ADMINISTRATIVE
CIRCULAR NO. 6-92
TO:
THE
PRESIDING JUDGES OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS
SUBJECT:
CORRECT APPLICATION OF THE PENALTY OF RECLUSION PERPETUA.
The Court
has observed
that in judgments of conviction for such serious offenses as Murder,
Robbery
with Homicide and Rape with Homicide under the Revised Penal Code and
violation
of Section 4, Art. II, R. A. 6425, as amended by P. D. 1675 [Dangerous
Drugs Act], some trial judges erroneously impose the penalty of life
imprisonment
rather than reclusion perpetua under the Revised Penal Code.
In People
vs.
Baguio, April 30, 1991 [196 SCRA 459], the Court emphasized that reclusion
perpetua is not the same as life imprisonment, as "the Code
[Revised Penal Code] does not prescribe the penalty of life
imprisonment
for any of the felonies therein defined, the penalty being invariably
imposed
for serious offenses penalized not by the Revised Penal Code but by
special
laws. Reclusion perpetua entails imprisonment for at least
thirty
[30] years after which the convict becomes eligible for pardon. It also
carries with it accessory penalties, namely: perpetual special
disqualification,
etc. It is not the same as "life imprisonment" which, for one
thing,
does not carry with it any accessory penalty, and for another, does not
appear to have any definite extent or duration.
For the
guidance
of all concerned, the reiteration and admonition by the Court on the
same
subject in People vs. Penillos, 205 SCRA 546, January 30, 1992,
are reproduced hereunder:
"As noted
from
the dispositive portion of the challenged decision, the trial court
imposed
the penalty of reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.
Evidently,
it considered the latter as the English translation of the former,
which
is not the case. Both are different and distinct penalties. In the
recent
case of People vs. Baguio, this Court held:
"The Code
does
not prescribe the penalty of life imprisonment for any of the felonies
therein defined, that penalty being invariably imposed for serious
offenses
penalized not by the Revised Penal Code but by special laws, Reclusion
perpetua entails imprisonment for at least thirty [30] years after
which, the convict becomes eligible for pardon. It also carries with it
accessory penalty, namely: perpetual special disqualification on, etc.
It is not the same as ‘life imprisonment’ which, for one thing,
does not carry with it any accessory penalty, and for another, does not
appear to have any definite extent or duration.
"As early as
1948, in People vs. Mobe, reiterated in People vs. Pilones
and in
the concurring opinion of Justice Ramon Aquino in People vs. Sumadic,
this Court already made it clear that reclusion perpetua is not
the same as imprisonment for life or life imprisonment. Every Judge
should take note of the distinction and this Court expects that
henceforth,
no trial judge should mistake one for the other." (Italics
supplied).
Strict
compliance with
this Administrative Circular is hereby enjoined.
October 8,
1992.
[Sgd.]
ANDRES
R. NARVASA
Chief
Justice
|
