This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-12-08 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| To recall, the amounts involved in Pantaleon, Jr. were manifestly in excess of P22,000.00. We opined that the Sandiganbayan correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua and that the ISL is inapplicable since it is an indivisible penalty. The Court's pronouncement is consistent with the earlier cases of People v. Conwi, Jr.,[16] People v. Enfermo,[17] and People v. Pajaro, et al.[18] as well as with the fairly recent case of Zafra v. People.[19] | |||||
|
2015-06-17 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Conformably with the instructions on the proper application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law in malversation reiterated in Zafra v. People:[17] (a) the penalties provided under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code constitute degrees; and (b) considering that the penalties provided under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code are not composed of three periods, the time included in the prescribed penalty should be divided into three equal portions, each portion forming a period, pursuant to Article 65 of the Revised Penal Code.[18] With the amount of P37,876.98 ultimately found and declared by the CA to have been misappropriated exceeding the P22,000.00 threshold, the imposable penalty is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua (that is, 17 years, four months and one day to reclusion perpetua), the minimum period of which is 17 years, four months and one to 18 years and eight months, the medium period of which is 18 years, eight months and one day to 20 years, and the maximum period is reclusion perpetua. | |||||