Correct Application of the Penalty of Reclusion Perpetua
Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 06-92 clarifies the distinction between the penalties of reclusion perpetua and life imprisonment in the Philippines. It emphasizes that reclusion perpetua, applicable for serious offenses like murder and rape with homicide, entails a minimum of 30 years of imprisonment with eligibility for pardon thereafter, while life imprisonment does not have a defined duration and lacks accessory penalties. The circular instructs judges to correctly apply the penalty of reclusion perpetua and avoid confusing it with life imprisonment, reiterating the importance of this distinction for the proper administration of justice. Compliance with this directive is mandatory for all trial judges.
Quick Answers
- What is Correct Application of the Penalty of Reclusion Perpetua about?
- Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 06-92 clarifies the distinction between the penalties of reclusion perpetua and life imprisonment in the Philippines. It emphasizes that reclusion perpetua, applicable for serious offenses like murder and rape with homicide, entails a minimum of 30 years of imprisonment with eligibility for pardon thereafter, while life imprisonment does not have a defined duration and lacks accessory penalties. The circular instructs judges to correctly apply the penalty of reclusion perpetua and avoid confusing it with life imprisonment, reiterating the importance of this distinction for the proper administration of justice. Compliance with this directive is mandatory for all trial judges.
- What type of law is Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 06-92?
- Correct Application of the Penalty of Reclusion Perpetua (Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 06-92) is a Philippine Supreme Court Issuances enacted by the Congress of the Philippines.
- When was Correct Application of the Penalty of Reclusion Perpetua enacted?
- Correct Application of the Penalty of Reclusion Perpetua (Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 06-92) was enacted on Oct 8, 1992.
- What is the citation for Correct Application of the Penalty of Reclusion Perpetua?
- Correct Application of the Penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 06-92, Oct 8, 1992 (Philippines)
Law Information
- Reference Number
- Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 06-92
- Date Enacted
- Category
- Supreme Court Issuances
- Subcategory
- Administrative Circulars
- Jurisdiction
- Philippines
- Enacting Body
- Congress of the Philippines
Full Law Text
October 8, 1992
SUPREME COURT ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 06-92
| TO | : | The Presiding Judges of the Regional Trial Courts |
| SUBJECT | : | Correct Application of the Penalty of Reclusion Perpetua |
The Court has observed that in 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), some trial judges erroneously impose the penalty of Life Imprisonment rather than Reclusion Perpetua under the Revised Penal Code. casia
In People vs. Baguio,April 30, 1991 (196 SCRA 459),the Court emphasized that reclusion perpetua is not the same as life imprisonment, as "the Code (Revised Penal Code) does not prescribe the penalty of life imprisonment for any of the felonies therein defined, the penalty being invariably imposed for serious offenses penalized not by the Revised Penal Code but by special laws. 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.
For the guidance of all concerned, the reiteration and admonition by the Court on the same subject in People vs. Penillos,205 SCRA 546, January 30, 1992, are reproduced hereunder:
"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,this Court held: cd
'The 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 laws, 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 on, 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 PP 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." (Emphasis supplied).cdt
Strict compliance with this Administrative Circular is hereby enjoined.
October 8, 1992.
(SGD.) ANDRES R. NARVASAChief Justice
Cite This Law
Correct Application of the Penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 06-92, Oct 8, 1992 (Philippines)
Correct Application of the Penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 06-92 (Phil. 1992)
Related Laws
- Correct Application of Penalties of Reclusion Perpetua and Life ImprisonmentSupreme Court Administrative Circular No. 06-A-92 • Jun 21, 1993 • Supreme Court Issuances
- Non-Imposition of Death PenaltySupreme Court Circular No. 9-87 • May 20, 1987 • Supreme Court Issuances
- Amendments to the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure to Govern Death Penalty Cases<--!10122004-->A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC • Oct 12, 2004 • Supreme Court Issuances
- Guidelines for the Proper Use of the Phrase "Without Eligibility for Parole" in Indivisible Penalties<--!08042015-->A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC • Aug 4, 2015 • Supreme Court Issuances
- Amendments to the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure to Govern Death Penalty Cases<--!09282004-->A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC • Sep 28, 2004 • Supreme Court Issuances
- Cancellation of Bail Bond of Accused Convicted of Capital Offense in RTCSupreme Court Administrative Circular No. 02-92 • Jan 20, 1992 • Supreme Court Issuances
Browse More Supreme Court Issuances
Explore other laws in the Supreme Court Issuances category.
View All Supreme Court IssuancesNeed Help Understanding This Law?
Ask our AI assistant to explain provisions, implications, or related laws.
Ask AI About This Law