On March 4, 1977, the Court required Judge Teofilo Guadiz, Jr., CFI of Nueva Ecija to explain why he should not be held administratively liable for incompetence and/or ignorance of the law for not specifying the minimum and maximum periods of the imprisonment meted out by him in Criminal Case No. 604 under the Indeterminate Sentence Law. In compliance therewith, respondent judge submitted the following explanation:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) Since accused former Judge Froilan Maglaya has been charged and convicted for violation of Sec. 2 of Pres. Decree No. 583 which is not an offense penalized by the Revised Penal Code or its amendments, it is obvious that the last portion of Sec. 1 of the indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable which provides that if the offense is punished by any other law, the Court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum 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.

(2) The penalty imposed is the whole penalty of prision mayor the minimum of which is 6 years and one day and the maximum of which is 12 years.

(3) There is substantial compliance with the last portion of Sec. 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, when the penalty is prision mayor, it being understood that the minimum thereof is not less than six (6) years and one (1) day, and the maximum, not more than 12 years.

The court finds the explanation not satisfactory. The provision of the Indeterminate Sentence Law is very explicit in its applicability even as to offenses punished by special laws not by the Revised Penal Code. Presidential Decree No. 583 is such special penal statute.

The need for specifying the minimum and maximum periods of the indeterminate sentence is to prevent the unnecessary and excessive deprivation of liberty and economic usefulness of the accused, since he may be exempted from serving the entire sentence, depending upon his behavior and his physical, mental and moral record. The requirement of imposing an indeterminate sentence in all criminal offenses, whether punished by the Revised Penal Code or by special laws, with definite minimum and maximum terms, as the Court deems proper within the legal range of the penalty specified by the law must, therefore, be deemed mandatory. Compliance with this requirement should have appeared to respondent judge particularly clear and easy in the case in question, where the penalty is given in the same term as those prescribed for offenses punished under the Revised Penal Code, that of prision mayor, which, like all the other penalties prescribed in said Code, except the indivisible penalties, have minimum and maximum periods for easy determination of the indeterminate sentence to be imposed, in terms of specific number of years, months and days both in its minimum and maximum periods.chanrobles law library

WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Guadiz is hereby ADMONISHED that a repetition of similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely by the Court. Let a copy of this resolution be attached to the personal record of Judge Guadiz.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar, Fernandez, Guerrero and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.



TEEHANKEE, J., (Chairman), concurring:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I concur, adding only the note that our action in this administrative matter against respondent Judge Guadiz should in no way be taken as prejudging the correctness of his judgment of conviction of the accused, former Judge Froilan Maglaya, which is presently pending determination on appeal.