. . . It is basic law that . . .

the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law is mandatory where

imprisonment exceeds one (1) year, except only in the following cases:
a. Offenses punished by death or life imprisonment.
b. Those convicted of treason (Art. 114) conspiracy or proposal to commit treason (Art. 115).
c. Those convicted of misprision of treason (Art. 116), rebellion (Art. 134), sedition (Art. 139)
or espionage (Art. 117).
d. Those convicted of piracy (Art. 122).
e. Habitual delinquents (Art. 62, par. 5).
||| (Romero v. People, G.R. No. 171644, [November 23, 2011], 677 PHIL 151-168)

Indeterminate Sentence Law

Section 1 of Act No. 4103 (The Indeterminate Sentence Law) provides:
[I]n imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by the Revised Penal Code, or its amendments,
the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be
that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the said
Code, and the minimum which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by
the Code for the offense . . .
xxx xxx xxx
This Act shall not apply to persons convicted of offenses punished with death penalty or life-
imprisonment; to those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason; to those
convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or espionage; to those convicted of piracy; to those
who are habitual delinquents; to those who have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence; to those
who having been granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive shall have violated the terms thereof;
to those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year, not to those already
sentenced by final judgment at the time of approval of this Act, except as provided in Section 5
hereof. cSDHEC
||| (People v. Concepcion y Bulanio, G.R. No. 200922, [July 18, 2012], 691 PHIL 542-552)

From the standpoint of its effects, a crime has a dual character: (1) as an offense against the State because
of the disturbance of the social order and (2) as an offense against the private person injured by the crime
unless it involves the crime of treason, rebellion, espionage, contempt and others (wherein no civil liability
arises on the part of the offender either because there are no damages to be compensated or there is no
private person injured by the crime 7 ). What gives rise to the civil liability is really the obligation of
everyone to repair or to make whole the damage caused to another by reason of his act or omission,
whether done intentionally or negligently and whether or not punishable by law. 8
Extinction of penal action does not carry with it the eradication of civil liability, unless the extinction
proceeds from a declaration in the final judgment that the fact from which the civil liability might arise
did not exist. 9
||| (Nuguid v. Nicdao, G.R. No. 150785, [September 15, 2006], 533 PHIL 391-400)

R.A. No. 4200, however, provides for exceptions when wiretapping is allowed by written order of the court
under Section 3, viz.:
Section 3. Nothing contained in this Act, however, shall render it unlawful or punishable for any peace
officer, who is authorized by a written order of the Court, to execute any of the acts declared to be
unlawful in the two preceding sections in cases involving the crimes of treason, espionage, provoking
war and disloyalty in case of war, piracy, mutiny in the high seas, rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to
commit rebellion, inciting to rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition, inciting to sedition,
kidnapping as defined by the Revised Penal Code, and violations of Commonwealth Act No. 616,
punishing espionage and other offenses against national security:Provided, That such written order shall
only be issued or granted upon written application and the examination under oath or affirmation of the
applicant and the witnesses he may produce and a showing: (1) that there are reasonable grounds to
believe that any of the crimes enumerated hereinabove has been committed or is being committed or is
about to be committed: Provided, however, That in cases involving the offenses of rebellion, conspiracy
and proposal to commit rebellion, inciting to rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition, and
inciting to sedition, such authority shall be granted only upon prior proof that a rebellion or acts of
sedition, as the case may be, have actually been or are being committed; (2) that there are reasonable
grounds to believe that evidence will be obtained essential to the conviction of any person for, or to the
solution of, or to the prevention of, any of such crimes; and (3) that there are no other means readily
available for obtaining such evidence. (emphasis supplied) CIaHDc
To further give teeth to the above prohibition, R.A. No. 4200 makes illegally wiretapped communications
inadmissible in any proceeding, viz.:
Section 4. Any communication or spoken word, or the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or
meaning of the same or any part thereof, or any information therein contained obtained or secured by
any person in violation of the preceding sections of this Act shall not be admissible in evidence in any
judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or investigation. (emphasis supplied)
||| (Garcillano v. House of Representatives Committees on Public Information, G.R. Nos. 170338 &
179275, [December 23, 2008], 595 PHIL 775-844)

In Ramirez, in which the Court found that petitioner Ramirez violated R.A. No. 4200 for secretly recording
her private conversation with therein respondent Garcia, the Court published in its decision the transcript
of the illegally wiretapped conversation as part of the narration of the facts of the case. A mechanical and
literal reading of Sections 1 and 4 of R.A. No. 4200 would yield the absurd conclusion that the Court
violated these provisions for "communicat(ing) the contents thereof (the illegally wiretapped
conversation), either verbally or in writing" and using the inadmissible transcription in its judicial
proceedings. It is clear to the eye that this was not the intent of the lawmakers in enacting R.A. No. 4200.
"Legislative intent is determined principally from the language of a statute. Where the language of a
statute is clear and unambiguous, the law is applied according to its express terms, and interpretation
would be resorted to only where a literal interpretation would be either impossible (Pacific Oxygen and
Acytelene Co. vs. Central Bank, 37 SCRA 685, [1971]) or absurd or would lead to an injustice. (12 Casela v.
Court of Appeals, 35 SCRA 279 [1970]). 30 (emphasis supplied) There is thus a need to interpret Sections
1 and 4 of R.A. No. 4200. CITcSH
Section 1 in relation to Section 2 of R.A. No. 4200 provides an exception to the prohibition on the "use of
such record (of wiretapped conversation) or any copies thereof as evidence in any civil, criminal
investigation or trial of offenses mentioned in section 3. . ." The offenses under Section 3 which allows
wiretapping upon written order of the court are as follows: "treason, espionage, provoking war and
disloyalty in case of war, piracy, mutiny in the high seas, rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to commit
rebellion, inciting to rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition, inciting to sedition, kidnapping as
defined by the Revised Penal Code, and violations of Commonwealth Act No. 616,
punishing espionage and other offenses against national security."
The exception under Section 1 in t relation to Section 3 of R.A. No. 4200 does not include the use of
illegally wiretapped communication for purposes of prosecuting violations of R.A. No. 4200 itself as the
Court did in Ramirez. Not reading this exception into the law would impede the prosecution of the acts it
prohibits and contradict the very purpose for adopting the law as clearly stated in its title, "An Act to
Prohibit and Penalize Wire Tapping and Other Related Violations of the Privacy of Communication, and
for Other Purposes." Well-settled is the rule in statutory construction that "where there is ambiguity, such
interpretation as will avoid inconvenience and absurdity is to be adopted. 31 Interpretatio talis in
ambiguis semper frienda est, ut evitatur inconveniens et absurdum. R.A. No. 4200 should be given a
sensible construction, so as to give effect to its rationale and intent and thus avoid an unjust or absurd
interpretation. The ineluctable conclusion is that the use of illegally wiretapped communication must be
allowed in a prosecution under R.A. 4200 precisely to deter the commission of illegal wiretapping.
||| (Garcillano v. House of Representatives Committees on Public Information, G.R. Nos. 170338 &
179275, [December 23, 2008], 595 PHIL 775-844)

Act No. 4221 (1935), sec. 8 provides:

SECTION 8. This Act shall not apply to persons convicted of offenses punishable by death or life
imprisonment; to those convicted of homicide, treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason; to
those convicted of misprision of treason, sedition or espionage; to those convicted of piracy, brigandage,
arson, or robbery in band; to those convicted of robbery with violence on persons when it is found that
they displayed a deadly weapon; to those convicted of corruption of minors; to those who are habitual
delinquents; to those who have been once on probation; and to those already sentenced by final
judgment at the time of the approval of this Act.
7.Act No. 4221 (1935), sec. 1 provides:
SECTION 1. Whenever any person eighteen years of age or more at the time of committing a criminal
offense or misdemeanor is convicted and sentenced by a Court of First Instance or by the Supreme Court
on appeal, for such offense or misdemeanor, the proper Court of First Instance may after the sentence
has become final and before the defendant has begun the service thereof, suspend the execution of said
sentence and place the defendant on probation for such period as it may determine not less nor exceeding
the minimum and maximum periods prescribed in this Act. No person, however, shall be placed on
probation until an investigation and report by the probation officer shall have been made to the court of
the circumstances of his offense, his criminal record, if any, and his social history and until the provincial
fiscal shall have been given an opportunity to be heard. The court shall enter in the minutes the reasons
for its action.
||| (Dimakuta y Maruhom v. People, G.R. No. 206513, [October 20, 2015])

Under the Revised Penal Code, death is the penalty for the crimes of treason, correspondence with the
enemy during times of war, qualified piracy, parricide, murder, infanticide, kidnapping, rape with
homicide or with the use of deadly weapon or by two or more persons resulting in insanity, robbery with
homicide, and arson resulting in death. The list of capital offenses lengthened as the legislature responded
to the emergencies of the times. In 1941, Commonwealth Act (C.A.) No. 616 added espionage to the list.
In the 1950s, at the height of the Huk rebellion, the government enacted Republic Act (R.A.) No. 1700,
otherwise known as the Anti-Subversion Law, which carried the death penalty for leaders of the rebellion.
From 1971 to 1972, more capital offenses were created by more laws, among them, the Anti-Hijacking
Law, the Dangerous Drugs Act, and the Anti-Carnapping Law. During martial law, Presidential Decree
(P.D.) No. 1866 was enacted penalizing with death, among others, crimes involving homicide committed
with an unlicensed firearm.
In the aftermath of the 1986 revolution that dismantled the Marcos regime and led to the nullification of
the 1973 Constitution, a Constitutional Commission was convened following appointments thereto by
Corazon Aquino who was catapulted to power by the people.
||| (People v. Echegaray y Pilo, G.R. No. 117472 (Resolution), [February 7, 1997], 335 PHIL 343-414)
The rule, which recognizes no exception, is that there can be no content-based prior restraint on
protected expression. On this ground alone, the NTC press release is unconstitutional. Of course, if the
courts determine that the subject matter of a wiretapping, illegal or not, endangers the security of the
State, the public airing of the tape becomes unprotected expression that may be subject to prior restraint.
However, there is no claim here by respondents that the subject matter of the Garci Tapes involves
national security and publicly airing the tapes would endanger the security of the State. 39||| (Chavez v.
Gonzales, G.R. No. 168338, [February 15, 2008], 569 PHIL 155-297)

R.A. No. 4200, however, provides for exceptions when wiretapping is allowed by written order of the court
under Section 3, viz.:
Section 3. Nothing contained in this Act, however, shall render it unlawful or punishable for any peace
officer, who is authorized by a written order of the Court, to execute any of the acts declared to be
unlawful in the two preceding sections in cases involving the crimes of treason, espionage, provoking
war and disloyalty in case of war, piracy, mutiny in the high seas, rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to
commit rebellion, inciting to rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition, inciting to sedition,
kidnapping as defined by the Revised Penal Code, and violations of Commonwealth Act No. 616,
punishing espionage and other offenses against national security:Provided, That such written order shall
only be issued or granted upon written application and the examination under oath or affirmation of the
applicant and the witnesses he may produce and a showing: (1) that there are reasonable grounds to
believe that any of the crimes enumerated hereinabove has been committed or is being committed or is
about to be committed: Provided, however, That in cases involving the offenses of rebellion, conspiracy
and proposal to commit rebellion, inciting to rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition, and
inciting to sedition, such authority shall be granted only upon prior proof that a rebellion or acts of
sedition, as the case may be, have actually been or are being committed; (2) that there are reasonable
grounds to believe that evidence will be obtained essential to the conviction of any person for, or to the
solution of, or to the prevention of, any of such crimes; and (3) that there are no other means readily
available for obtaining such evidence. (emphasis supplied) CIaHDc
To further give teeth to the above prohibition, R.A. No. 4200 makes illegally wiretapped communications
inadmissible in any proceeding, viz.:
||| (Garcillano v. House of Representatives Committees on Public Information, G.R. Nos. 170338 &
179275, [December 23, 2008], 595 PHIL 775-844)