant if we are to consider the Indeterminate Sentence Law is one
the minimum of which is 1 month and 1 day to 2 months of arresto mayor and the maximum of 1
year and 1 day to 1 year and 8 months of prision correccional. However, the trial court in convicting
the appellant chose to overlook the Indeterminate Sentence Law and merely imposed upon him a
straight penalty of 1 year of prision correccional which he believes is unfair considering the
circumstances of this case.
We disagree with this contention of appellant. The crime charged comes under paragraph 6 of
Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code which prescribes a penalty of prision correccional in its
minimum and medium periods. Notwithstanding the provisions of Republic Act No. 384 to the effect
that in the imposition of the penalties prescribed by said Article 365, the court may exercise its
discretion without regard to the rules prescribed in Article 64 (relative to the presence of mitigating
and aggravating circumstances), the trial court in the instant case reduced the penalty by one
degree because of the presence of two mitigating circumstances, which reduced penalty is arresto
mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period, the duration of which is 4
months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months. The straight penalty of 1 year imprisonment imposed by
the trial court is therefore within the range provided for by the law.
It is true that the trial court would have imposed an imprisonment the minimum of which should be
not less than 1 month and 1 day but not greater than 4 months, and the maximum not less than 4
months and 1 day nor greater than 2 years and 4 months, if it has chosen to apply the provisions of
the Indeterminate Sentence Law, but having made use of its discretion without reference to the
technical subdivision of the period within the range of the penalty provided for by law by applying a
straight penalty of 1 year imprisonment (People vs. Ducosin, 59 Phil., 109), we believe that
appellant cannot now invoke the benefits of said law because the same does not apply when the
maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed 1 year (Section 2, Act No. 4103). It has been held
that "The application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law is based upon the penalty actually imposed
in accordance with law and not upon that which may be imposed in the discretion of the court."
(People vs. Dimalanta, 92 Phil., 239.)
As no error had been committed by the trial court, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs
against appellant.
Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., JJ., concur.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

G.R. No. L-7616 May 10, 1955 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, VICTORIO HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. L-7616 May 10, 1955 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, VICTORIO HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

G.R. No. L-7616 May 10, 1955 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, VICTORIO HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

L-7616 May 10, 1955

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

You might also like