Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1980 > December 1980 Decisions > A.M. No. OCA-112 December 19, 1980 - IN RE: JUDGE JOSE G. PAULIN :




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[A.M. No. OCA-112. December 19, 1980.]

IN RE JUDGE JOSE G. PAULIN of Branch III of the Court of First Instance of Surigao del Norte.

SYNOPSIS


The Deputy Court Administrator called the Court’s attention to the decision of Honorable Judge Jose C. Paulin of the Court of First Instance of Surigao del Norte, imposing the penalty of three (3) months and twenty-eight (28) days as minimum to six (6) months as maximum, instead of four months and one day to one year, to Primitivo Betona, convicted of serious physical injuries punishable under article 263 (4) of the Revised Penal Code by arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional minimum with a range of four months and one day to two years and four months.

The Supreme Court finding Judge Paulin’s knowledge of the duration and graduation of penalties and the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law deficient, censured or reprimanded him.


SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; APPLICATION OF PENALTIES; DURATION AND EFFECT; INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW; WHEN NOT APPLICABLE. — The crime of serious physical injuries is punishable under Art. 263 (4) of the Revised Penal Code with the penalty of arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional minimum with a range of four months and one day to two years and four months which is divisible into three periods: minimum period — four months and one day to one year; medium period — one year and one day to one year and eight months, and maximum period — one year, eight months and one day to two years and four months. Where there is one mitigating circumstances, the imposable penalty should be taken from the minimum period whose duration is four months and one day to one year. The penalty cannot be indeterminate because the Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply to convicts whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year. A single or straight penalty has to be imposed.

2. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; SUPREME COURT; SUPERVISION OVER LOWER COURTS; RESPONDENT JUDGE REPRIMANDED OR CENSURED FOR DEFICIENT KNOWLEDGE OF DURATION OF PENALTIES AND APPLICATION OF INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW; CASE AT BAR. — Where respondent judge appreciating in favor of the accused the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty and there being no aggravating circumstances, imposed upon him the penalty of three (3) months and twenty eight (28) days as minimum to six (6) months as maximum in Criminal Case No. 380 for serious physical injuries which is punishable under article 263(4) of the Revised Penal Code by arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional minimum with a range of four months and one day to two years and four months; where in his explanation as to why he imposed that sentence, respondent judge erroneously stated that the penalty provided by article 263(4) is arresto mayor to prision correccional minimum with a range of "six month as minimum to two years and four months as maximum; where he also erred in stating in the last paragraph of his endorsement that the penalty next lower to arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional minimum is "arresto mayor medium and maximum" and where he in his discretion imposed a penalty of six months, which then should be the only imposable penalty but the next lower penalty is not applicable to the case he decided because no indeterminate penalty is called for, respondent judge is censured or reprimanded for his unawareness of or unfamiliarity with, the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law and the duration and graduation of penalties.


D E C I S I O N


AQUINO, J.:


Deputy Court Administrator Leo D. Medialdea called the Court’s attention to the decision of Hon. Judge Jose G. Paulin of the Court of First Instance of Surigao del Norte dated July 31, 1980 in Criminal Case No. 380 wherein he convicted the accused, Primitivo Botona, of serious physical injuries punishable under article 263(4) of the Revised Penal Code by arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional minimum.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

Appreciating in favor of the accused the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty and there being no aggravating circumstances, Judge Paulin imposed upon him the penalty of "three (3) months and twenty-eight (28) days as minimum to six (6) months as maximum" (sic).

In his explanation as to why he imposed that sentence, Judge Paulin erroneously stated that the penalty provided by article 263(4) is arresto mayor to prision correccional minimum with a range of "six months as minimum to two years and four months as maximum" (p. 4 of decision), an error which he repeats in his first indorsement of September 29, 1980.

Judge Paulin’s knowledge of the duration of penalties and the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law is deficient.

The penalty of arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional minimum has a range of four months and one day to two years and four months. That range is divisible into three periods: minimum period —our months and one day to one year; medium period —one year and one day to one year and eight months, and maximum period —one year, eight months and one day to two years and four months.chanrobles law library

Because there is one mitigating circumstance, the imposable penalty should be taken from the minimum period whose duration is four months and one day to one year.

As Judge Paulin in his discretion imposed a penalty of six months, then that should be the only imposable penalty. The penalty cannot be indeterminate because the Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply to convicts whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year.

Judge Paulin also erred in stating in the last paragraph of his indorsement that the penalty next lower to arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional minimum is "arresto mayor medium and maximum." He does not know how to graduate penalties.

The next lower penalty is arresto mayor minimum and medium. That next lower penalty is not applicable to the case decided by him because no indeterminate penalty is called for. And no indeterminate sentence is imposable because the imposable penalty does not exceed one year. A single or straight penalty has to be imposed.

Judge Paulin is censured or reprimanded for his unawareness of, or unfamiliarity with, the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law and the duration and graduation of penalties. A copy of this resolution should be attached to his personal record.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

SO ORDERED.

Barredo (Chairman), Concepcion, Jr., Abad Santos and De Castro, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






December-1980 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 72553 December 2, 1980 - FELICITO R. QUIMPO v. TANODBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39742 December 2, 1980 - AIR MANILA, INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-27733 December 3, 1980 - RENATO RAYMUNDO v. ALBERTO R. DE JOYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30686 December 3, 1980 - MARIANO UMALI v. FLORO CAPLI CRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-38840 December 3, 1980 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PIO B. FERANDOS

  • G.R. Nos. L-44493-94 December 3, 1980 - DIATAGON LABOR FEDERATION LOCAL 110 OF THE ULGWP v. BLAS F. OPLE

  • G.R. Nos. L-26944-45 December 5, 1980 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELADIO GALVEZ, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. OCA-112 December 19, 1980 - IN RE: JUDGE JOSE G. PAULIN

  • A.M. No. 1867 December 19, 1980 - NATIONAL MINES AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION v. ROMEO A. REAL

  • AC-1928 December 19, 1980 - IN RE: MARCIAL A. EDILLION

  • G.R. No. L-23494 December 19, 1980 - ALFREDO CATOLICO v. FLORENCIO DEUDOR

  • G.R. No. L-26993 December 19, 1980 - PRESCIOSO EREVE v. LAZARO ESCAROS

  • G.R. No. L-27469 December 19, 1980 - NATIONAL SUGAR WORKERS UNION v. ARSENIO I. MARTINEZ

  • G.R. No. L-28821 December 19, 1980 - LILIA YUSAY GONZALES v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-34057 December 19, 1980 - TROPICAL HOMES, INC. v. DELFIN FLORES

  • G.R. No. L-34532 December 19, 1980 - PASAY LAW AND CONSCIENCE UNION INC. v. PABLO CUNETA

  • G.R. No. L-40150 December 19, 1980 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESAR OBEDA

  • G.R. No. L-41764 December 19, 1980 - NEW PACIFIC TIMBER & SUPPLY CO. v. ALBERTO V. SENERIS

  • G.R. No. L-41885 December 19, 1980 - NAUTICA SHIPPING AGENCY AND MANAGEMENT CO. v. NATIONAL SEAMEN BOARD

  • G.R. No. L-45517 December 19, 1980 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERMINIGILDO MUÑOZ

  • G.R. No. L-47188 December 19, 1980 - VICTOR NATOR v. JOSE RAMOLETE

  • G.R. No. L-49654 December 19, 1980 - VIRGILIO V. DIONISIO v. VICENTE PATERNO

  • G.R. No. 50241 December 19, 1980 - PASUDECO WORKERS’ UNION OFFICERS v. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. 51809 December 19, 1980 - ABRAHAM RAZON v. AMADO G. INCIONG

  • G.R. No. 52789 December 19, 1980 - ROMEO S. GONZALES v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. 52806 December 19, 1980 - GREGORIO ARANETA UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION v. AMADO G. INCIONG

  • G.R. Nos. 53581-83 December 19, 1980 - MARIANO J. PIMENTEL v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. 54247 December 19, 1980 - REYNALDO A. FABULA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • A.M. No. 100-MJ December 29, 1980 - CANDIDO BULAN v. TEOFILO B. CARDENAS

  • A.C. No. 126 December 29, 1980 - IN RE: ATTY. TRANQUILINO ROVERO

  • A.M. No. P-1343 December 29, 1980 - PABLO GARCIA v. JOSE S. CATBAGAN

  • A.M. No. 2112-CFI December 29, 1980 - JOSE MANGULABNAN v. JOSE TECSON

  • G.R. No. L-23950 December 29, 1980 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. PILAR TANJUATCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-35007 December 29, 1980 - THE CHIEF OF STAFF, AFP v. TEOFILO GUADIZ, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-40872 December 29, 1980 - MELECIA M. MACABUHAY v. JUAN L. MANUEL

  • G.R. No. L-41144 December 29, 1980 - IGNACIO BUENBRAZO v. GERONIMO R. MARAVE

  • G.R. No. L-43203 December 29, 1980 - JOSE CRISTOBAL v. ALEJANDRO MELCHOR

  • G.R. No. L-44597 December 29, 1980 - CORREA A. AJERO v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-46584 December 29, 1980 - NICETAS VDA. DE CASAPAO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.