INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW

(Act No. 4103, as amended, Dec. 5, 1933)

The purpose of the law is to uplift and redeem valuable human

material and prevent unnecessary and excessive deprivation of
personal liberty and economic usefulness. (People v. Onate, 78
SCRA 43) As a rule, it is intended to favor the accused particularly
to shorten his term of imprisonment, depending upon his behavior
and his physical, mental, and moral record as a prisoner to be
determined by the Board of Indeterminate Sentence.

Indeterminate sentence is a sentence with a minimum term and a

maximum benefit of a guilty person, who is not disqualified
therefore, when the maximum penalty of imprisonment exceeds one
year. It applies to both violations of the RPC and special laws.

COVERAGE:

1. Revised Penal Code

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 Code, and the MINIMUM TERM which
shall be within the range of the penalty next lower in degree to
that prescribed by the Code for the offense.
The maximum is the penalty imposed as provided by law,
depending upon the attending circumstances. The minimum is one
degree next lower to the penalty prescribed for the offense. The
latter is determined without considering the attending circumstances
to the penalty prescribed, and is left to the discretion of the court.
(People v. Yco, 6545, July 27, 1954)

Example: Homicide with one mitigating circumstance. The

maximum penalty prescribed by law is Reclusion temporal. Since
there is one mitigating and no aggravating it will be in the
minimum or reclusion temporal minimum period. On the other
hand, the minimum is one degree next lower to reclusion temporal
without considering the mitigating circumstance and that will be
prision mayor. The range of prision mayor will depend upon the
discretion of the court. Therefore, the indeterminate penalty is a
minimum of prision mayor (within the range fixed by the court) to a
maximum of reclusion temporal minimum period.

2. 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. (Q11, 1994 Bar)

Example: Penalty is one year to 5 years. Indeterminate sentence

may be one year to 3 years or 3 years to 5 years.

This act shall not apply to persons:

1. Convicted of offenses punished with death or life imprisonment.
(Q12, 1990 Bar)

2. Those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit

treason, misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or espionage, or
piracy.

3. Those who are habitual delinquents.

Recidivists are entitled to an indeterminate sentence.
(People v. Jaranilla, 28547, Feb. 22, 1974)

4. Those who shall have escaped from confinement or evaded

sentence.
A minor who escaped from confinement in the reformatory
is entitled to the benefits of the law because confinement is
not considered imprisonment. (People v. Perez, 44 OG 3884)
(Q6, 1991 Bar)
5. Those who having been granted conditional pardon by the
President shall have violated the terms thereof.

6. Those whose maximum period of imprisonment does not exceed

one year. (Q8, 1999 Bar)
The application of which is based upon the penalty actually
imposed in accordance with law. (People v. Hidalgo, 452,
Jan. 22, 1962)

7. Those already serving final judgment upon the approval of this

Act (December 5, 1933).

8. Those sentenced to the penalty of destierro or suspension. (Q12,

1999 Bar)

Whenever any prisoner who shall have served the minimum

penalty imposed on him, said Board of Indeterminate Sentence
may, in its discretion, and in accordance with the rules and
regulations adopted thereunder, authorize the release of such
prisoner on parole. If during the period of surveillance, such
parolee shall show himself to be a law-abiding citizen and shall
not violate any of the laws of the Philippines, the Board may issue a
final certificate of release in his favor. Whenever any prisoner
released on parole shall, during the period of surveillance, violate
any of the conditions of his parole, the Board may issue an order for
his re-arrest and shall serve the remaining unexpired portion of the
maximum sentence.
The application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law is mandatory if
the imprisonment would exceed one year. It would be favorable to
the accused. (People v. Judge German Lee, Jr., 86859, Sept. 12,
1984)
PROBATION LAW
(PD 968, as amended, July 24, 1976)

Probation is a disposition, under which a defendant after conviction

and sentence, is released subject to the conditions imposed by the
Court and to the supervision of a probation officer.

The purpose of the law are:

1. Promote the correction and rehabilitation by providing the
offender with individualized treatment.
2. Provide an opportunity for the reformation of an offender which
might be less probable if he were to serve a prison sentence.
3. Prevent the commission of offenses.

The trial court may, after it shall have convicted and sentenced a
defendant, and upon application by said defendant within the period
for perfecting an appeal, suspend the
execution of the sentence and place the defendant on probatio
n. No application for probation shall be entertained or granted if
the defendant has perfected an appeal from the judgment of
conviction. (PD 1990) In other words, the filing of the application
for probation is considered as a waiver of the right of the accused to
appeal. (Q9, 1992 Bar)
An application for probation shall be filed with the trial court. The
filing of the application shall be deemed a waiver of the right to
appeal. An order granting or denying probation shall not be
appealable. However, an outright denial by the court is a nullity
correctible by certiorari. (De Luna v. Hon. Medina, CA 78 OG
599) An accused must fall within any one of the disqualification in
order to be denied probation. (Balleta v. Leviste, 92 SCRA 719)
(Q13, 1991 Bar)

The disqualified offenders are:

1. Sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more
than 6 years.
A penalty of six years and one day is not entitled to the benefits of
the law. (Q3, 1995 Bar; Q12, 1990 Bar) In Francisco v. CA, 243
SCRA 384, the Supreme Court held that in case of one decision
imposing multiple prison terms, the totality of the prison terms
should not be taken into account for the purposes of determining the
eligibility of the accused for the probation. The law uses the word
“maximum term”, and not total term. It is enough that each of the
prison term does not exceed 6 years. The number of offenses is
immaterial for as long as the penalties imposed, when taken
individually and separately, are within the probationable period.
(Q9, 1997 Bar)

2. Convicted of any crime against the national security (treason,

espionage, piracy, etc.) or the public order (rebellion, sedition,
direct assault, resistance, etc.).
3. Who have been previously convicted by final judgment of an
offense punished by imprisonment of not less than one month
and one day and/or a fine of not less than P 200. (Q2, 1993 Bar)
4. Who have been once on probation.
5. Who are already serving sentence at the time of the effectivity
of the Decree.
Except for the reasons specified by the law, a trial court should not
deny a petition for probation, especially when the probation officer
has favorably recommended the grant of probation.

Even if at the time of conviction the accused was qualified for

probation but at the time of his application for probation, he is no
longer qualified, he is not entitled to probation. The qualification
for probation must be determined as of the time the application is
filed in court. (Bernardo v. Judge Balagot, 86561, Nov. 10, 1992)
Supposing, an accused was convicted of a crime for which he was
sentenced to a maximum sentence of 10 years. While affirming the
judgment of conviction, the appellate court reduced the penalty to a
maximum of 4 years and 4 months taking into consideration certain
modifying circumstances. The accused now applies for
probation. In this case, the accused is not entitled to probation. The
law and jurisprudence are to the effect that appeal by the accused
from a sentence of conviction forfeits his right to probation.
(Bernardo v. Balagot, supra; Francisco v. CA; De la Cruz v. Judge
Callejo) (Q3, 1995 Bar; Q17, 1994 Bar)
The probationer shall:
1. Present himself to the probation officer within 72 hours from
receipt of probation order.

2. Report himself to the probation officer at least once a month

during the period of probation.

The court, after considering the nature and seriousness of the

violations of probation (if any), may issue a warrant for the arrest of
the probationer. He is then brought to the court immediately for
hearing, which is summary. If violation is established, the Court
may revoke or continue the probation and modify the conditions
thereof. If revoked, the probationer shall be ordered to serve the
sentence originally imposed and shall commit the probationer. The
order of the court is not appealable.

A final discharge of probation shall operate to restore to the

probationer all civil rights lost or suspended as a result of the
conviction and to full discharge of his liability for any fine
imposed. Under the Probation Law what is suspended is the
execution of the sentence, while under PD 603, as amended, what is
suspended is the pronouncement of the sentence upon request of the
youthful offender. The suspension of the sentence, however, has no
bearing on the civil liability, which is separate and distinct from the
criminal action. (Budlong v. Apalisok, 22 SCRA 935)

The provisions of the Probation Law should be liberally construed

in order that the objective should be realized and achieved. (Santos
v. Hon. Pano, 55130, Jan. 17, 1983) In probation, the imposition of
the sentence is suspended and likewise its accessory penalties are
likewise suspended. An order placing the defendant on probation is
not a sentence but is rather in effect a suspension of the imposition
of the sentence. It is not a final judgment but is rather an
interlocutory judgment in the nature of the a conditional order
placing the convicted defendant under the supervision of the court
for his reformation. (Baclayon v. Hon. Mutia, 129 SCRA 148)
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. CESAR CONCEPCION
Y BULANIO, G.R. No. 200922, July 18, 2012.

“x x x.

Indeterminate Sentence Law

Section 1 of Act No. 4103 (The Indeterminate Sentence Law)

provides:

[I]n 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 be
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 x x x

xxxx

This Act shall not apply to persons convicted of offenses punished

with death penalty or life-imprisonment; to those convicted of
treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason; to those
convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or espionage;
to those convicted of piracy; to those who are habitual delinquents;
to those who have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence; to
those who having been granted conditional pardon by the Chief
Executive shall have violated the terms thereof; to those whose
maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year, not to
those already sentenced by final judgment at the time of approval of
this Act, except as provided in Section 5 hereof.

Since Concepcion is guilty of the crime of theft of property valued

at P3,000, the penalty shall be the maximum period imposed by the
RPC due to the presence of the generic aggravating circumstance of
use of a motor vehicle in the commission of the crime. The
maximum penalty to be imposed upon Concepcion is prision
correccional in its medium period. However, applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum period of Concepcion’s
penalty shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that
prescribed by the RPC for the offense, which is arresto mayor in its
maximum period. For this reason, we impose upon Concepcion the
penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period, which is 6 months,
to prision correccional in its medium period, which is 4 years and 2
months.

X x x.”