Short answer. Yes. Article 64, Rule 5 of the Revised Penal Code requires the court to impose the penalty next lower to that prescribed by law when there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstance is present. The court then chooses the period within that lower penalty based on the number and nature of the mitigating factors.
What the law says
When there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall impose the penalty next lower to that prescribed by law, in the period that it may deem applicable, according to the number and nature of such circumstances.
Revised Penal Code, Article 64 — Rules For Applying Penalties That Contain Three Periods. Read the full provision →
The general framework of Article 64
Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code governs how courts apply divisible penalties — those that contain three periods (minimum, medium, and maximum). The article sets seven numbered rules that tell the court where within or outside the prescribed range to land, depending on what circumstances are present in the case. The baseline is Rule 1: with neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances, the court imposes the medium period. Rules 2 through 7 adjust from that baseline upward or downward as circumstances are added or combined.
Rule 5: two or more mitigating factors with none aggravating
Rule 5 of Article 64 provides: "When there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall impose the penalty next lower to that prescribed by law, in the period that it may deem applicable, according to the number and nature of such circumstances." This is a mandatory downward shift — not a discretionary one. Once the court finds that two or more mitigating circumstances exist and no aggravating circumstance offsets them, it must step down one degree to the penalty immediately below the one the law prescribes. There is no room to stay within the prescribed penalty range in this situation.
How this compares to a single mitigating circumstance
A single mitigating circumstance, under Rule 2, requires the court to impose the prescribed penalty in its minimum period — still within the prescribed range, just at its lowest point. Two or more mitigating circumstances break out of that range entirely: they push the court to the next lower penalty. The gap is meaningful. If the prescribed penalty is prision correccional in its maximum period, a single mitigating factor keeps the court within that penalty; two mitigating factors send it down to arresto mayor in the applicable period. The practical effect on the sentence can be substantial.
What the court decides within the lower penalty
Once the court steps down to the next lower penalty, it still has discretion over which period of that lower penalty to impose. Rule 5 says the court applies "the period that it may deem applicable, according to the number and nature of such circumstances." So if there are two mitigating factors, the court might choose the medium period of the lower penalty; if there are three or more, or if they are particularly weighty, it might choose the minimum. Rule 7 reinforces this: within each period, the extent of the penalty is shaped by the character and number of circumstances and the gravity of the harm caused.