life imprisonment and a fine of not less than five hundred thousand (P500,000.00) pesos nor more than one million (P1,000,000.00) pesos. The sentence imposed by the trial court thus accords with the penalty prescribed by law. A word in passing. No two cases are exactly alike; almost invariably, surrounding circumstances vary from case to case. It is this reality that must have compelled the adoption by the Revised Penal Code of the scheme of graduated penalties providing, correspondingly, for the circumstances that affect criminal liability. The system allows the judge to have a good latitude in the sentencing process. Indeed, in other jurisdictions, a bifurcated proceeding is prescribed in order to help make certain that the penalty is commensurate to the wrong done. Under this procedure, the guilt and the innocence of the accused is first determined and then, after a verdict of plea or guilt, a pre-sentence hearing is conducted where the judge or a jury would hear argument and receive additional evidence on such matters as the nature of the offense, manner of its commission, the milieu of time and place, as well as the education, religion, physical and mental state of the accused, along with still other conditions or circumstances, that may find relevance in either mitigating or aggravating the punishment to be meted, [11] all calculated to enhance a fair judgment. Statutory provisions for a single penalty, like those prescribed in Republic Act No. 8042, virtually ignore these safeguards that help obviate the danger of imposing either too great or too little a punishment for the offense. It is in the above light and given the factual circumstances of the case at bar, that Congress might see it fit to revisit Republic Act No. 8042 towards adopting the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on penalties, including its traditional nomenclatures, that could pave the way for the proper appreciation of the various circumstances long tested that affect criminal liability. Meanwhile, the Court respectfully recommends to the President of the Philippines a possible commutation of sentence. WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the Regional Trial Court, Cabanatuan City, in Criminal Case No. 8589 for Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale against appellant Dominga Corrales is AFFIRMED. Let copies of this decision be forwarded to the Office of the President and to the Congress of the Philippines. SO ORDERED. Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ., concur. [1] Rollo, p. 8. [2] Rollo, p. 73. [3] Rollo, p. 54. [4] People vs. Ong, 322 SCRA 38; People vs. Goce, 247 SCRA 780. [5] TSN, 09 May 2000, pp. 3-4. [6] TSN, 23 May 2000, pp. 4-8.