Short answer. For a penalty that by law contains three periods, yes. Article 64 says that when only a mitigating circumstance is present in the commission of the act, the court shall impose the penalty in its minimum period. With one mitigating circumstance and no aggravating one, the minimum period is the rule, not merely an option.
What the law says
When there are neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, they shall impose the penalty prescribed by law in its medium period.
Revised Penal Code, Article 64 — Rules For Applying Penalties That Contain Three Periods. Read the full provision →
What the law says
When only a mitigating circumstance is present in the commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its minimum period.
Revised Penal Code, Article 64 — Rules For Applying Penalties That Contain Three Periods. Read the full provision →
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 →
What the law says
Within the limits of each period, the courts shall determine the extent of the penalty according to the number and nature of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the greater or lesser extent of the evil produced by the crime.
Revised Penal Code, Article 64 — Rules For Applying Penalties That Contain Three Periods. Read the full provision →
One mitigating means the minimum period
Article 64 answers this precisely for penalties that by law contain three periods. Its second rule provides: When only a mitigating circumstance is present in the commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its minimum period. The verb is shall. So where the accused has one mitigating circumstance in his favour and nothing aggravating against him, the court is directed to fix the penalty within its minimum period. This is not left to the judge's free choice — the single mitigating circumstance, unopposed by any aggravating one, mandates a move down to the lowest of the three periods into which the penalty is divided.
How the three-period scheme works
To see why this matters, note how Article 64 treats a penalty divided into three periods — minimum, medium and maximum. The default sits in the middle: When there are neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, they shall impose the penalty prescribed by law in its medium period. Circumstances then push the penalty off that centre. A lone mitigating circumstance pulls it down to the minimum; a lone aggravating one pushes it up to the maximum. The scheme is a graduated response, translating the presence or absence of these circumstances into a defined period, so that similar cases with similar circumstances land in the same range.
When there are two or more mitigating circumstances
It helps to see what one mitigating circumstance does not do, by comparing the rule for several. Article 64 provides that 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. So a single mitigating circumstance keeps you within the same penalty but at its minimum period; it takes two or more, with none aggravating, to drop to the penalty next lower. The number of circumstances, not just their presence, changes the result.
The judge still calibrates within the period
Fixing the period does not end the court's task. Article 64 adds that Within the limits of each period, the courts shall determine the extent of the penalty according to the number and nature of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the greater or lesser extent of the evil produced by the crime. So once the minimum period is set by the single mitigating circumstance, the judge still chooses the exact penalty inside that period, weighing the specifics of the case. The rule also assumes an ordinary divisible penalty of three periods; special rules can apply to penalties structured differently or where other provisions intervene.