Scribd
Upload
381 views2 pages

Indeterminate Sentence Law in Illegal Recruitment Case

The petitioner Delia Romero was found guilty of illegal recruitment by the trial court for convincing two individuals, Romulo Padlan and Arturo Siapno, to obtain loans in order to pay her fees to work abroad, but without proper documentation. The trial court sentenced Delia Romero to 8 years imprisonment and a fine of 100,000 pesos. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. However, the Supreme Court found that the penalty imposed was inappropriate because the trial court did not follow the Indeterminate Sentence Law, which requires offenses under special laws to have a penalty range with a minimum of 4 years and maximum of 8 years imprisonment.

Uploaded by

Emman Fernandez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
381 views2 pages

Indeterminate Sentence Law in Illegal Recruitment Case

The petitioner Delia Romero was found guilty of illegal recruitment by the trial court for convincing two individuals, Romulo Padlan and Arturo Siapno, to obtain loans in order to pay her fees to work abroad, but without proper documentation. The trial court sentenced Delia Romero to 8 years imprisonment and a fine of 100,000 pesos. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. However, the Supreme Court found that the penalty imposed was inappropriate because the trial court did not follow the Indeterminate Sentence Law, which requires offenses under special laws to have a penalty range with a minimum of 4 years and maximum of 8 years imprisonment.

Uploaded by

Emman Fernandez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

EMMANUEL P.

FERNANDEZ
SPL CASE DIGEST 1.

Delia D. Romero vs. People, GR No. 171644, Nov. 23, 2011

The Indeterminate Sentence Law provides that if, the offense is punished by a law other than
the Revised Penal Code, 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.

FACTS:

Private respondent Romulo Padlan went to petitioner Delia to inquire a job abroad. he was later
convinced by petitions words of encouragement. Respondent Romulo asked the petitioner the
amount required to be able to go to Israel, he was later informed that the amount needed is
worth 3,600 US dollars and must be given as soon as possible to to immediately processed the
applications. To procure such amount, private respondent secured a loan from the bank and
borrowed money from his friends. Romulo gave the money to Petitioner.

Romulo was able to leave the country but unfortunately after two and a half months he was
deported because he has no working visa. Romulo demanded from Petitioner Delia of his
money but the latter refused and failed to do so.Same thing happened to private respondent,
Arturo Siapno.

an Information was filed against petitioner for the crime of Illegal Recruitment. To which the
petitioner pleaded not guilty.

The RTC found petitioner guilty as charged. The pertinent points of discussion of this case
lies when the Court finds accused Delia Romero guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Illegal Recruitment sentences Delia Romero to suffer the penalty of Eight (8) Years and a fine of
₱100,000.00.

On appeal, the CA affirmed in toto the decision of the RTC.

ISSUE:
Whether the penalty imposed by the RTC considered as inappropriate.

HELD
With regard to the penalty imposed by the RTC and affirmed by the CA, the Court finds it to be
inappropriate.

Clearly, the trial court, by imposing a straight penalty, disregarded the application of the
Indeterminate Sentence Law.18 In Argoncillo v. Court of Appeals, wherein the Court ruled that
the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law is mandatory to both the Revised Penal
Code and the special laws, and in the same ruling, this Court summarized the application and
non-application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The Indeterminate Sentence Law provides
that if, the offense is punished by a law other than the Revised Penal Code, 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. The imposable penalty is imprisonment of not less than four (4)
years but not more than eight (8) years; hence, the proper penalty imposed should be within the
range of four (4) years to eight (8) years. Thus, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the
Court can impose the minimum and maximum terms of the penalty of imprisonment within the
range of four (4) years to eight (8) years.

You might also like