WHICH IS MORE BURDENSOME LIFE IMPRISONMENT OF RECLUSION PERPETUA
(People -versus- Rallagan, 247 SCRA 537)
Reclusion perpetua has accessory penalties while life imprisonment does not. However, life imprisonment does not have a fixed duration or extent while reclusion perpetua has duration of from twenty years and one day to forty years. Life imprisonment may span the natural life of the convict.
RECLUSION PERPETUA AND LIFE IMPRISONMENT CANNOT BE INTER-CHANGE WHEN IMPOSED AS PENALTY
(People -vs- Rolando Madriaga, 211 SCRA 698)
Where the law violated provides for the penalty of reclusion perpetua, impose the said penalty and not the penalty of life imprisonment. Where the law imposes the penalty of life imprisonment, do not impose reclusion perpetua.
THE REASON WHY RECLUSION PERPETUA HAS A RANGE DESPITE THE SAME BEING INDIVISIBLE
(People -vs- Aspolinar Raganas, et al GR No. 101188, October 12, 1999)
There we also said that “if reclusion perpetua was reclassified as a divisible penalty, then Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code would lose its reason and basis for existence.” The imputed duration of thirty (30) years of reclusion perpetua, therefore, only serves as the basis for determining the convict’s eligibility for pardon or for the application of the three-fold rule in the service of multiple penalties.
RARE CASE OF APPLICATION OF RPC IN A SUPPLETORY CHARACTER DESPITE THE PENALTY BEING LIFE IMPRISONMENT
(People -vs- Priscilla Balasa, GR No. 106357, September 3, 1998)
Where the accused committed qualified violation of PD 704 (fishing with the use of explosives), the imposable penalty for which is life imprisonment to death. If the accused is entitled to a mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, the court should impose life imprisonment applying, in a suppletory character, Articles 13 and 63 of the Revised Penal Code.
ACCUSED WHO IS SENTENCED TO RECLUSION PERPETUA IS STILL ENTITLED TO EITHER FULL OR ¾ OF HIS PREVENTIVE IMPRISONMENT
(People -vs- Rolando Corpuz, 231 SCRA 480)
If, during the trial, the accused was detained but, after trial, he was meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua, he is still entitled to the full credit of his preventive imprisonment because Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code does not distinguish between divisible and indivisible penalties.
