ADMINISTRATIVE
CIRCULAR NO. 6-A-92
TO:
THE
COURT OF APPEALS, SANDIGANBAYAN AND REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS
SUBJECT:
THE CORRECT APPLICATION OF THE PENALTIES OF RECLUSION PERPETUA
AND
LIFE IMPRISONMENT.
Administrative
Circular
No. 6-92 dated October 12, 1992, is hereby amended to read as follows:chanrobles virtual law library
The Court
has observed
that several trial judges, in their 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, RA 6425, as
amended by P. D. 1675 [Dangerous Drugs Act], fail to appreciate and
observe
the substantial difference between reclusion perpetua under
the
Revised Penal Code and life imprisonment when imposed as a
penalty
by special law.
For the
guidance
of all concerned, the admonition by the Court on the subject in People
vs. Penillos, January 30, 1992 [205 SCRA 546] is reproduced
hereunder:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
"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, [April 30, 1991, 196 SCRA 459], this
Court held:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
‘The Code
(Revised
Penal 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
law. 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.’
"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.
June 21,
1993.
[Sgd.]
ANDRES
R. NARVASA
Chief
Justice
|
