Anda di halaman 1dari 42


Role Consummated Frustrated Attempted

Principals 0 or as provided 46 1 degree lesser 50 2 degrees lesser 51
Accomplices 1 degree lesser 52 2 degrees lesser 54 3 degrees lesser 56
Accessories 2 degrees lesser 53 3 degrees lesser 55 4 degrees lesser 57

Table of Penalties
Type Article Duration Scale Accessory Subsidiary
Death 40 Capital PAD CI during 30 years following the date of sentence, when not n/a
Punishment executed by reason of commutation or pardon
Reclusion Perpetua 41 20 years and 1 day Afflictive PAD CI for life n/a
to 40 years
Reclusion Temporal 41 12 years and 1 day Afflictive PAD CI for life n/a
to 20 years
Prision Mayor 42 6 years and 1 day Afflictive TAD PSD from right of suffrage; if disqualification is imposed, 12 n/a
to 12 years years and 1 day
Prision Correccional 42 6 months and 1 Correctional PSD from right of suffrage, if duration exceeds 18 months; if 1/3 not
day to 6 years suspension is imposed, 6 years more than
365 days
Arresto Mayor 44 1 month and 1 Correctional Suspension of the right to hold office and right of suffrage during 1/3 not
day to 6 months term of the sentence more than
365 days
Arresto Menor 44 1 day to 30 days Light Suspension of the right to hold office and right of suffrage during 1/3 not
term of the sentence more than
365 days

*Special note:

Art 45. Confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds or instruments of the crime: Applicable to all penalties

Bond to Keep The Peace: Afflictive, Correctional and Light

Fine Amount
Afflictive Exceeds 1.2M
Correctional 40K 1.2M
Light 40K and below
IF Computing Subsidiary penalty with FINES ONLY use this table:
Classification of Felony penalized with FINE Only Subsidiary

GRAVE FELONIES - are those LESS GRAVE FELONIES - are those LIGHT FELONIES - are those infractions of law in which the
in which the law attaches a in which the penalties in their penalty is arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos or
capital punishment or a penalty maximum period are correctional. both.
which is afflictive in any of its

1. Rape 1. Sedition 1. Vagrancy

2. Treason 2. Slavery 2. Light threats

3. Infanticide 3. Arbitrary detention 3. Light coercions

4. Parricide 4. Violation of Domicile 4. Betting in sports contest

5. Murder 5. Direct Bribery 5. Illegal cockfighting

6. Homicide 6. Disloyalty of public officers or 6. Alteration of Boundary Marks


7. Mutilation 7. Espionage 7. Prostitution

8. Destructive Arson 8. Grave Scandal 8. Alarms and scandals

9. Qualified Bribery 9. Unintentional Abortion 9. Gambling

10. Intentional Abortion 10. Disturbance of proceeding 10. Malicious mischief (if such value does not exceed 200

11. Qualified Piracy 11. Forcible Abduction 11. Intriguing against honor

12. Robbery with homicide 12. Interruption of religious worship 12. Using false certificates

GRAVE FELONIES - are those LESS GRAVE FELONIES - are those LIGHT FELONIES - are those infractions of law in which the
in which the law attaches a in which the penalties in their penalty is arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos or
capital punishment or a penalty maximum period are correctional. both.
which is afflictive in any of its

13. Kidnapping and serious illegal 13. Giving assistance to suicide 13. Slight physical injury

14. Kidnapping and failure to 14. Falsification of Legislative 14. Slander by deed (if it is not serious in nature)
return minor documents

15. Counterfeiting the great seal 15. Flight to enemys country 15. Theft (the value of thing stolen is not over 5 pesos, and the
of the Government of the offender acted under the impulse of hunger, poverty)
Philippine Island

Reclusion Perpetua Life Imprisonment

1. Penalty provided for in the RPC, and some

1. Penalty usually provided for in special laws.
special laws, RA 6425 & PD 1860.

2. Duration of 20 years and one day to 40 years. 2. No duration.

3. Maybe reduced by one or 2 degrees. 3. Cannot be reduced by degrees.

4. Has accessory penalties. 4. Does not have any accessory penalties.

Rules for graduating penalties:

1. When the penalty prescribed for the felony is SINGLE and INDIVISIBLE Reclusion temporal maximum period to death (Penalty for Murder, Art.
(death), the penalty next lower in degree shall be that immediately 248). penalty next lower in degree is prision mayor maximum
following that indivisible penalty (reclusion perpetua) in the respective to reclusion temporal medium period.
graduated scale prescribed in Article 71.
4. SEVERAL periods corresponding to different DIVISIBLE penalties, the
2. TWO INDIVISIBLE penalties, or of ONE OR MORE DIVISIBLE penalties to penalty next lower in degree shall be composed of the period immediately
be imposed to their full extent, the penalty next lower in degree shall be following the minimum prescribed and of the two next following, which
that immediately following the lesser of the penalties prescribed in the shall be taken from the penalty prescribed, if possible; otherwise
respective graduated scale. from the penalty immediately following in the respective graduated scale.
(Art. 61)
Two indivisible penalties Reclusion perpetua to death (Penalty for
Parricide, Art. 248) penalty next lower in degree is reclusion temporal, Prision mayor maximum to reclusion temporal medium period (Penalty for
which follows reclusion perpetua, the lesser of the two penalties. frustrated murder, Art. 248, par. 5) penalty next lower in degree
is prision correccional maximum to prision mayor medium.
3. ONE OR TWO INDIVISIBLE penalties and the MAXIMUM period of
a DIVISIBLE penalty, the penalty next lower in degree shall be composed In lowering the penalty by next lower in degree, aggravating or mitigating
of the medium and minimum periods of the proper divisible penalty and circumstances are not considered because Article 61 refers to the penalty
the maximum period of that immediately following in said respective prescribed for the felony. After the penalty next lower in degree is
graduated scale. determined, aggravating or mitigating circumstances are then considered
to determine the proper period of said penalty.
The courts, in applying such lower or higher penalty, shall observe the following graduated scales: (Art. 71)

Scale No. 1 Scale No. 2

1. Death

2. Reclusion perpetua

3. Reclusion temporal
1. Perpetual absolute disqualification2. Temporary absolute disqualification
4. Prision mayor
3. Suspension from public officer, the right to vote and be voted for, and the right to
5. Prision correccional
follow a profession or calling.
6. Arresto mayor
4. Public censure
7. Destierro
5. Fine
8. Arresto menor

9. Public censure

10. Fine
In cases in which the penalties prescribed by law contain 3 periods, whether it be a single DIVISIBLE penalty or composed of 3 different penalties, each one
of which forms a period, the courts shall observe for the application of the penalty the following rules, according to whether there are or not mitigating
or aggravating circumstances:

1. Neither aggravating nor mitigating they shall impose the penalty prescribed by law in its medium period.

2. One mitigating minimum period.

3. One aggravating maximum period.

4. Both mitigating and aggravating offset each other according to their relative weight.

5. Two or more mitigating and no aggravating 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.

6. Two or more aggravating prescribed by law in its maximum period. (Art. 64) (Q10, 1995 Bar; Q12, 1991 Bar; Q8, 1997 Bar)

Mitigating or aggravating circumstances and habitual delinquency shall An example is recidivism, this circumstance will aggravate the crime
be taken into account for the purpose of diminishing or increasing the committed by the person in whom such a circumstance is attendant. Also,
penalty in conformity with the following rules: if A and B killed C and A acted with passion, such mitigating circumstance
will affect him only.
1. Aggravating circumstances which in (a) themselves constitute a crime
specially punishable by law or (b) which are included by the law in defining 3. The circumstances which consist in the material execution of the act, or
a crime and prescribing the penalty therefor shall not be taken into in the means employed to accomplish it, shall serve to aggravate or
account for the purpose of increasing the penalty. mitigate the liability of those persons only who had knowledge of them at
the time of the execution of the act or their cooperation therein.
In the crime of robbery in an inhabited house, trespass to dwelling cannot
be considered to aggravate the crime, for the reason that it is inherent in Example: A cooperated with B in the killing of C who killed the latter with
the crime. ignominy, such will aggravate not only of B but also that of A, if he has
knowledge of it at the time of the execution of the act.
2. Aggravating or mitigating circumstances which arise from the moral
attributes of the offender, or from the private relations with the offended 4. Habitual delinquent is a person, if within a period of 10 years from the
party, or from any other personal cause, shall serve to aggravate or date of his release or last convictions of the crimes of serious or less
mitigate the liability of the principals, accomplices and accessories as serious physical injuries, robo (robbery), hurto (theft), estafa, or
to whom such circumstances are attendant. falsification, he is found guilty of any said crimes a third time or oftener.
Upon a third conviction the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty The maximum penalty shall be imposed if the offense was committed by
provided by law for the last crime of which he be found any person who belongs to an organized/syndicate crime group (a group of
guilty and to the additional penalty of prision correctional in its two or more persons collaborating, confederating or mutually helping one
medium and maximum periods. Upon 4th conviction additional penalty another for purposes of gain in the commission of any crime) (Art. 62)
of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods. Upon a 5th or
Mitigating and aggravating circumstances are not considered in the
additional conviction additional penalty of prision
imposition of penalties:
mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its minimum
period. However, the total of the 2 penalties to be imposed upon the 1. Penalty that is single and indivisible, i.e., death.
offender shall in no case exceed 30 years.
2. Felonies thru negligence.
In charging habitual delinquency, the information must allege:
In imposing penalties prescribed for offenses committed thru negligence
a. The dates of the commission of the previous offenses; or imprudence, courts shall exercise their sound discretion, without regard
b. The date of the last conviction or release. to the rules provided in Article 64. (People v. Agito, 54 OG 7393)
c. The dates of other previous convictions or release.
3. Penalty is fine.
The law does not require that the convictions should take place within a 4. Penalty is prescribed by special law.
period of 10 years. What the law requires is that each conviction
must take place within 10 years from each conviction. The 10-year In all cases in which the law prescribes a SINGLE INDIVISIBLE penalty, it
period is computed from the date of the last conviction or release as the shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating
law expressly provides to the date of conviction of the subsequent circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed.
offense. (People v. Morales, 61 Phil. 222) Habitual delinquency applies to In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of
all stages of commission. (People v. Abuyen, 52 Phil. 722) But in imposing 2 INDIVISIBLE penalties, the following rules shall be observed in the
the additional penalty, recidivism is not aggravating because such is a application thereof:
qualifying or inherent circumstances in habitual delinquency. (People v. De
Jesus, 63 Phil. 760) 1. One aggravating the higher penalty shall be applied.

The imposition of the additional penalty on habitual delinquents is 2. No mitigating nor aggravating lesser penalty.
constitutional because such law is neither an ex-post law nor an additional
3. Some mitigating and no aggravating lesser penalty.
punishment for future crimes. It is simply a punishment on future crimes
the penalty being enhanced on account of the criminal propensities of the 4. Both mitigating and aggravating offset one another in consideration of
accused. (People v. Montera, 55 Phil. 993) their number and importance. (Art. 63)

5. When in the commission of the crime, advantage was taken by the Illustration: (Q6, 1997 Bar)
offender of his public position, the penalty to be imposed shall be in its
A and B pleaded to the crime of parricide. The court found 3 mitigating
maximum regardless of mitigating circumstances.
circumstances, namely, plea of guilty, lack of instruction and lack of intent
to commit so grave a wrong as that committed. The prescribed penalty for
parricide is reclusion perpetua to death. Impose the proper principal 2. Over 15 and under 18 years of age penalty next lower than that
penalty. prescribed by law, but always in the proper period. (Art. 68)

Answer: The proper penalty is reclusion perpetua. Even if there are 2 or This article treats of two privileged mitigating circumstances.
more mitigating circumstances, a court cannot lower the penalty by one
When the culprit has to serve 2 or more penalties, he shall serve them
degree. (Art. 63[par. 3]) In US v. Relador, 60 Phil. 593, where the crime
simultaneously if the nature of the penalties will so
committed was parricide with 2 mitigating circumstances of illiteracy and
permit (like penalties of disqualification may be served simultaneously
lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong, and with no aggravating
with imprisonment): if not, the order of their respective severity shall be
circumstance, the Supreme Court held that the proper penalty to be
followed so that they may be executed successively. However, the
imposed is reclusion perpetua.
maximum duration of the convicts sentence shall not be more than three-
In cases in which the penalty prescribed by law is not composed of 3 fold the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties
period, the courts shall apply the rules contained in the foregoing articles, imposed upon him. (Three-fold Rule) Such maximum period shall in no
dividing into 3 equal portions of time included in the penalty case exceed 40 years. The duration of perpetual penalties is 30 years. (See
prescribed, and forming one period of each of the 3 portions. (Art. 65) Art. 70)

In imposing fines, the courts may fix any amount within the The phrase most severe penalty includes equal penalties. (Aspra v.
limits established by law; in fixing the amount in each case Director, 85 Phil. 737) If in 6 estafas, accused was sentenced to 3 months
attention should be given, not only the mitigating or aggravating, but and 11 days in each case and he should serve 3 times 3 months and 11
more particularly to the wealth or means of the culprit. (Art. 66) days or 9 months and 33 days.

Whenever it may be necessary to increase or reduce the penalty of fine by Where the accused was convicted of double murder and sentenced to 2
one or more degrees, it shall be increased or reduced, respectively, for reclusion perpetua, the 40 years limit shall be observed. (People v.
each degree, by 1/4 of the maximum amount prescribed by law, without Odencio, 88 SCRA 1) Material accumulation system is where all the
however, changing the minimum. (Art. 75) If the law only fixes the penalties for the crimes committed are imposed even if they total beyond
maximum, the court cannot impose a fine next higher. the natural span of human life. The juridical accumulation system refers to
the three-fold rule.
Multiple death penalties are not impossible to serve because they will
Fine is from P 200 to P 1,000. Each degree will be equal to 1/4 of P 1,000
have to be executed simultaneously. The sentencing of an accused to
or P 250. P 250 added to P1,000 to determine the fine next higher in
several capital penalties is an indelible badge of his extreme criminal
degree without changing the minimum of P 200, and will therefore,
perversity, which may not be accurately projected by the imposition of
be P 200 to P 1,250. Fine next lower in degree will be to deduct P 250
only one death sentence. Granting, however, that the President deems it
from P 1,000 without also changing the minimum which is P200 to P 750.
proper to commute the multiple death penalties to multiple life
When the offender is a minor under 18 years, the rules are: imprisonments, then the practical effect is that the convict has to serve
the maximum 40 years of multiple life sentences. In only one death
1. Over 9 years of age but less than 15 who acted with discernment penalty is imposed, and then is commuted to life imprisonment, the
penalty lower by 2 degrees than that prescribed by law.
convict will have to serve a maximum of only 30 years corresponding to a other responsible person, until he shall have reached 21 years of age, or
single life sentence. (People v. Jose, 37 SCRA 450) for a shorter period as the court may deem proper. (Art. 192, PD 603, Child
and Youth Welfare Code)
Complex penalty is a penalty prescribed by law composed of 3 distinct
penalties each forming a period, the lightest of which shall be the The application of Art. 192 is not automatic; the minor
minimum, the next shall be the medium, and the most severe, the must apply to the court for the benefit of suspension of judgment.
maximum. (Art. 77)
The benefits of this article shall not apply to a youthful offender who:
The factors to consider to arrive at the correct penalty:
1. Has once enjoyed suspension of sentence.
1. Determine the crime committed.
2. One who is convicted of an offense punishable by death or life
2. Stage of execution and degree of participation.
imprisonment. (Q7, 1995 Bar)
3. Determine the penalty.
4. Consider the modifying circumstances. 3. One who is convicted for an offense by the Military Tribunals. (Art. 192
5. Determine whether or not Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable. of PD 603)
(Q11, 1991 Bar)
When ever the youthful offender has been found incorrigible or has
Execution and Service of Penalties willfully failed to comply with the conditions of his
rehabilitation programs, or should his continued stay in the
No penalty shall be executed except by virtue of a final judgment. A training institution be inadvisable, he shall be returned to the committing
penalty shall not be executed in any other form than that prescribed by court for the promulgation of judgment. (Art. 197, PD 603, as amended)
law. (See Art. 78)
When the youthful offender has reached the age of 21 while
When a convict shall become insane or an imbecile after final in the commitment, the court shall determine whether to dismiss the
sentence has been pronounced, the execution of said sentence shall be case or to pronounce the judgment of conviction. In the latter case, the
suspended only with regard to the personal penalty. The insane or convicted offender may apply for probation.
imbecile convict shall be ordered confined in the hospital for treatment
and the convict shall not be permitted to leave such hospital without In any case, the youthful offender shall be credited in the service of his
authority from the court. If the convict recovers from his sentence with the full time spent in actual commitment and detention.
illness, he shall commence serving his sentence. (See Art. 79) (Art. 197 of PD 603)

Youth Offender is a child, minor or youth, including one who is A child 9 years of age or under at the time of the commission of the
emancipated in accordance with law, who is over 9 years but under 18 offense shall be exempted from criminal liability and shall be
years of age at the time of the commission of the offense. committed to the care of his or her father or mother or nearest relative
or family friend in the discretion of the court and subject to its
In youthful offender, instead of pronouncing judgment of supervision. (Art. 189, PD 603, as amended)
conviction, the court shall suspend all further proceedings and shall
commit such minor to the custody or care of the DSWD, or any training A minor 14 years old at the time of the commission of the crime but 23
institution operated by the government, or duly licensed agencies or any years old when the case was decided by the Supreme Court on appeal is
not entitled to a suspended sentence under PD 603. He is, however, It is an act of the sovereign power granting oblivion or a general pardon for
entitled under Article 68 of the RPC to a two-degree reduction of the a past offense and is usually exercised in behalf of a certain class of
penalty. (People v. Hermosilla, 122 SCRA 905) persons, who are subject to trial but have not yet convicted. (Brown v
Walker, 161 US 602) An amnesty extinguishes the criminal liability and not
merely the penalty but also its effects. But the civil liability is not

Total Extinction of Criminal Liability 4. Absolute pardon

Criminal liability is totally extinguished: Pardon is an act of grace proceeding from the power entrusted with the
excecution of the laws which exempts the individual on whom it is
1. Death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as bestowed form the punishment the law inflicts for the crime he has
to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished committed.
only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment.
5. Prescription of the crime.
Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction or before judgment
become executory, extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil It is the forfeiture or loss of the right of the State to prosecute the offender
liability based solely thereon. Corollarily, the claim for civil liability after the lapse of a certain time fixed by law, viz:
survives notwithstanding the death of the accused, if the same may also
a. Death, reclusion perpetua or reclusion temporal 20 years
be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict. Article 1157 of
the Civil Code enumerates the other sources of obligation as law, b. Other afflictive penalties (prision mayor) 15 years
contracts, quasi-contracts and quasi-delicts.
c. Correctional penalty 10 years
An action for recovery of such civil liability may be pursued but only by
d. Arresto mayor 5 years (Q13, 1994 Bar)
way of filing a separate civil action and subject to Rule 111 of the Rules of
Court. This separate civil action may be enforced either: e. Libel or other similar offenses 1 year
a. Against the executor/administrator if for damages resulting from injury f. Oral defamation and slander by deed 6 months
to persons or property pursuant to Section 1, Rule 87 of the Rules of Court.
g. Light offenses (arresto menor) 2 months
b. Against the estate of the accused if for contractual money claims under
Section 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court. (People v. Bayotas, 102007, Sept. When the penalty fixed by law is a compound one, the highest penalty
20, 1994) (Q1, 1992 Bar; Q5, 1990 Bar) shall be made the basis. (As amended by RA 4661, June 19, 1966)

Death of the offended party in a criminal action does not extinguish the If the last day of the prescriptive period falls on a Sunday or
criminal liability of the accused. (People v. Bundalian, 117 SCRA 718) legal holiday, the fiscal cannot file the information on the next
following working days as it would tantamount to extending the
2. Service of the sentence. prescriptive period fixed by law. (Yapdiangco v. Buencamino, 122 SCRA
3. Amnesty
The period of prescription shall commence to run from the day on which It is the loss or forfeiture of the right of the government to execute the
the crime is discovered (applies oftenly to act done clandestinely, i.e., final sentence after the lapse of a certain time fixed by law, viz:
bigamy) by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents, and shall a. Death and reclusion perpetua 20 years
be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information, and shall b. Other afflictive penalties 15 years
commence to run again when such proceedings terminate without the c. Correctional penalties 10 years
accused being convicted or acquitted, or are unjustifiably d. Arresto mayor 5 years
stopped for any reason not imputable to him. The term of e. Light penalties 1 year
prescription shall not run when the offender is absent from the
Philippine Archipelago. (Art. 91)
The period of prescription of penalties shall commence to run from the
In the latter case, however, the offenders trips abroad which were brief date the culprit should evade the service of his sentence, and it shall be
and in every case, she returned to the Philippines, do not constitute the interrupted if the defendant should:
absence contemplated in the Article. The aggregate number of days of
a. Give himself up.
those trips are not to be considered. (Garcia v. CA, Jan. 27, 1997)
b. Be captured.
The principle of constructive notice (such as registration of the second c. Go to some foreign country with which the government has no
marriage in the civil registry) which ordinarily applies to land or property extradition treaty.
disputes should not be applied to the crime of bigamy, as marriage is not d. Commit another crime before the expiration of the period of
property. (Sermonia v. CA, 233 SCRA 155) (Q2, 1995 Bar) However, in prescription. (Art. 93)
property disputes, the party is considered to have constructive notice on e. Acceptance of conditional pardon. By acceptance of the pardon he
the forgery after the Deed of Sale where his signature had been falsified eluded the service of the penalty, in the same manner that a convict who
was registered in the Office of the Register of Deeds. (Cabral v. Puno, 70 goes to a foreign country with which the government has no extradition
SCRA 606) Registration in a public registry is a notice to the whole treaty. (People v. Puntillas, G.R. 45269, June 15, 1938)
world. The record is constructive notice of what it contains and so all
persons, including the offended party, are charged with knowledge
Prescription of the penalty presupposes that the culprit has been
thereof. The offended party has constructive notice of the alleged forgery
sentenced by final judgment and evades the service of the penalty.
after the document was registered with the Registry of Deeds. (People v.
Reyes, 175 SCRA) (Q1, 1993 Bar)

The accused cannot be convicted of the offense of simple slander although 7. Marriage of the offended woman, as provided in Art. 344. (Art. 89)
it is necessary included in the offense of grave slander charged in the
information, because the lesser offense had already prescribed at the time Marriage of the offender with the offended party refers to private offenses
the information was filed. (Magat v. People, 201 SCRA 21) Otherwise, only and must be contracted in good faith. (People v. Santiago, 51 Phil. 68)
prosecutors can easily circumvent the rule of prescription in light offenses
by the simple expedient of filing a graver offense which included a light
offense. (Q12, 1997 Bar) Partial Extinction of Criminal Liability

6. Prescription of the penalty. Criminal liability is extinguished partially:

1. Conditional pardon Parole consists in the suspension of the sentence of a convict after serving
the minimum of the sentence imposed without granting a pardon,
It is in the nature of a contract, the conditions of which the convict, upon
prescribing the terms upon which the sentence shall be suspended.
acceptance, must not violate. Otherwise, the offender is rearrested and
re-incarcerated by order of the President. 5. Probation. (See Probation)

2. Commutation of the sentence CIVIL LIABILITY

It is the change in the sentence of the court made by the President which Persons Civilly Liable for Felonies
consists in reducing the penalty imposed upon of the offender.
Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. (Art.
The commutation of the original sentence for another of a different
100) The civil liability arises from the commission of the felony.
length and nature shall have the effect of substituting the latter on the
place of the former. (Art. 96) When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil
liability arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with
3. Good conduct allowances which the culprit may earn while he is serving
the criminal action unless the offended party:
his sentence.
1. Waives the civil action.
The good conduct of any prisoner in any penal institution shall entitle him
to the following deduction from the period of his sentence: 2. Reserves the right to institute it separately.
a. First 2 years of imprisonment a deduction of 5 days for each month of The reservation of the right to institute separately the civil action shall be
good behavior. made before the prosecution starts presenting its evidence. (Sec. 1, Rule
111) In the cases provided in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code,
b. 3rd to 5th year 8 days for each month of good behavior.
the independent civil action may be brought by the offended party. It shall
c. Following years to 10th year 10 days for each month of good behavior. proceed independently of the criminal action and shall require only a
preponderance of evidence. In no case, however, may the offended party
d. 11th and successive year 15 days for each month of good behavior.
recover damages twice for the same act or omission charged in the
(Art. 97)
criminal action. (Sec. 3, Rule 111)
A deduction of 1/5 of the period of his sentence shall be granted to any
3. Institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action. (Sec. 1, Rule 111,
prisoner who, having evaded the service of his sentence, gives himself up
2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure)
to the authorities within 48 hours following the issuance of a proclamation
announcing the passing away of the calamity or catastrophe. (Art. 98) If the criminal action is filed after the said civil action has already been
instituted, latter shall be suspended in whatever stage it may be found
Whenever lawfully justified, the Director of Prisons shall grant allowances
before judgment on the merits. The suspension shall last until final
for good conduct. Such allowances once granted shall not be revoked.
judgment is rendered in the criminal action. Nevertheless, before
(Art. 99)
judgment on the merits is rendered in the civil action, the same may, upon
4. Parole under the Indeterminate Sentence Law. (See Indeterminate motion of the offended party, be consolidated with the criminal action in
Sentence Law)
the court trying the criminal action. The consolidated criminal and civil In the absence of any reservation to institute a separate civil action for
actions shall be tried and decided jointly. damages arising from the commission of the offense charged, the injured
party may avail himself of the auxiliary remedy of attachment, since under
The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it extinction of the
the law when a criminal action is instituted the civil action is presumed to
civil action. However, the civil action based on delict shall be deemed
have been instituted jointly with the criminal action. (Rule 127, Rules of
extinguished if there is a finding in a final judgment in the criminal action
that the act or omission from which civil liability may arise did not exist.
(Sec. 2, Rule 111) Subsidiary civil liability of the following:

After the criminal action has been commenced, the separate civil action 1. In default of the persons criminally liable, INNKEEPERS, TAVERN-
arising therefrom cannot be instituted until final judgment has been KEEPERS, and any OTHER PERSONS or CORPORATIONS shall be civilly
entered in the criminal action, except in independent civil action. (See Sec. liable for crimes committed in their establishments, in all cases were a
2, Rule 111) violation of municipal ordinances or some general or special police
regulations shall have been committed by them or their employees.
As a rule, if the offender is acquitted, the civil liability is extinguished,
except: 2. INNKEEPERS are also subsidiarily liable for the restitution of goods
taken by robbery or theft within their houses from guests lodging therein,
1. If the acquittal is on the ground that the guilt has not been proven
or for payment of the value thereof, provided that such guests shall have
beyond reasonable doubt.
notified in advance the innkeeper himself, or the person representing
2. The acquittal was due to an exempting circumstance like insanity. him, of the deposit of such goods within the inn, and shall furthermore
have followed the direction which such innkeeper or his
The civil liability for acts committed by an imbecile or insane person, and representative may have given them with respect to the care of and
by a person under 9 years of age, or by one over 9 but under 15 years of vigilance over such goods. No liability shall attach in case of robbery with
age, who acted without discernment, shall devolve upon those having violence or intimidation of persons unless committed by the innkeepers
such person under their legal authority or control, unless it appears that employees. (Art. 102)
there was no fault or negligence in their part. (See Art. 101)
The civil liability of the parents for the felonies committed by their minor CORPORATIONS engaged in any kind of industry, for felonies committed
children under their legal authority or control, or who live in their by their servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices or employees in the
company is primary not subsidiary and thus subject to the defense of discharge of their duties. (Art. 103)
lack of fault or negligence on their part, i.e., the exercise of the diligence of
a good father of a family. (Libi v. IAC, 70890, Sept. 18, 1992) In the above case, the employee is insolvent and has not satisfied the civil
liability. When a person is subsidiarily liable, the defense that he
3. When the court finds and states in its judgment that there is only civil acted with the diligence of a good father of a family in choosing his
responsibility. employee is not available. (Arambulo v. Meralco, 55 Phil. 115) The right to
The acquittal of the accused in the criminal case does not extinguished his enforce the civil liability under Article 103 is necessarily predicated upon
liability for quasi-delict. (Elcano v. Hill, 24803, May 26, 1977) the existence of employer-employee relationship. (Clarianes v. Sabinosa,
15817, Dec. 12, 1958) Industry means an enterprise for gain or profit.
The conviction of the employee primarily liable is a condition sine qua non b. Indemnity for loss of earning capacity of the deceased.
for the employers subsidiary liability. (Franco v. IAC, 178 SCRA 331)
c. Moral damages and/or exemplary damages.
What Civil Liability Includes?
d. Attorneys fees and expenses of litigation.
It includes the following:
e. Interest, in proper cases. (Brinas v. People, 125 SCRA 687)
1. Restitution is the return of the thing itself to the offended party, even
Where the crime committed is not against property, no restitution nor
though it be found in the possession of a third party who has acquired it by
reparation of the thing damaged can be done, although the offended party
lawful means, saving to the latter his action against the proper person
is entitled to indemnification under Article 107 which includes all
who may be liable to him; except, in cases, when the things was acquired
consequential damages such as actual damages, attorneys fees and moral
by the third person in the manner and under circumstances that, by law,
damages. (De las Penas v. Royal Bus Co., 23115, Dec. 7, 1959)
bar any action for recovery, such as when the thing was
acquired in a public auction. (Art. 105) Civil liability of persons guilty of rape, seduction, or abduction includes,
inter alia, the acknowledgment of the child born as a consequence of the
Restitution should not be ordered without a judgment of conviction in the
crime. (Art. 345, RPC) The acknowledgment required of the accused
criminal case. The dismissal of the case at the instance of the offended
should be understood to be acknowledgment merely of the filiation of the
party carries with it the dismissal of the civil aspect accompanying the
child. (People v. Rafanan, 182 SCRA 811)
filing of the criminal case. What the complainant should do is to file an
entire new civil action to recover the properties she lost. (Munsayac v. The obligation to make restoration or reparation for damages
Villasor, 44555, May 14, 1990) and indemnification for consequential damages devolves upon the heirs
of the person liable. The action to demand restoration, reparation, and
2. Reparation of damage caused, in case of inability of the above, he must
indemnification likewise descends to the heirs of the person injured. (Art.
pay the value of the article, taking into
consideration the price, if possible, and its special sentimental value
to the injured party. (Art. 106) The principals, accomplices, and accessories, each within their respective
class, shall be liable severally (in solidum) among themselves for their
3. Indemnification for consequential damages include not only those
quotas, and subsidiarily for those of the other persons liable. The
caused the injured party, but also those suffered by his family or by a third
subsidiary liability shall be enforced, first against the property of the
person by reason of the crime. (Art. 107)
principals; next, against that of the accomplices, and lastly against that of
The items of damages to be awarded in case of death arising from crime the accessories. Whenever the liability in solidum or the subsidiary liability
are: has been enforced, the person by whom payment has been made shall
have a right of action against the others for the amount of their respective
a. Indemnity for the death of the victim.
shares. (Art. 110)
Civil indemnity for the felonious destruction of human life, whether
The civil liability herein established shall be extinguished in the same
intentional or accidental, is P50,000. (Per SC Resolution adopted on Aug.
manner as obligations, in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Law.
30, 1990)
(Art. 112)
The causes under the Civil Code are: (1) payment or performance, (2) loss The offender shall remain obliged to satisfy his civil liability, even if the
of the thing due, (3) remission, (4) merger, (5) compensation, and (6) offender has served his sentence or was not made to serve his sentence by
novation. (Art. 1161) reason of pardon, amnesty or any other reason. (Art. 113)

Subsidiary liability is not an accessory penalty, it is a substitute principal Thus, a single act of throwing a hand grenade at a person, killing him and
penalty and to be enforceable it must be expressly stated in the judgment injuring others murder with multiple attempted murders (People v.
that in case of insolvency of the accused, he shall Guillen, 47 OG 3433), or when the same shot and bulled which caused the
suffer the corresponding subsidiary imprisonment. Subsidiary death of A also hit and killed B double homicide. (People v. Pama, 44 OG
imprisonment does not extinguish the non-payment of fine. Also, 3339) Also, the single act of the offender in hacking the Barangay Captain
subsidiary imprisonment is not imprisonment for debt because the to death, in the performance of his official duties, resulted in a complex
constitutional prohibition refers to debts incurred in the fulfillment of crime of homicide with assault upon a person in authority. But when a
contracts and not to the payment of money or damages as a penalty arising single act results in
ex-delictu. (US v. Cara, 41 Phil. 828)
(a) a grave felony and a light felony; or
Complex crimes is when a single act constitutes 2 or more grave (b) a grave or less grave felony and an offense punished by a special law,
or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for there is no complex crime. Two independent crimes are committed.
committing the other, the penalty for the most
Thus, where a firearm was stolen with intent to own and use it, two crimes
serious crime shall be imposed, the same to
are committed: (a) Theft and (b) Illegal possession of firearm. (Q6, 1995
be applied in its maximum period. (Art. 48) The purpose of the
imposition of the penalty is to prescribe a penalty lower than the
aggregate of the penalties for each offense, if impose separately. The Where the resulting felonies are the result of separate acts no matter
reason is when 2 or more crimes are the result of a single act, the offender how closely related, this results in separate liabilities. Thus, when various
is deemed less perverse than when he commits said crimes thru separate victims expire from separate shots, such acts constitute separate and
and distinct act. (People v. Cano, 17 SCRA 237) (Q2, 1996 Bar) distinct crimes. In this case, where the offender made use of a firearm, the
number of acts is now determined by the number of bullets released by
Article 48 does not apply when the law especially considers 2 or more
the firearm. If 4 bullets are released and 4 persons are killed, it is not a
crimes as single and indivisible and provides a specific penalty
complex crime. However, if 2 or more persons are killed by one bullet, it is
therefor. Robbery with homicide is not a complex crime but a single and
a complex crime. In the use of automatic firearm, it is presumed that
indivisible felony by specific provision of law (Art. 294, par. 1) known
separate bullets killed separate persons, hence; no complex crime, unless
as special composite crime (special complex crime), when under one
proven otherwise.
provision of law, a crime which carries another crime as component
thereof is penalized with one penalty. The rules on complex crimes apply to felonies committed thru
negligence. Thus, an accused accidentally discharged his revolver during a
Kinds of Complex Crimes:
dance killing a girl and wounding another homicide with less serious
1. Compound (delito compuesto) when a single act constitutes 2 or more physical injuries through reckless imprudence. (People v. Castro. 40 OG 18)
grave or less grave felonies.
2. Complex proper (delito complejo) when an offense is committed as a and cannot be isolated as separate crimes in themselves. (Enrile v.
necessary means to commit the other. Amin, 189 SCRA 573)

It is essential that two crimes must be under the same statute. (People v. Continued or continuous crime (delito continuado) is a single crime
Araneta, 49 Phil. 650) The phrase necessary means has been interpreted consisting of a series of acts arising from one criminal resolution or intent,
not to mean indispensable means because if it did, then the offense as a not susceptible of division, carried out in the same place and at about the
necessary means to commit another would be an element of the other same time, and is therefore not a complex crime. Each acts, although of a
crime. It is simply means such an offense is committed to facilitate and delictual character, merely constitutes a partial execution of a single
insure the commission of the other. (People v. Hernandez, 50 OG 5506) particular delict. Thus, taking of 6 roosters from one coop belonging to 2
different owners is only one theft because the 2 acts of taking arose
Necessarily, the first crime must be consummated while the
from one criminal resolution. (People v. Jaranillo, 55 SCRA [1974]) Also, if
second could be an attempted, frustrated or consummated felony.
the accused ran amok and killed several persons, only one crime is
There is no complex crime if a crime is committed to conceal the other committed because the killings were the result of a single impulse. (People
crime. For instance, a victim was killed. To conceal the crime, accused v. Emit, 13477, Jan. 31, 1956) (Q8, 1996 Bar)
burned the house, where the killing was committed. Two crimes were
This singularity of criminal intent has been applied to prison
committed. Homicide and arson. (People v. Bersabal, 48 Phil. 439)
riot cases where although acts of murder are perpetrated separately or
The first crime must not be indispensable or be an element of on different occasions.
the second crime, otherwise, there is no complex crime. For example, in
It was noted that the concept of delito continuado has been applied to
robbery with force upon things, trespass to dwelling is an element of the
crimes penalized under special laws (People v. Sabbum, 10 SCRA 156)
other crime. Also, there is no complex crime of estafa thru falsification of
since, under Article 10 of the RPC, the Code shall be supplementary to
private document because the damage as an element of estafa is the same
special laws, unless the latter provide the contrary. In Santiago v. Justice
damage as an element of the falsification. (People v. Dizon, 48 OG 168) Do
Garchitorena, 109266, Dec. 2, 1993, the Court directed the prosecution to
not complexed crimes, as in the latter example, where one crime is only
consolidate the 32 amended information into one information, charging
the component of the other crime.
the petitioner with performing a single criminal act that of her approving
Where a policeman forcibly took a 15-year-old girl inside a taxi and the application for legalization of aliens not qualified under the law
afterwards raped her in an isolated place, forcible abduction with rape is considering that the criminal acts (1) were in violations of the same law
committed. (People v. Famador, 113 SCRA 310) Abduction with rape is (EO 324 dated April 13, 1988); (2) caused undue injury to one offended
now considered a complex crime. Where the manifest intention is to kill party the Government, and (3) done on the same day on or about
the victim and the kidnapping is merely incidental to the October 17, 1988.
principal purpose, the crime is only murder.
Continuing crime (transitory) is only intended as a factor in
Common crimes like homicide, robbery and the like cannot be determining the proper venue of jurisdiction pursuant to the Rules of
complexed with the crime of rebellion. All crimes, whether punishable Court. This is so, because a person
under a special law, which are components or ingredients, or committed charged with a transitory offense may be tried in any jurisdiction
in furtherance thereof, become absorbed in the crime of rebellion where the offense is in part committed. (Q4, 1994 Bar)
Where the felony committed is different from that which the offender intended to commit, the following rules shall be observed:

1. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be higher than that corresponding to the offense which the accused intended to commit, the
penalty corresponding to the latter shall be imposed in its maximum period.

2. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be lower than that corresponding to the one which the accused intended to commit, the penalty for the
former shall be imposed in its maximum period. (Art. 49)

Article 49 applies only to a case of mistake of identity or error en personae.

When the person intending to commit an offense has already performed the acts for the execution of the same but nevertheless the crime was not
produced by reason of the fact that the act intended was by its nature one of impossible accomplishment or because the means employed by such person
are essentially inadequate to produce the result desired by him, (impossible crime) the court, having in mind the social danger and the degree of
criminality shown by the offender, shall impose upon him the penalty of arresto mayor or a fine from P 200 to P 500. (Art. 59)

DURATION OF PENALTIES What is the duration of destierro?

Reclusion Perpetua The duration of destierro is from 6 months and 1 year to 6 years, which is the
same as that of prision correccional and suspension. Destierro is a principal
What is the duration of reclusion perpetua? penalty. It is a punishment whereby a convict is banished from a certain place
and is prohibited from entering or coming near that place designated in the
sentence for not less than 25 kilometers. However, the court cannot extend
Do not use Article 27 in answering this question. The proper answer would be
beyond 250 kms. If the convict should enter the prohibited places, he commits
that reclusion perpetua has no duration because it is an indivisible penalty and
the crime of evasion of service of sentence under Article 157. But if the convict
indivisible penalties have no duration.
himself would go further from which he is banished by the court, there is no
evasion of service of sentence because the 250km limit is upon the authority
Under Article 27, those sentenced to reclusion perpetua shall be pardoned after of the court in banishing the convict.
undergoing the penalty for 30 years, unless such person, by reason of his
conduct or some other serious cause, shall be considered by the Chief Executive
Under the Revised Penal Code, destierro is the penalty imposed in the following
as unworthy of pardon.

Under Article 70 (the Three-Fold Rule), the maximum period shall in no case
(1) When a legally married person who had surprised his or her spouse in the act
exceed 40 years. If the convict who is to serve several sentences could only be
of sexual intercourse with another and while in that act or immediately
made to serve 40 years, with more reason that one who is sentenced to a single
thereafter should kill or inflict serious physical injuries upon the other spouse,
penalty of reclusion perpetua should not serve for more than 40 years.
and/or the paramour or mistress. This is found in Article 247.

The duration of 40 years is not a matter of provision of law; this is only by

(2) In the crimes of grave threats and/or light threats, when the offender is
analogy. There is no provision of the Revised Penal Code that one sentenced
required to put up a bond for good behavior but failed or refused to do so under
to reclusion perpetua cannot be held in jail for 40 years and neither is there a
Article 248, such convict shall be sentenced with destierro so that he would not
decision to this effect.
be able to carry out his threat.

(3) In the crime of concubinage, the penalty prescribed for the concubine is
Destierro destierro under Article 334.
(4) Where the penalty prescribed by law is arresto mayor, but the offender is
entitled to privileged mitigating circumstances and, lowering the prescribed
penalty by one degree, the penalty becomes destierro. Thus it shall be the one

Civil Interdiction 1. If the penalty of suspension is imposed as an accessory, what is the

Civil interdiction is an accessory penalty. Civil interdiction shall deprive the
offender during the time of his sentence: Its duration shall be that of the principal penalty.

(1) The rights of parental authority, or guardianship either as to the person or

property of any ward; 2. If the penalty of temporary disqualification is imposed as a principal
penalty, what is the duration?
(2) Marital authority;
The duration is six years and one day to 12 years.
(3) The right to manage his property; and

(4) The right to dispose of such property by any act or any conveyance inter vivos. 3. What do we refer to if it is perpetual or temporary disqualification?

Can a convict execute a last will and testament? YES. We refer to the duration of the disqualification.

4. What do we refer to if it is special or absolute disqualification?

We refer to the nature of the disqualification.

The classification of principal and accessory is found in Article 25.

PRIMARY CLASSIFICATION OF PENALTIES In classifying the penalties as principal and accessory, what is meant by this is
that those penalties classified as accessory penalties need not be stated in the
sentence. The accessory penalties follow the principal penalty imposed for the
Principal penalties and accessory penalties crime as a matter of course. So in the imposition of the sentence, the court will
specify only the principal penalty but that is not the only penalty which the
The penalties which are both principal and accessory penalties are the offender will suffer. Penalties which the law considers as accessory to the
following: prescribed penalty are automatically imposed even though they are not stated
in the judgment. As to the particular penalties that follow a particular principal
penalty, Articles 40 to 45 of the Revised Penal Code shall govern.
(1) Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification;

If asked what are the accessory penalties, do not just state the accessory
(2) Perpetual or temporary special disqualification.
penalties. State the principal penalty and the corresponding accessory

Penalties in which other accessory penalties are inherent:

(1) Article 40. Deathperpetual absolute disqualification, and civil interdiction

during 30 years following date of sentence;
Bond to keep the peace
(2) Article 41. Reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporalcivil interdiction for life
or during the period of the sentence, as the case may be, and perpetual One of the principal penalties common to the others is bond to keep the peace.
absolute disqualification; There is no crime under the Revised Penal Code which carries this penalty.

(3) Art. 42. Prision mayortemporary absolute disqualification, perpetual special

disqualification from the right of suffrage; Bond for good behavior

(4) Art. 43. Prision correccionalsuspension from public office, from the right to Bond for good behavior is prescribed by the Revised Penal Code for the crimes
follow a profession or calling, and perpetual special disqualification from the of grave threats and light threats under Article 234. You cannot find this penalty
right of suffrage if the duration of the imprisonment shall exceed 18 months; in Article 25 because Article 25 provides for bond to keep the peace. Remember
that no felony shall be punished by any penalty not prescribed by law prior to
(5) Art. 44. Arrestosuspension of the right to hold office and the right of suffrage its commission pursuant to Article 21.
during the term of the sentence.

There are accessory penalties which are true to other principal penalties. An
example is the penalty of civil interdiction. This is accessory penalty, and, as
provided in Article 34, a convict sentenced to civil interdiction suffers certain
disqualification during the term of the sentence. One of the disqualifications is
that of making conveyance of his property inter vivos.


A has been convicted and is serving the penalty of prision mayor. While serving
sentence, he executed a deed of sale over his only parcel of land. A creditor
moved to annul the sale on the ground that the convict is not qualified to
execute a deed of conveyance inter vivos. If you were the judge, how would Is the bond to keep the peace the same as bond for good behavior?
you resolve the move of the creditor to annul the sale?
No. The legal effect of each is entirely different. The legal effect of a failure to
Civil interdiction is not an accessory penalty in prision mayor. The convict can post a bond to keep the peace is imprisonment either for 30 days or 6 months,
convey his property. depending on whether the felony committed is grave or less grave on the one
hand, or it is light only on the other hand. The legal effect of failure to post a
bond for good behavior is not imprisonment but destierro under Article 284.

Divisible and Indivisible Penalties

When we talk of period, it is implying that the penalty is divisible.

If, after being given a problem, you were asked to state the period in which
the penalty of reclusion perpetua is to be imposed, remember that when the
penalty is indivisible, there is no period. Do not talk of period, because when
you talk of period, you are implying that the penalty is divisible since the period
referred to is the minimum, medium and maximum. If it is indivisible, there is
What accessory penalty is common to all principal penalties? no such thing as a minimum, medium, or maximum period.

Confiscation or forfeiture of the instrument of the proceeds of the crime. The capital punishment
You were asked to state whether you are in favor or against capital punishment. divisible penalty was raised, and because the issue is one of first impression
Understand that you are not taking an examination in Theology. Explain the and momentous importance, the First Division referred the motion to the Court
issue on the basis of social utility of the penalty. Is it beneficial in deterring en banc.
crimes or not? This should be the premise of your reasoning.
In a resolution promulgated on January 5, 1995, the Supreme Court en banc
Designation of penalty held that reclusion perpetua shall remain as an indivisible penalty. To this end,
Since the principal penalties carry with them certain accessory penalties, the the resolution states:
courts are not at liberty to use any designation of the principal penalty. So it
was held that when the penalty should be reclusion perpetua, it is erroneous After deliberating on the motion and re-examining the legislation history of RA
for the court to use life imprisonment. In other words, the courts are not 7659, the Court concludes that although Section 17 of RA 7659 has fixed the
correct when they deviate from the technical designation of the principal duration of Reclusion Perpetua from twenty (20) years and one (1) day to forty
penalty, because the moment they deviate from this designation, there will be (40) years, there was no clear legislative intent to alter its original classification
no accessory penalties that will go with them. as an indivisible penalty. It shall then remain as an indivisible penalty.

Reclusion perpetua as modified

Before the enactment of Republic Act 7659, which made amendments to the Verily, if reclusion perpetua was classified as a divisible penalty, then Article
Revised Penal Code, the penalty of reclusion perpetua had no fixed duration. 63 of the Revised Penal Code would lose its reason and basis of existence. To
The Revised Penal Code provides in Article 27 that the convict shall be pardoned illustrate, the first paragraph of Section 20 of the amended RA No. 6425
after undergoing the penalty for 30 years, unless by reason of his conduct or provides for the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death whenever the dangerous
some other serious cause, he is not deserving of pardon. As amended by drugs involved are of any of the quantities stated herein. If Article 63 of the
Section 21 of RA 7659, the same article now provides that the penalty of Code were no longer applicable because reclusion perpetua is supposed to be
reclusion perpetua shall be from 20 to 40 years. Because of this, speculations a divisible penalty, then there would be no statutory rules for determining when
arose as to whether it made reclusion perpetua a divisible penalty. either reclusion perpetua or death should be the imposable penalty. In fine,
there would be no occasion for imposing reclusion perpetua as the penalty in
As we know, when a penalty has a fixed duration, it is said to be divisible and, drug cases, regardless of the attendant modifying circumstances.
in accordance with the provisions of Articles 65 and 76, should be divided into
three equal portions to form one period of each of the three portions. Now then, if Congress had intended to reclassify reclusion perpetua as divisible
Otherwise, if the penalty has no fixed duration, it is an indivisible penalty. The penalty, then it should have amended Article 63 and Article 76 of the Revised
nature of the penalty as divisible or indivisible is decisive of the proper penalty Penal Code. The latter is the law on what are considered divisible penalties
to be imposed under the Revised Penal Code inasmuch as it determines under the Code and what should be the duration of the periods thereof. There
whether the rules in Article 63 or the rules in Article 64 should be observed in are, as well, other provisions of the RPC involving reclusion perpetua, such as
fixing the penalty. Art 41 on the accessory penalties thereof and paragraphs 2 and 3 of Art 61,
which has not been touched by the corresponding amendment.
Thus, consistent with the rule mentioned, the Supreme Court, by its First
Division, applied Article 65 of the Code in imposing the penalty for rape Ultimately, the question arises: What then may be the reason for the
in People v. Conrado Lucas, GR No. 108172-73,May 25, 1994. It divided amendment fixing the duration of reclusion perpetua? This question was
the time included in the penalty of reclusion perpetua into three equal portions answered in the same case of People v. Lucasby quoting pertinent portion of
composing a period as follows: the decision in People v. Reyes, 212 SCRA 402, thus:
Minimum20 years and one day to 26 years and eight months;
Medium26 years, eight months and one day to 33 years and four months;
Maximum34 years, four months and one day to 40 years. The imputed duration of thirty (30) years for reclusion perpetua, thereof, is
only to serve as the basis for determining the convicts eligibility for pardon or
the application of the three-fold rule in the service of penalties. Since, however,
Considering the aggravating circumstance of relationship, the Court sentenced in all the graduated scales of penalties in the Code, as set out in Article 25, 70
the accused to imprisonment of 34 years, four months and one day of reclusion and 21, reclusion perpetua is the penalty immediately next higher to reclusion
perpetua, instead of the straight penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the temporal, it follows by necessary implication that the minimum of reclusion
trial court. The appellee seasonably filed a motion for clarification to correct the perpetua is twenty (20) years and one (1) day with a maximum duration
duration of the sentence, because instead of beginning with 33 years, four thereafter to last for the rest of the convicts natural life, although pursuant to
months and one day, it began with 34 years, four months and one day. The Article 70 , it appears that the maximum period for the service of the penalties
issue of whether the amendment of Article 27 made reclusion perpetua a shall not exceed forty (40) years. It would be legally absurd and violative of
the scales of penalties in the Code to reckon the minimum of Reclusion 3. When, upon appeal or automatic review by the Supreme Court, the required
Perpetua at thirty (30) years since there would thereby be a resultant lacuna majority for the imposition of the death penalty is not obtained.
whenever the penalty exceeds the maximum twenty (20) years of Reclusion 4. When the person is convicted of a capital crime but before executin becomes
Temporal but is less than thirty (30) years. insane.
5. When the accused is a woman while she is pregnant or within one year after
Explain your answer and choice briefly.
Innovations in the imposition of the death penalty

A (Suggested): Understanding the word inflicted to mean the imposition of

Aside from restoring the death penalty for certain heinous crimes, Republic Act
death penalty, not its execution, the circumstance in which the death penalty
No. 7659 and Republic Act No. 8177 made innovations on the provisions of RPC
cannot be inflicted is no.2: when the guilty person is more than 70 years of
regarding the imposition of the death penalty:
age (Art. 47, Revised Penal Code). Instead, the penalty shall be commuted
to reclusion perpetua, with the accessory penalties provided in Article 40, RPC.
(1) Article 47 (amended by R.A. No. 7659) has been reworded to expressly include
among the instances where the death penalty shall not be imposed, the case
In circumstance no.1 when the guilty person is at least 18 years of age at the
of an offender who is below 18 years old at the time of the commission of the
time of the commission of the crime, the death penalty can be imposed since
offense. But even without this amendment, the death penalty may not be
the offender is already of legal age when he committed the crime.
meted out on an offender who was below 18 years of age at the time of the
commission of the crime because Article 68 lowers the imposable penalty upon
such offenders by at least one degree than that prescribed for the crime. Circumstance no. 3 no longer operates, considering the decision of the
Supreme Court in People v. Efren Mateo (G.R. No. 147678-87, July 7, 2004)
providing an intermediate review for such cases where the penalty imposed us
(2) In the matter of executing the death penalty, Article 81 has been amended by
death, reclusin perpetua or life imprisonment before they are elevated to the
R.A. No. 81 and, thus, directs that the manner of putting the convict to death
Supreme Court.
shall be by lethal injection (formerly electrocution then gas poisoning), and the
sentence shall be carried out not earlier than one (1) year but not later than
eighteen (18) months after the finality of judgment. In circumstances no. 4 & 5, the death penalty can be imposed if prescribed by
the law violated although its execution shall be suspended when the convict
becomes insane before it could be executed and while he is insane.
(3) The original provision of Article 83, anent the suspension of the execution of
the death penalty for three years if the convict was a woman, has been deleted
and instead, limits such suspension to last while the woman was pregnant and Likewise, the death penalty can be imposed upon a woman but its execution
within one year after delivery. shall be suspended during her pregnancy and for one year after her delivery.

A (Alternative): The word INFLICTED is found only in Art. 83 to the effect

that the death penalty may not be INFLICTED upon a pregnant woman, such
penalty is to be suspended.

If INFLICTED is to be construed as EXECUTION, then No.5 is the choice.

Subsidiary penalty

Is subsidiary penalty an accessory penalty?

The death penalty cannot be inflicted under which of the following
circumstances? If the convict does not want to pay a fine and has so many friends and wants
1. When the guilty person in at least 18 years of age at the time of the commission to prolong his stay in jail, can he stay there and not pay the fine? No.
of the crime.
2. When the guilty person is more than 70 years of age.
After undergoing subsidiary penalty and convict is already released from the
jail and his financial circumstances improve, can he made to pay? Yes, for the
full amount with deduction.

Article 39 deals with subsidiary penalty. There are two situations there:

(1) When there is a penalty of imprisonment or any other principal penalty and it
carries with it a fine; and
The penalty imposed by the judge is fine only. The sheriff then tried to levy the
(2) When penalty is only a fine. property of the defendant after it has become final and executory, but it was
returned unsatisfied. The court then issued an order for said convict to suffer
Therefore, there shall be no subsidiary penalty for the non-payment of the subsidiary penalty. The convict was detained, for which reason he filed a
damages to the offended party. petition for habeas corpus contending that his detention is illegal. Will the
petition prosper?
This subsidiary penalty is one of important matter under the title of penalty. A
subsidiary penalty in not an accessory penalty. Since it is not an accessory Yes. The judgment became final without statement as to subsidiary penalty, so
penalty, it must be expressly stated in the sentence, but the sentence does not that even if the convict has no money or property to satisfy the fine, he cannot
specify the period of subsidiary penalty because it will only be known if the suffer subsidiary penalty because the latter is not an accessory and so it must
convict cannot pay the fine. The sentence will merely provide that in case of be expressly stated. If the court overlooked to provide for subsidiary penalty
non-payment of fine, the convict shall be required to serve subsidiary penalty. in the sentence and its attention was later called to that effect, thereafter, it
It will then be the prison authority who will compute this. tried to modify the sentence to include subsidiary penalty after period to appeal
had already elapsed, the addition of subsidiary penalty will be null and void.
This is tantamount to double jeopardy.
So even if subsidiary penalty is proper in a case, if the judge failed to state in
the sentence that the convict shall be required to suffer subsidiary penalty in
case of insolvency to pay the fine, that convict cannot be required to suffer the If the fine is prescribed with the penalty of imprisonment or any deprivation of
accessory penalty. This particular legal point is a bar problem. Therefore, the liberty, such imprisonment should not be higher than six years or prision
judgment of the court must state this. If the judgment is silent, he cannot correccional. Otherwise, there is no subsidiary penalty.
suffer any subsidiary penalty.

The subsidiary penalty is not an accessory penalty that follows the principal When is subsidiary penalty applied
penalty as a matter of course. It is not within the control of the convict to pay
the fine or not and once the sentence becomes final and executory and a writ (1) If the subsidiary penalty prescribed for the non-payment of the which goes with
of execution is issued to collect the fine, if the convict has a property to levy the principal penalty, the maximum duration of the subsidiary penalty is one
upon, the same shall answer for the fine, whether he likes it or not. It must be year, so there is no subsidiary that goes beyond one year. But this will only
that the convict is insolvent to pay the fine. That means that the writ of be true if the one year period is higher than 1/3 of the principal penalty, the
execution issued against the property of the convict, if any, is returned convict cannot be made to undergo subsidiary penalty more than 1/3 of the
unsatisfied. duration of the principal penalty and in no case will it be more than 1 year
get 1/3 of the principal penalty whichever is lower.
In People v. Subido, it was held that the convict cannot choose not to serve,
or not to pay the fine and instead serve the subsidiary penalty. A subsidiary (2) If the subsidiary penalty is to be imposed for non payment of fine and the
penalty will only be served if the sheriff should return the execution for the fine principal penalty imposed be fine only, which is a single penalty, that means it
on the property of the convict and does not have the properties to satisfy the does not go with another principal penalty, the most that the convict will be
writ. required to undergo subsidiary imprisonment is six months, if the felony
committed is grave or less grave, otherwise, if the felony committed is slight,
the maximum duration of the subsidiary penalty is only 15 days.
There are some who use the term subsidiary imprisonment. The term is wrong mayor + P200.00 x 50. Arresto Mayor is six months x 50 = 25 years. P200.00
because the penalty is not only served by imprisonment. The subsidiary x 50 = P10,000.00. Thus, I would impose a penalty of arresto mayor and a
penalty follows the nature of the principal penalty. If the principal penalty is fine of P200.00 multiplied by 50 counts and state further that as a judge, I am
destierro, this being a divisible penalty, and a penalty with a fixed duration, not in the position to apply the Three-Fold Rule because the Three-Fold Rule is
the non-payment of the fine will bring about subsidiary penalty. This being a to be given effect when the convict is already serving sentence in the
restriction of liberty with a fixed duration under Article 39 for the nonpayment penitentiary. It is the prison authority who will apply the Three-Fold Rule. As
of fine that goes with the destierro, the convict will be required to undergo far as the court is concerned, that will be the penalty to be imposed.
subsidiary penalty and it will also be in the form of destierro.
For the purposes of subsidiary penalty, apply the Three-Fold Rule if the penalty
Illustration: is arresto mayor and a fine of P200.00 multiplied by 3. This means one year
and six months only. So, applying the Three-Fold Rule, the penalty does not
A convict was sentenced to suspension and fine. This is a penalty where a go beyond six years. Hence, for the non-payment of the fine of P10,000.00,
public officer anticipates public duties, he entered into the performance of the convict shall be required to undergo subsidiary penalty. This is because
public office even before he has complied with the required to undergo the imprisonment that will be served will not go beyond six years. It will only
subsidiary penalty? be one year and six months, since in the service of the sentence, the Three-
Fold Rule will apply.
Yes, because the penalty of suspension has a fixed duration. Under Article 27,
suspension and destierro have the same duration as prision correccional. So It is clearly provided under Article 39 that if the means of the convict should
the duration does not exceed six years. Since it is a penalty with a fixed improve, even if he has already served subsidiary penalty, he shall still be
duration under Article 39, when there is a subsidiary penalty, such shall be 1/3 required to pay the fine and there is no deduction for that amount which the
of the period of suspension which in no case beyond one year. But the convict has already served by way of subsidiary penalty.
subsidiary penalty will be served not by imprisonment but by continued
Articles 63 and 64
If the penalty is public censure and fine even if the public censure is a light
penalty, the convict cannot be required to pay the fine for subsidiary penalty If crime committed is parricide, penalty is reclusion perpetua. The accused,
for the non-p0ayment of the fine because public censure is a penalty that has after committing parricide, voluntarily surrendered and pleaded guilty of the
no fixed duration. crime charged upon arraignment. It was also established that he was
intoxicated, and no aggravating circumstances were present. What penalty
Do not consider the totality of the imprisonment the convict is sentenced to but would you impose?
consider the totality or the duration of the imprisonment that the convict will
be required to serve under the Three-Fold Rule. If the totality of the Reclusion perpetua, because it is an indivisible penalty.
imprisonment under this rule does not exceed six years, then, even if the
totality of all the sentences without applying the Three-Fold Rule will go beyond
When there are two or more mitigating circumstances and there is no
six years, the convict shall be required to undergo subsidiary penalty if he could
aggravating circumstance, penalty to be imposed shall be one degree lower to
not pay the fine.
be imposed in the proper period. Do not apply this when there is one
aggravating circumstance.
A collector of NAWASA collected from 50 houses within a certain locality. When
he was collecting NAWASA bills, the charges of all these consumers was a
There are about four mitigating circumstances and one aggravating
minimum of 10. The collector appropriated the amount collected and so was
circumstance. Court offsets the aggravating circumstance against the
charged with estafa. He was convicted. Penalty imposed was arresto mayor
mitigating circumstance and there still remains three mitigating
and a fine of P200.00 in each count. If you were the judge, what penalty would
circumstances. Because of that, the judge lowered the penalty by one
you impose? May the convict be required to undergo subsidiary penalty in case
degree. Is the judge correct?
he is insolvent to pay the fine?

No. In such a case when there are aggravating circumstances, no matter how
The Three-Fold Rule should not applied by the court. In this case of 50 counts
many mitigating circumstances there are, after offsetting, do not go down any
of estafa, the penalty imposed was arresto mayor and a fie of P200.00. Arresto
degree lower. The penalty prescribed by law will be the penalty to be imposed,
but in the minimum period. Cannot go below the minimum period when there (4) When the penalty prescribed for the crime committed is a divisible penalty and
is an aggravating circumstance. there are two or more ordinary mitigating circumstances and no aggravating
circumstances whatsoever, the penalty next lower in degree shall be the one
Go into the lowering of the penalty by one degree if the penalty is divisible. So imposed.
do not apply the rule in paragraph 5 of Article 64 to a case where the penalty
is divisible. (5) Whenever the provision of the Revised Penal Code specifically lowers the
penalty by one or two degrees than what is ordinarily prescribed for the crime
Article 66
Penalty commonly imposed by the Revised Penal Code may be by way of
When there are mitigating circumstance and aggravating circumstance and the imprisonment or by way of fine or, to a limited extent, by way6 of destierro or
penalty is only fine, when it is only ordinary mitigating circumstance and disqualification, whether absolute or special.
aggravating circumstance, apply Article 66. Because you determine the
imposable fine on the basis of the financial resources or means of the In the matter of lowering the penalty by degree, the reference is Article 71. It
offender. But if the penalty would be lowered by degree, there is a privileged is necessary to know the chronology under Article 71 by simply knowing the
mitigating circumstance or the felony committed is attempted or frustrated, scale. Take note that destierro comes after arresto mayor so the penalty one
provided it is not a light felony against persons or property, because if it is a degree lower than arresto mayor is not arresto menor, but destierro. Memorize
light felony and punishable by fine, it is not a crime at all unless it is the scale in Article 71.
consummated. So, if it is attempted or frustrated, do not go one degree lower
because it is not punishable unless it is a light felony against person or property In Article 37, with respect to the range of each penalty, the range of arresto
where the imposable penalty will be lowered by one degree or two degrees. menor follows arresto mayor, since arresto menor is one to 30 days or one
month, while arresto mayor is one month and one day to six months. On the
other hand, the duration of destierro is the same as prision correccional which
Penalty prescribed to a crime is lowered by degrees in the following cases: is six months and one day to six years. But be this as it is, under Article 71,
in the scale of penalties graduated according to degrees, arresto mayor is
higher than diestierro.
(1) When the crime is only attempted or frustrated.

In homicide under Article 249, the penalty is reclusion temporal. One degree
If it is frustrated, penalty is one degree lower than that prescribed by law.
lower, if homicide is frustrated, or there is an accomplice participating in
homicide, is prision mayor, and two degrees lower is prision correccional.
If it is attempted, penalty is two degrees lower than that prescribed by law.
This is true if the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code is a whole
His is so because the penalty prescribed by law for a crime refers to the divisible penalty one degree or 2 degrees lower will also be punished as a
consummated stage. whole. But generally, the penalties prescribed by the Revised Penal Code are
only in periods, like prision correccional minimum, or prision correccional
(2) When the offender is an accomplice or accessory only minimum to medium.

Penalty is one degree lower in the case of an accomplice. Although the penalty is prescribed by the Revised Penal Code as a period, such
penalty should be understood as a degree in itself and the following rules shall
Penalty is two degrees lower in the case of an accessory. govern:

This is so because the penalty prescribed by law for a given crime refers to the (1) When the penalty prescribed by the Reised Code is made up of a period, like
consummated stage. prision correccional medium, the penalty one degree lower is prision
correccional minimum, and the penalty two degrees lower is arresto mayor
(3) When there is a privilege mitigating circumstance in favor of the offender, it maximum. In other words, each degree will be made up of only one period
will lower the penalty by one or two degrees than that prescribed by law because the penalty prescribed is also made up only of one period.
depending on what the particular provision of the Revised Penal Code states.
(2) When the penalty prescribed by the Code is made up of two periods of a given If the penalty prescribed is a fine ranging from P200.00 to P500.00, but the
penalty, every time such penalty is lowered by one degree you have to go down felony is frustrated so that the penalty should be imposed one degree lower,
also by two periods. of P500.00, shall be deducted therefrom. This is done by deducting P125.00
from P500.00, leaving a difference of P375.00. The penalty one degree lower
Illustration: is P375.00. To go another degree lower, P125.00 shall again be deducted from
P375.00 and that would leave a difference of P250.00. Hence, the penalty
another degree lower is a fine ranging from P200.00 to P250.00. If at all, the
If the penalty prescribed for the crime is prision correccional medium to
fine has to be lowered further, it cannot go lower than P200.00. So, the fine
maximum, the penalty one degree lower will be arresto mayor maximum to
will be imposed at P200.00. This rule applies when the fine has to be lowered
prision correccional minimum, and the penalty another degree lower will be
by degree.
arresto mayor minimum to medium. Every degree will be composed of two

(3) When the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code is made up fo three Article 66
periods of different penalties, every time you go down one degree lower, you
have to go down by three periods. In so far as ordinary mitigating or aggravating circumstance would affect the
penalty which is in the form of a fine, Article 66 of the Revised Penal Code shall
Illustration: govern. Under this article, it is discretionary upon the court to apply the fine
taking into consideration the financial means of the offender to pay the
same. In other words, it is not only the mitigating and/or aggravating
The penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code is prision mayor maximum
circumstances that the court shall take into consideration, but primarily, the
to reclusion temporal medium, the penalty one degree lower is prision
financial capability of the offender to pay the fine. For the same crime, the
correccional maximum to prision mayor medium. Another degree lower will be
penalty upon an accused who I poor may be less than the penalty upon an
arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional medium.
accused committing the same crime but who is wealthy.

These rules have nothing to do with mitigating or aggravating

For instance, when there are two offenders who are co-conspirators to a crime,
circumstances. These rules refer to the lowering of penalty by one or two
and their penalty consists of a fine only, and one of them is wealthy while the
degrees. As to how mitigating or aggravating circumstances may affect the
other is a pauper, the court may impose a higher penalty upon the wealthy
penalty, the rules are found in Articles 63 and 64. Article 63 governs when the
person and a lower fine for the pauper.
penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code is divisible. When the penalty is
indivisible, no matter how many ordinary mitigating circumstances there are,
the prescribed penalty is never lowered by degree. It takes a privileged Penalty for murder under the Revised Penal Code is reclusion temporal
mitigating circumstance to lower such penalty by degree. On the other hand, maximum to death. So, the penalty would be reclusion temporal maximum
when the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code is divisible, such reclusion perpetua death. This penalty made up of three periods.
penalty shall be lowered by one degree only but imposed in the proper period,
when there are two or more ordinary mitigating circumstance and there is no
aggravating circumstance whatsoever. The Three-Fold Rule

Under this rule, when a convict is to serve successive penalties, he will not
Article 75 - Fines actually serve the penalties imposed by law. Instead, the most severe of the
penalties imposed on him shall be multiplied by three and the period will be
With respect to the penalty of fine, if the fine the only term of the penalty to be served by him. However, in no case should
has to be lowered by degree either because the felony committed is only the penalty exceed 40 years.
attempted or frustrated or because there is an accomplice or an accessory
participation, the fine is lowered by deducting of the maximum amount of This rule is intended for the benefit of the convict and so, you will only apply
the fine from such maximum without changing the minimum amount this provided the sum total of all the penalties imposed would be greater than
prescribed by law. the product of the most severe penalty multiplied by three but in no case will
the penalties to be served by the convict be more than 40 years.
Although this rule is known as the Three-Fold Rule, you cannot actually apply
this if the convict is to serve only three successive penalties. The Three-Fold Illustration:
Rule can only be applied if the convict I to serve four or more sentences
successively. If the sentences would be served simultaneously, the Three-Fold
A distinct engineer was sentenced by the court to a term of 914 years in prison.
Rule does not govern.

A person was sentenced to three death sentences. Significance: If ever

The chronology of the penalties as provided in Article 70 of the Revised Penal
granted pardon for 1 crime, the two remaining penalties must still be executed.
Code shall be followed.
It is in the service of the penalty, not in the imposition of the penalty, that the
Three-Fold Rule is to be applied. The Three-Fold Rule will apply whether the This rule will apply only if sentences are to be served successively.
sentences are the product of one information in one court, whether the
sentences are promulgated in one day or whether the sentences are
promulgated by different courts on different days. What is material is that the ACT NO. 4013 (INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW), AS AMENDED
convict shall serve more than three successive sentences.
Three things to know about the Indeterminate Sentence Law:
For purposes of the Three-fold Rule, even perpetual penalties are taken into (1) Its purpose;
account. So not only penalties with fixed duration, even penalties without any (2) Instances when it does not apply; and
fixed duration or indivisible penalties are taken into account. For purposes of (3) How it operates
the Three-Fold Rule, indivisible penalties are given equivalent of 30 years. If
the penalty is perpetual disqualification, it will be given and equivalent duration Indeterminate Sentence Law governs whether the crime is punishable under
of 30 years, so that if he will have to suffer several perpetual disqualification, the Revised Penal Code or a special Law. It is not limited to violations of the
under the Three-Fold Rule, you take the most severe and multiply it by Revised Penal Code.
three. The Three-Fold Rule does not apply to the penalty prescribed but to the
penalty imposed as determined by the court.
It applies only when the penalty served is imprisonment. If not by
imprisonment, then it does not apply.
Penalties imposed are
The purpose of the Indeterminate Sentence
One prision correccional minimum 2 years law is to avoid prolonged imprisonment, because it is proven to be more
and 4 months destructive than constructive to the offender. So, the purpose of the
Indeterminate Sentence Law in shortening the possible detention of the convict
One arresto mayor 1 month and 1 day to 6 in jail is to save valuable human resources. I other words, if the valuable
months human resources were allowed prolonged confinement in jail, they would
deteriorate. Purpose is to preserve economic usefulness for these people for
One prision mayor 6 years and 1 day to 12 having committed a crime to reform them rather than to deteriorate them
years and, at the same time, saving the government expenses of maintaining the
convicts on a prolonged confinement in jail.
Do not commit the mistake of applying the Three-Fold Rule in this case. Never
apply the Three-Fold Rule when there are only three sentences. Even if you If the crime is a violation of the Revised Penal Code, the court will impose a
add the penalties, you can never arrive at a sum higher than the product of the sentence that has a minimum and maximum. The maximum of the
most severe multiplied by three. indeterminate sentence will be arrived at by taking into account the attendant
The common mistake is, if given a situation, whether the Three-Fold Rule could mitigating and/or aggravating circumstances according to Article 64 of the
be applied. If asked, if you were the judge, what penalty would you impose, Revised penal Code. In arriving at the minimum of the indeterminate
for purposes of imposing the penalty, the court is not at liberty to apply the sentence, the court will take into account the penalty prescribed for the crime
Three-Fold Rule, whatever the sum total of penalty for each crime committed, and go one degree lower. Within the range of one degree lower, the court will
even if it would amount to 1,000 years or more. It is only when the convict is fix the minimum for the indeterminate sentence, and within the range of the
serving sentence that the prison authorities should determine how long he penalty arrived at as the maximum in the indeterminate sentence, the court
should stay in jail. will fix the maximum of the sentence. If there is a privilege mitigating
circumstance which has been taken in consideration in fixing the maximum of Rule under Art 64 shall apply in determining the maximum but not in
the indeterminate sentence, the minimum shall be based on the penalty as determining the minimum.
reduced by the privilege mitigating circumstance within the range of the
penalty next lower in degree. In determining the applicable penalty according to the Indeterminate Sentence
Law, there is no need to mention the number of years, months and days; it is
If the crime is a violation of a special law, in fixing the maximum of the enough that the name of the penalty is mentioned while the Indeterminate
indeterminate sentence, the court will impose the penalty within the range of Sentence Law. The attendant mitigating and/or aggravating circumstances in
the penalty prescribed by the special law, as long as it will not exceed the limit the commission of the crime are taken into consideration only when the
of the penalty. In fixing the minimum, the court can fix a penalty anywhere maximum of the penalty is to be fixed. But in so far as the minimum is
within the range of penalty prescribed by the special law, as long as it will not concerned, the basis of the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code, and
be less than the minimum limit of the penalty under said law. No mitigating go one degree lower than that. But penalty one degree lower shall be applied
and aggravating circumstances are taken into account. in the same manner that the maximum is also fixed based only on ordinary
mitigating circumstances. This is true only if the mitigating circumstance taken
The minimum and the maximum referred to in the Indeterminate Sentence Law into account is only an ordinary mitigating circumstance. If the mitigating
are not periods. So, do not say, maximum or minimum period. For the circumstance is privileged, you cannot follow the law in so far as fixing the
purposes of the indeterminate Sentence Law, use the term minimum to refer minimum of the indeterminate sentence is concerned; otherwise, it may
to the duration of the sentence which the convict shall serve as a minimum, happen that the maximum of the indeterminate sentence is lower than its
and when we say maximum, for purposes of ISLAW, we refer to the maximum minimum.
limit of the duration that the convict may be held in jail. We are not referring
to any period of the penalty as enumerated in Article 71. In one Supreme Court ruling, it was held that for purposes of applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code
Courts are required to fix a minimum and a maximum of the sentence that they and not that which may be imposed by court. This ruling, however, is obviously
are to impose upon an offender when found guilty of the crime charged. So, erroneous. This is so because such an interpretation runs contrary to the rule
whenever the Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable, there is always a of pro reo, which provides that the penal laws should always be construed an
minimum and maximum of the sentence that the convict shall serve. If the applied in a manner liberal or lenient to the offender. Therefore, the rule is, in
crime is punished by the Revised Penal Code, the law provides that the applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, it is that penalty arrived at by the
maximum shall be arrived at by considering the mitigating and aggravating court after applying the mitigating and aggravating circumstances that should
circumstances in the commission of the crime according to the proper rules of be the basis.
the Revised Penal Code. To fix the maximum, consider the mitigating and
aggravating circumstances according to the rules found in Article 64. This Crimes punished under special law carry only one penalty; there are no degree
means or periods. Moreover, crimes under special law do not consider mitigating or
aggravating circumstance present in the commission of the crime. So in the
(1) Penalties prescribed by the law for the crime committed shall be imposed in case of statutory offense, no mitigating and no aggravating circumstances will
the medium period if no mitigating or aggravating circumstance; be taken into account. Just the same, courts are required in imposing the
penalty upon the offender to fix a minimum that the convict should serve, and
to set a maximum as the limit of that sentence. Under the law, when the crime
(2) If there is aggravating circumstance, no mitigating, penalty shall be imposed
is punished under a special law, the court may fix any penalty as the maximum
in the maximum;
without exceeding the penalty prescribed by special law for the crime
committed. In the same manner, courts are given discretion to fix a minimum
(3) If there is mitigating circumstance, no aggravating, penalty shall be in the anywhere within the range of the penalty prescribed by special law, as long as
minimum; it will not be lower than the penalty prescribed.

(4) If there are several mitigating and aggravating circumstances, they shall offset Disqualification may be divided into three, according to
against each other. Whatever remains, apply the rules. (1) The time committed;
(2) The penalty imposed; and
(5) If there are two or more mitigating circumstance and no aggravating (3) The offender involved.
circumstance, penalty next lower in degree shall be the one imposed.

Among the different grounds of partial extinction of criminal liability, the most
important is probation. Probation is a manner of disposing of an accused who
have been convicted by a trial court by placing him under supervision of a
probation officer, under such terms and conditions that the court may fix. This
may be availed of before the convict begins serving sentence by final judgment
Q: When would the Indeterminate Sentence Law be inapplicable? and provided that he did not appeal anymore from conviction.

A: The Indeterminate Sentence Law is not inapplicable to: Without regard to the nature of the crime, only those whose penalty does not
exceed six years of imprisonment are those qualified for probation. If the
(1) Persons convicted of offense punishable with death penalty or life penalty is six years plus one day, he is no longer qualified for probation.
If the offender was convicted of several offenses which were tried jointly and
(2) Persons convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason; one decision was rendered where multiple sentences imposed several prison
terms as penalty, the basis for determining whether the penalty disqualifies the
offender from probation or not is the term of the individual imprisonment and
(3) Persons convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition, espionage;
not the totality of all the prison terms imposed in the decision. So even if the
prison term would sum up to more than six years, if none of the individual
(4) Persons convicted of piracy; penalties exceeds six years, the offender is not disqualified by such penalty
from applying for probation.
(5) Persons who are habitual delinquents;
On the other hand, without regard to the penalty, those who are convicted of
(6) Persons who shall have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence; subversion or any crime against the public order are not qualified for
probation. So know the crimes under Title III, Book 2 of the Revised Penal
(7) Those who have been granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive and code. Among these crimes is Alarms and Scandals, the penalty of which is only
shall have violated the term thereto; arresto menor or a fine. Under the amendment to the Probation Law, those
convicted of a crime against public order regardless of the penalty are not
qualified for probation.
(8) Those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year;

May a recidivist be given the benefit of Probation Law?

(9) Those already sentenced by final judgment at the time of the approval of
Indeterminate Sentence Law;
As a general rule, no.
(10) Those whose sentence imposes penalties which do not involve imprisonment,
like destierro; Exception: If the earlier conviction refers to a crime the penalty of which does
not exceed 30 days imprisonment or a fine of not more than P200.000, such
convict is not disqualified of the benefit of probation. So even if he would be
Reclusion perpetua is equated to life imprisonment for purposes of the
convicted subsequently of a crime embraced in the same title of the Revised
Indeterminate Sentence Law. There the said law will be inapplicable to persons
Penal Code as that of the earlier conviction, he is not disqualified from probation
convicted of offenses punishable with the said penalty (People v. Enriquez,
provided that the penalty for the current crime committed does not go beyond
six years and the nature of the crime committed by him is not against public
order, national security or subversion (Sec.9, Probation Law).
Although the penalty prescribed for the felony committed is death or reclusion
perpetua, if after considering the attendant circumstances, the imposable
penalty is reclusion temporal or less, the Indeterminate Sentence Law applies
(People v. Cempron, 187 SCRA 278). Although a person may be eligible for probation, the moment he perfects an
appeal from the judgment of conviction, he cannot avail of probation
anymore. So the benefit of probation must be invoked at the earliest instance perfected an appeal. If the convict perfected an appeal, he forfeits his right to
after conviction. He should not wait up to the time when he interposes an apply for probation. As far as offenders who are under preventive
appeal or the sentence has become final and executory. The idea is that imprisonment, that because a crime committed is not bailable or the crime
probation has to be invoked at the earliest opportunity. committed, although bailable, they cannot afford to put up a bail, upon
promulgation of the sentence, naturally he goes back to detention, that does
An application for probation is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the trial not mean that they already start serving the sentence even after promulgation
court that renders the judgment. For the offender to apply in such court, he of the sentence, sentence will only become final and executory after the lapse
should not appeal such judgment. of the 15-day period, unless the convict has waived expressly his right to
appeal or otherwise, he has partly started serving sentence and in that case,
the penalty will already be final and executory, no right to probation can be
If the offender would appeal the conviction of the trial court and the appellate
applied for.
court reduced the penalty to say, less than six years, that convict can still file
an application for probation, because the earliest opportunity for him to avail
of probation came only after judgment by the appellate court.
Whether a convict who is otherwise qualified for probation may be give the
benefit of probation or not, the courts are always required to conduct a
hearing. If the court denied the application for probation without the benefit
of the hearing, where as the applicant is not disqualified under the provision of
the Probation Law, but only based on the report of the probation officer, the
denial is correctible by certiorari, because it is an act of the court in excess of
jurisdiction or without jurisdiction, the order denying the application therefore
is null and void.

Probation is intended to promote the correction and rehabilitation of an

offender by providing him with individualized treatment; to provide an
opportunity for the reformation of a penitent offender which might be less Q: Juan was convicted by the RTC of a crime and sentenced to suffer a penalty
probable if he were to serve a prison sentence; to prevent the commission of of imprisonment for a minimum of eight years. He appealed both his conviction
offenses; to decongest our jails; and to save the government much needed and the penalty imposed upon him to the CA. CA sustained his conviction but
finance for maintaining convicts in jail. reduced his sentence to a max. of 4 years and 8 months. Could Juan forthwith
file an application for probation? Explain.
Probation is only a privilege. So even if the offender may not be disqualified
of probation, yet the court believes that because of the crime committed it was A: No. Juan can no longer apply for probation because he appealed from the
not advisable to give probation because it would depreciate the effect of the judgment of conviction of the trial court. Sec. 4 of the Probation Law mandates
crime, the court may refuse or deny an application for probation. that no application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the accused
has perfected an appeal from a judgment of conviction.
Moreover, the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (Section 24) expressly provides
that Any person convicted for drug trafficking or pushing under the Act, Probation shall be denied if the court finds:
regardless of the penalty imposed by the Court, cannot avail of the privilege
granted by the Probation Law. (1) That the offender is in need of correctional treatment that can be provided
most effectively by his commitment to an institution;
Consider not only the probationable crime, but also the probationable
penalty. If it were the non-probationable crime, then regardless of the penalty, (2) That there is undue risk that during the period of probation the offender will
the convict cannot avail of probation. Generally, the penalty which is not commit another crime; or
probationable is any penalty exceeding six years of imprisonment. Offenses
which are not probationable are those against natural security, those against (3) Probation will depreciate the seriousness of the crime.
public order and those with reference to subversion.

Persons who have been granted of the benefit of probation cannot avail thereof
The probation law imposes two kinds of conditions:
for the second time. Probation is only available once and this may be availed
(1) Mandatory conditions; and
only where the convict starts serving sentence and provided he has not
(2) Discretionary conditions.
(6) By prescription of the penalty;
Mandatory conditions:
(7) By the marriage of the offended women as in the crimes of rape, abduction,
(1) The convict must report to the Probation Officer (PO) designated in the court seduction and acts of lasciviousness.
order approving his application for Probation within 72 hours from receipt of
Notice of such order approving his application; and
Criminal liability is partially extinguished as follows:
(2) The convict, as a probationer, must report to the PO at least once a month
during the period of probation unless sooner required by the PO. (1) By conditional pardon;

These conditions being mandatory, the moment any of these is violate, the (2) By commutation of sentence;
probation is cancelled.
(3) Fr good conduct, allowances which the culprit may earn while he is serving
Discretionary conditions:
(4) Parole; and
The trial court which approved the application for probation may impose any
condition which may be constructive to the correction of the offender, provided (5) Probation.
the same would not violate the constitutional rights of the offender and subject
ot this two restrictions: (1) the conditions imposed should not be unduly
restrictive of the probationer, and (2) such condition should not be incompatible
with the freedom of conscience of the probationer. Total extinction of criminal liability

Among the grounds for total extinction as well as those for partial extinction,
you cannot find among them the election to public office. In one case, a public
official was charged before the Sandiganbayan for violation of Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act. During the ensuing election, he was nevertheless re-
elected by the constituents, one of the defenses raised was that of condonation
of the crime by his constituents, that his constituents have pardoned him. The
Supreme Court ruled that the re-election to public office is not one of the
EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY grounds by which criminal liability is extinguished. This is only true to
administrative cases but not criminal cases.
Always provide two classifications when answering this question.
Death of the offender
Criminal liability is totally extinguished as follows:
Where the offender dies before final judgment, his death extinguishes both his
(1) By the death of the convict as to personal penalties; and as to pecuniary criminal and civil liabilities. So while a case is on appeal, the offender dies, the
penalties, liability therefore is extinguished only when the death of the offender case on appeal will be dismissed. The offended party may file a separate civil
occurs before final judgment. action under the Civil Code if any other basis for recovery of civil liability exists
as provided under Art 1157 Civil Code. (People v. Bayotas, decided on
(2) By service of sentence; September 2, 1994)

(3) By amnesty which completely extinguished the penalty and all its effects; Amnesty and pardon

(4) By absolute pardon; The effects of amnesty as well as absolute pardon are not the same. Amnesty
erases not only the conviction but also the crime itself. So that if an offender
(5) By prescription of the crime; was convicted for rebellion and he qualified for amnesty, and so he was given
an amnesty, then years later he rebelled again and convicted, is he a eligibility for appointment to that office, the pardoned convict must reapply for
recidivist? No. Because the amnesty granted to him erased not only the the new appointment.
conviction but also the effects of the conviction itself.
Pardon becomes valid only when there is a final judgment. If given before this,
Supposed, instead of amnesty, what was given was absolute pardon, then it is premature and hence void. There is no such thing as a premature
years later, the offended was again captured and charged for rebellion, he was amnesty, because it does not require a final judgment; it may be given before
convicted, is he a recidivist? Yes. Pardon, although absolute does not erase final judgment or after it.
the effects of conviction. Pardon only excuses the convict from serving the
sentence. There is an exception to this and that is when the pardon was
granted when the convict had already served the sentence such that there is
no more service of sentence to be executed then the pardon shall be
understood as intended to erase the effects of the conviction.

So if the convict has already served the sentence and in spite of that he was
given a pardon that pardon will cover the effects of the crime and therefore, if
he will be subsequently convicted for a felony embracing the same title as that
crime, he cannot be considered a recidivist, because the pardon wipes out the
effects of the crime.

But if he was serving sentence when he was pardoned, that pardon will not TRY was sentenced to death by final judgment.
wipe out the effects of the crime, unless the language of the pardon absolutely But subsequently he was granted pardon by the President. The pardon was
relieve the offender of all the effects thereof. Considering that recidivism does silent on the perpetual disqualification of TRY to hold any public office.
not prescribe, no matter how long ago was the first conviction, he shall still be After his pardon, TRY ran for office as Mayor of APP, his hometown. His
a recidivist. opponent sought to disqualify him. TRY contended that he is not disqualified
because he was already pardoned by the President unconditionally.
Is TRYs contention correct? Reason briefly.
A: No, TRYs contention is not correct. Article 40 of the Revised Penal Code
expressly provides that when the death penalty is not executed by reason of
commutation or pardon, the accessory penalties of perpetual absolute
Illustration: disqualification and civil interdiction during thirty (30) years from the date of
the sentence shall remain as the effects thereof, unless such accessory
When the crime carries with it moral turpitude, the offender even if granted penalties have been expressly remitted in the pardon. This is because pardon
pardon shall still remain disqualified from those falling in cases where moral only excuses the convict from serving the sentence but does not relieve him of
turpitude is a bar. the effects of the conviction unless expressly remitted in the pardon.

Pedro was prosecuted and convicted of the crime of robbery and was sentenced Prescription of crime and prescription of the penalty
to six years imprisonment or prision correccional. After serving sentence for
three years, he was granted absolute pardon. Ten years later, Pedro was again Prescription of the crime begins, as a general rule on the day the crime was
prosecuted and convicted of the crime of theft, a crime embraced in the same committed, unless the crime was concealed, not public, in which case, the
title, this time he shall be a recidivist. On the other hand, if he has served all prescription thereof would only commence from the time the offended party or
six years of the first sentence, and his name was included in the list of all those the government learns of the commission of the crime.
granted absolute pardon, pardon shall relieve him of the effects of the crime,
and therefore even if he commits theft again, he shall not be considered a

In Monsanto V. Factoran, Jr., 170 SCRA 191, it was held that absolute
pardon does not ipso facto entitle the convict to reinstatement to the public
office forfeited by reason of his conviction. Although pardon restores his
The prevailing rule now is, prescription of the crime is not waivable, the earlier
jurisprudence to the contrary had already been abrogated or
overruled. Moreover, for purposes of prescription, the period for filing a
OW is a private person engaged in cattle ranching. One night, he saw AM stab
complaint or information may not be extended at all, even though the last day
CV treacherously, then throw the mans body into a ravine. For 25 years, CVs
such prescriptive period falls on a holiday or a Sunday.
body was never seen nor found; and OW told no one what he had witnessed.

For instance, light felony prescribes in 60 days or two months. If the 60th day
Yesterday, after consulting the parish priest, OW decided to tell the authorities
falls on a Sunday, the filing of the complaint on the succeeding Monday is
what he witnessed, and revealed that AM killed CV 25 years ago.
already fatal to the prosecution of the crime because the crime has already
Can AM be prosecuted for murder despite the lapse of 25 years? Reason briefly.
The rules on Criminal Procedure for purposes of prescription is that the filing of
A: Yes, AM can be prosecuted for murder despite the lapse of 25 years, because the complaint even at the public prosecutors office suspends the running of
the crime has not yet prescribed and legally, its prescriptive period has not the prescriptive period, but not the filing with the barangays. So the earlier
even commenced to run. rulings to the contrary are already abrogated by express provision of the
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.
The period of prescription of a crime shall commence to run only from the day
on which the crime has been discovered by the offended party, the authorities The prescription of the crime is interrupted or suspended
or their agents (Article 91, RPC). OW, a private person who saw the killing but
never disclosed it, is not the offended party nor has the crime been discovered
(1) When a complaint is filed in a proper barangay for conciliation or mediation as
by the authorities or their agents.
required by Chapter 7, Local government Code, but the suspension of the
prescriptive period is good only for 60 days. After which the prescription will
Commission of the crime is public This does not mean alone that the crime resume to run, whether the conciliation or mediation is terminated for not;
was within public knowledge or committed in public.
(2) When criminal case is filed in the prosecutors office, the prescription of the
crime is suspended until the accused is convicted or the proceeding is
In the crime of falsification of a document that was registered in the proper terminated for a cause not attributable to the accused.
registry of the government like the Registry of Property or the Registry of Deeds
of the Civil registry, the falsification is deemed public from the time the falsified
But where the crime is subject to Summary Procedure, the prescription of the
document was registered or recorded in such public office so even though, the
crime will be suspended only when the information is already filed with the trial
offended party may not really know of the falsification, the prescriptive period
court. It is not the filing of the complaint, but the filing of the information in
of the crime shall already run from the moment the falsified document was
the trial which will suspend the prescription of the crime.
recorded in the public registry. So in the case where a deed of sale of a parcel
of land which was falsified was recorded in the corresponding Registry of
Property, the owner of the land came to know of the falsified transaction only On the prescription of the penalty, the period will only commence to run when
after 10 years, so he brought the criminal action only then. The Supreme Court the convict has begun to serve the sentence. Actually, the penalty will
ruled that the crime has already prescribed. From the moment the falsified prescribe from the moment the convict evades the service of the sentence. So
document is registered in the Registry of Property, the prescriptive period if an accused was convicted in the trial court, and the conviction becomes final
already commenced to run. and executory, so this fellow was arrested to serve the sentence, on the way
to the penitentiary, the vehicle carrying him collided with another vehicle and
overturned, thus enabling the prisoner to escape, no matter how long such
When a crime prescribes, the State loses the right to prosecute the offender,
convict has been a fugitive from justice, the penalty imposed by the trial court
hence, even though the offender may not have filed a motion to quash on this
will never prescribe because he has not yet commenced the service of his
ground the trial court, but after conviction and during the appeal he learned
sentence. For the penalty to prescribe, he must be brought to Muntinlupa,
that at the time the case was filed, the crime has already prescribed, such
booked thee, placed inside the cell and thereafter he escapes.
accused can raise the question of prescription even for the first time on appeal,
and the appellate court shall have no jurisdiction to continue, if legally, the
crime has indeed prescribed. Whether it is prescription of crime or prescription of penalty, if the subject could
leave the Philippines and go to a country with whom the Philippines has no
extradition treaty, the prescriptive period of the crime or penalty shall remain
suspended whenever he is out of the country.
When the offender leaves for a country to which the Philippines has an Good conduct allowance
extradition treaty, the running of the prescriptive period will go on even if the
offender leaves Philippine territory for that country. Presently This includes the allowance for loyalty under Article 98, in relation to Article
the Philippines has an extradition treaty 158. A convict who escapes the place of confinement on the occasion of
with Taiwan, Indonesia, Canada,Australia, USA and Switzerland. So if the disorder resulting from a conflagration, earthquake or similar catastrophe or
offender goes to any of these countries, the prescriptive period still continues during a mutiny in which he has not participated and he returned within 48
to run. hours after the proclamation that the calamity had already passed, such convict
shall be given credit of 1/5 of the original sentence from that allowance for his
In the case of the prescription of the penalty, the moment the convict commits loyalty of coming back. Those who did not leave the penitentiary under such
another crime while he is fugitive from justice, prescriptive period of the circumstances do not get such allowance for loyalty. Article 158 refers only to
penalty shall be suspended and shall not run in the meantime. The crime those who leave and return.
committed does not include the initial evasion of service of sentence that the
convict must perform before the penalty shall begin to prescribe, so that the
initial crime of evasion of service of sentence does not suspend the prescription
of penalty, it is the commission of other crime, after the convict has evaded
the service of penalty that will suspend such period.
This correspondingly extinguishes service of sentence up to the maximum of
the indeterminate sentence. This is the partial extinction referred to, so that if
the convict was never given parole, no partial extinction.

In the case of marriage, do not say that it is applicable for the crimes under
Article 344. It is only true in the crimes of rape, abduction, seduction and acts
of lasciviousness. Do not say that it is applicable to private crimes because the CIVIL LIABILITY OF THE OFFENDER
term includes adultery and concubinage. Marriages in these cases may even
compound the crime of adultery or concubinage. It is only in the crimes of Civil liability of the offender falls under three categories:
rape, abduction, seduction and acts of lasciviousness that the marriage by the
offender with the offended woman shall extinguish civil liability, not only
criminal liability of the principal who marries the offended woman, but also that
Restitution or restoration
of the accomplice and accessory, if there are any.

Restitution or restoration presupposes that the offended party was divested of

Co-principals who did not themselves directly participate in the execution of
property, and such property must be returned. If the property is in the hands
the crime but who only cooperated, will also benefit from such marriage, but
of a third party, the same shall nevertheless be taken away from him and
not when such co-principal himself took direct part in the execution of the
restored to the offended party, even though such third party may be a holder
for value and a buyer in good faith of the property, except when such third
party buys the property from a public sale where the law protects the buyer.
Marriage as a ground for extinguishing civil liability must have been contracted
in good faith. The offender who marries the offended woman must be sincere
For example, if a third party bought a property in a public auction conducted
in the marriage and therefore must actually perform the duties of a husband
by the sheriff levied on the property of a judgment creditor for an obligation,
after the marriage, otherwise, notwithstanding such marriage, the offended
the buyer of the property at such execution sale is protected by law. The
woman, although already his wife can still prosecute him again, although the
offended party cannot divest him thereof. So the offended party may only
marriage remains is avoided or annulled. The marriage still subsists although
resort to reparation of the damage done from the offender.
the offended woman may re-file the complaint. The Supreme Court ruled that
marriage contemplated must be a real marriage and not one entered to and
not just to evade punishment for the crime committed because the offender Some believed that this civil liability is true only in crimes against property, this
will be compounding the wrong he has committed. is not correct. Regardless of the crime committed, if the property is illegally
taken from the offended party during the commission of the crime, the court
may direct the offender to restore or restitute such property to the offended
Partial extinction of criminal liability
party. It can only be done if the property is brought within the jurisdiction of
that court. Reparation of the damage caused

For example, in a case where the offender committed rape, during the rape, In case of human life, reparation of the damage cause is basically P50,000.00
the offender got on of the earnings of the victim. When apprehended, the value of human life, exclusive of other forms of damages. This P50,000.00
offender was prosecuted for rape and theft. When the offender was asked why may also increase whether such life was lost through intentional felony or
he got on of the earnings of the victim, the offender disclosed that he took one criminal negligence, whether the result of dolo or culpa.
of the earnings in order to have a souvenir of the sexual intercourse. Supreme
Court ruled that the crime committed is not theft and rape but rape and unjust
It was held in the case of Espaa v. People (2005) that the award for civil
vexation for the taking of the earning. The latter crime is not a crime against
indemnity ex delicto is mandatory and is granted to the heirs of the victim
property, this is a crime against personal security and liberty under Title IX of
without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.
Book II of the RPC. And yet, the offender was required to restore or restitute
the earning to the offended woman.
Also in the crime of rape, the damages awarded to the offended woman is
generally P30,000.00 for the damage to her honor. In earlier rulings, the
Property will have to be restored to the offended party even this would require
amount varied, whether the offended woman is younger or a married
the taking of the property was divested from the offended party pursuant to
woman. Supreme Court ruled that even if the offended woman does not
the commission of the crime, the one who took the same or accepted the same
adduce evidence or such damage, court can take judicial notice of the fact that
would be doing so without the benefit of the just title. So even if the property
if a woman was raped, she inevitably suffers damages. Under the Revised
may have been bought by the third person, the same may be taken from him
Rules on Criminal Procedure, a private prosecutor can recover all kinds of
and restored to the offended party without an obligation on the part of the
damages including attorneys fee. The only limitation is that the amount and
offended party to pay him whatever he paid.
the nature of the damages should be specified. The present procedural law
does not allow a blanket recovery of damages. Each kind of damages must be
The right to recover what he has paid will be against the offender who sold it specified and the amount duly proven.
ot him. On the other hand, if the crime was theft or robbery, the one who
received the personal property becomes a fence, he is not only required to
Indemnification of consequential damages
restitute the personal property but he incurs criminal liability in violation of the
Anti-Fencing Law.
Indemnification of consequential damages refers to the loss of earnings, loss
of profits. This does not refer only to consequential damages suffered by the
If the property cannot be restituted anymore, then the damage must be
offended party, this also includes consequential damages to third party who
repaired, requiring the offender to pay the value thereof, as determined by the
also suffer because of the commission of the crime.
court. That value includes the sentimental value to the offended party, not
only the replacement cost. In most cases, the sentimental value is higher than
the replacement value. But if what would be restored is brand new, then there The offender carnapped a bridal car while the newly-weds were inside the
will be an allowance for depreciation, otherwise, the offended party is allowed church. Since the car was only rented, consequential damage not only to the
to enrich himself at the expense of the offender. So there will be a newly-weds but also to the entity which rented the car to them.
corresponding depreciation and the offended party may even be required to
pay something just to cover the difference of the value of what was restored Most importantly, refer to the persons who are civilly liable under Articles 102
to him. and 103. This pertains to the owner, proprietor of hotels, inns, taverns and
similar establishments, an obligation to answer civilly for the loss or property
The obligation of the offender transcends to his heirs, even if the offender dies, of their guests.
provided he died after judgment became final, the heirs shall assume the
burden of the civil liability, but this is only to the extent that they inherit Under Article 102, two conditions must be present before liability attaches to
property from the deceased, if they do not inherit, they cannot inherit the the innkeepers, tavern keepers and proprietors:
(1) The guest must have informed the management in advance of his having
The right of the offended party transcends to heirs upon death. The heirs of brought to the premises certain valuables aside from the usual personal
the offended party step into the shoes of the latter to demand civil liability from belongings of the guest; and
the offender.
(2) The guest must have followed the rules and regulations prescribed by the Civil liability of the offender is extinguished in the same manner as civil
management of such inn, tavern, or similar establishment regarding the obligation is extinguished but this is not absolutely true. Under civil law, a civil
safekeeping of said valuables. obligation is extinguished upon loss of the thing due when the things involved
is specific. This is not a ground applicable to extinction of civil liability in
The Supreme Court ruled that even though the guest did not obey the rules criminal case if the thing due is lost, the offender shall repair the damages
and regulations prescribed by the management for safekeeping of the caused.
valuables, this does not absolve management from the subsidiary civil
liability. Non-compliance with such rules and regulations but the guests will When there are several offenders, the court in the exercise of its discretion
only be regarded as contributory negligence, but it wont absolve the shall determine what shall be the share f each offender depending upon the
management from civil liability. degree of participation as principal, accomplice or accessory. If within each
class of offender, there are more of them, such as more than one principal or
Liability specially attaches when the management is found to have violated any more than one accomplice or accessory, the liability in each class of offender
law or ordinance, rule or regulation governing such establishment. shall be subsidiary. Anyone of them may be required to pay the civil liability
pertaining to such offender without prejudice to recovery from those whose
share have been paid by another.
Even if the crime is robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons or
committed by the innkeepers employees, management will be liable,
otherwise, not liable because there is duress from the offender, liable only for If all the principals are insolvent, the obligation shall devolve upon the
theft and force upon things. accomplice(s) or accessory(s). But whoever pays shall have the right of
covering the share of the obligation from those who did not pay but are civilly
Under Article 103, the subsidiary liability of an employer or master for the crime
committed by his employee or servant may attach only when the following
requisites concur. To relate with Article 38, when there is an order or preference of pecuniary
(monetary) liability, therefore, restitution is not included here.
(1) The employer must be engaged in business or in trade or industry while the
accused was his employee To relate with Article 38, when there is an order or preference of pecuniary
(monetary) liability, therefore, restitution is not included here.
(2) At the time the crime was committed, the employee-employer relationship
must be existing between the two; There is not subsidiary penalty for non-payment of civil liability.

(3) The employee must have been found guilty of the crime charged and
accordingly held civilly liable; Subsidiary civil liability is imposed in the following:

(4) The writ of execution for the satisfaction of the civil liability was returned (1) In case of a felony committed under the compulsion of an irresistible force. The
unsatisfied because the accused-employee does not have enough property to person who employed the irresistible force is subsidiarily liable;
pay the civil liability.
(2) In case of a felony committed under an impulse of an equal or greater injury.
When these requisites concur, the employer will be subsidiarily, civilly liable for
the full amount that his employee was adjudged civilly liable. It is already The person who generated such an impulse is subsidiarily liable.
settled in jurisprudence that there is no need to file a civil action against the
employer in order to enforce the subsidiary civil liability for the crime
The owners of taverns, inns, motels, hotels, where the crime is committed
committed by his employee, it is enough that the writ of execution is returned
within their establishment due to noncompliance with general police
unsatisfied. There is no denial of due process of law because the liability of the
regulations, if the offender who is primarily liable cannot pay, the proprietor,
employer is subsidiary and not primary. He will only be liable if his employee
or owner is subsidiarily liable.
does not have the property to pay his civil liability, since it is the law itself that,
provides that such subsidiary liability exists and ignorance of the law is not an
excuse. Felonies committed by employees, pupils, servants in the course of their
employment, schooling or household chores. The employer, master, teacher
is subsidiarily liable civilly, while the offender is primarily liable.
In case the accomplice and the principal cannot pay, the liability of those
subsidiarily liable is absolute.

In People vs. Tupal, 2003, exemplary damages were awarded when the
offense was committed with at least 1 aggravating circumstance.


Philosophy behind plural crimes: The treatment of plural crimes as one is to Q: Distinguish between an ordinary complex crime and a special complex crime
be lenient to the offender, who, instead of being made to suffer distinct as to their concepts and as to the imposition of penalties.
penalties for every resulting crime is made to suffer one penalty only, although
it is the penalty for the most serious one and is in the maximum A: An ordinary complex crime is made up of 2 or more crimes being punished
period. Purpose is in the pursuance of the rule of pro reo. in distinct provisions of the RPC but alleged in one information, so that only 1
penalty will be imposed, because either they were brought about by a single
If be complexing the crime, the penalty would turn out to be higher, do not act or one offense was a necessary means to commit another. The penalty for
complex anymore. the most serious crime shall be imposed in its maximum period.
On the other hand, a special complex crime is made up of 2 or more crimes
that are considered only as components of a single indivisible offense punished
Example: Murder and theft (killed with treachery, then stole the right).
in one provision of the RPC. The component crimes are not regarded as
Penalty: If complex Reclusion temporal maximum to death.
distinct crimes so only one penalty is specifically prescribed for all of them.
If treated individually Reclusion temporal to Reclusion Perpetua

Complex-crime is not just a matter of penalty, but of substance under the

Revised Penal Code. Composite Crime/Special Complex Crime

Plurality of crimes my be in the form of: This is one which is substance is made up of more than one crime but which in
(1) Compound Crime, the eyes of the law is only a single indivisible offense. This is also known as a
(2) Complex crime; and special complex crime. Example are robbery with homicide, robbery with rape,
(3) Composite crime. and rape with homicide.

A compound crime is one where a single act produces two or more crimes. The compound crime and the complex crime are treated in Article 48 of the
Revised Penal Code. But in such article, a compound crime is also designated
as a complex crime, but complex crimes are limited only to a situation where
A complex crime strictly speaking is one where the offender has to commit an
the resulting felonies are grave and/or less grave.
offense as a means for the commission of another offense. It is said that the
offense is committed as a necessary means to commit the other
offense. Necessary should not be understood as indispensable, otherwise, it Whereas in a compound crime, there is no limit as to the gravity of the resulting
shall be considered absorbed and not giving rise to a complex crime. crimes as long as a single act brings about two or more crimes. Strictly
A composite crime is one in which substance is made up of more than one speaking, compound crimes are not limited to grave less grave felonies but
crime, but which in the eyes of the law is only a single indivisible offense. This covers all single act that results in two or more crimes.
is also known as special complex crime. Examples are robbery with homicide,
robbery with rape, rape with homicide. These are crimes which in the eye of Illustration:
the law are regarded only as a single indivisible offense.
A person threw a hand grenade and the people started scampering. When the
hand grenade exploded, no on was seriously wounded all were mere
wounded. It was held that this is a compound crime, although the resulting
felonies are only slight.
Illustration of a situation where the term necessary in complex crime should
not be understood as indispensable:

Abetting committed during the encounter between rebels and government

Q: A learned two days ago that B received dollar bills worth $10,000 from his
troops such that the homicide committed cannot be complexed with
daughter working in the US. With the intention of robbing B, A entered Bs
rebellion. This is because they are indispensable part of rebellion. (Caveat:
house at midnight, armed with a knife used to gain entry and began quietly
Ortega says rebellion can be complexed with common crimes in discussion on
searching the drawers and other likely receptacles for cash. While doing that,
B awoke, rushed out of his room and grappled with A for the possession of the
knife. A stabbed B to death, found the latters wallet beneath the pillow, which
The complex crime lies actually in the first form under Article 148. was bulging with the dollar bills he was looking for. A took the bills and left the
house. What crime/s was/were committed?
The first form of the complex crime is actually a compound crime, is one
where a single act constitutes two or more grave and/or less grave A: The crime committed was robbery with homicide, a composite crime. As
felonies. The basis in complexing or compounding the crime is the act. So that primordial criminal intent is to commit a robbery and in the course of the
when an offender performed more than one act, although similar, if they result robbery, B was killed. Both robbery and the killing were consummated, thus
in separate crimes, there is no complex crime at all, instead, the offender shall giving rise to the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. The primary
be prosecuted for as many crimes as are committed under separate criminal intent being to commit a robbery, any killing on the occasion of the
information. robbery, though not by reason thereof, is considered a component of the crime
of robbery with homicide as a single indivisible offense.
When the single act brings about two or more crimes, the offender is punished
with only one penalty, although in the maximum period, because he acted only
with single criminal impulse. The presumption is that, since there is only one
criminal impulse and correctly, only one penalty should be imposed. CONTINUED AND CONTINUING CRIMES

Conversely, when there are several acts performed, the assumption is that In criminal law, when a series of acts are perpetrated in pursuance of a single
each act is impelled by a distinct criminal impulse, a separate criminal impulse, there is what is called a continued crime. In criminal
penalty. However, it may happen that the offender is impelled only by a single procedure for purposes of venue, this is referred to as a continuing crime.
criminal impulse in committing a series of acts that brought about more than
one crime, considering that Criminal Law, if there is only one criminal impulse The term continuing crimes as sometimes used in lieu of the term continued
which brought about the commission of the crime, the offender should be crimes, however, although both terms are analogous, they are not really used
penalized only once. with the same import. Continuing crime is the term used in criminal
procedure to denote that a certain crime may be prosecuted and tried not only
There are in fact cases decided by the Supreme Court where the offender has before the court of the place where it was originally committed or began, but
performed as series of acts but the acts appeared to be impelled by one and also before the court of the place where the crime was continued. Hence, the
the same impulse, the ruling is that a complex crime is committed. In this case term continuing crime is used in criminal procedure when any of the material
it is not the singleness of the act but the singlessness of the impulse that has ingredients of the crime was committed in different places.
been considered. There are cases where the Supreme Court held that the
crime committed is complex even though the offender performed not a single A continued crime is one where the offender performs a series of acts
act but a series of acts. The only reason is that the series of acts are impelled violating one and the same penal provision committed at the same place and
by a single criminal impulse. about the same time for the same criminal purpose, regardless of a series of
acts done, it is regarded in law as one.

In People v. de Leon, where the accused took five roosters from one and the
same chicken coop, although the roosters were owned by different persons, it
was held that there is only one crime of theft committed because the accused
acted out of a single criminal impulse only. However performing a series of
acts but this is one and the same intent Supreme Court ruled that only one
crime is committed under one information.
In People v. Lawas, the accused constabulary soldiers were ordered to march is a complex crime not only when there is a single act but a series of acts. It
with several muslims from one barrio to another place. These soldiers feared is correct that when the offender acted in conspiracy, this crime is considered
that on the way some of the Muslims may escape. So Lawas ordered the as one and prosecuted under one information. Although in this case, the
men to tie the Muslims by the hand connecting one with the other, so on one offenders did not only kills one person but killed different persons, so it is clear
would run away. When the hands of the Muslims were tied, one of them that in killing of one victim or the killing of another victim, another act out of
protested, he did not want to be included among those who were tied because this is done simultaneously. Supreme Court considered this as
he was a Hajjii, so the Hajji remonstrated and there was commotion. At the complex. Although the killings did not result from one single act.
height of the commotion, Lawas ordered his men to fire, and the soldiers
mechanically fired. Eleven were killed and several others were wounded. The In criminal procedure, it is prohibited to charge more than one offense in an
question of whether the constabulary soldiers should be prosecuted for the information, except when the crimes is one information constitute a complex
killing of each under a separate information has reached the Supreme crime or a special complex crime.
Court. The Supreme Court ruled that the accused should be prosecuted only
in one information, because a complex crime of multiple homicide was
So whenever the Supreme Court concludes that the criminal should be
committed by them.
punished only once, because they acted in conspiracy or under the same
criminal impulse, it is necessary to embody these crimes under one single
In another case, a band of robbers came across a compound where a sugar information. It is necessary to consider them as complex crimes even if the
mill is located. The workers of said mill have their quarters within the essence of the crime does not fit the definition of Art 48, because there is no
compound. The band of robbers ransacked the different quarters therein. It other provision in the RPC.
was held that there is only one crime committed multiple robbery, not
because of Article 48 but because this is a continued crime. When the robbers
Duplicity of offenses, in order not to violate this rule, it must be called a
entered the compound, they were moved by a single criminal intent. Not
complex crime.
because there were several quarter robbed. This becomes a complex crime.

In earlier rulings on abduction with rape, if several offenders abducted the

The definition in Article 48 is not honored because the accused did not perform
woman and abused her, there is multiple rape. The offenders are to be
a single act. There were a series of acts, but the decision in the Lawas case is
convicted of one count of rape and separately charged of the other rapes.
correct. The confusion lies in this. While Article 48 speaks of a complex crime
In People v. Jose, there were four participants here. They abducted the
where a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave offenses, event
woman, after which, the four took turns in abusing her. It was held that each
hose cases when the act is not a single but a series of acts resulting to two or
one of the four became liable not only for his own rape but also for those
more grave and less grave felonies, the Supreme Court considered this a
committed by the others. Each of the four offenders was convicted of four
complex crime when the act is the product of one single criminal impulse.
rapes. In the eyes of the law, each committed four crimes of rape. One of the
four rapes committed by one of them was complexed with the crime of
If confronted with a problem, use the standard or condition that it refers not abduction. The other three rapes are distinct counts or rape. The three rapes
only to the singleness of the act which brought two or more grave and/less are not necessary to commit the other rapes. Therefore, separate
grave felonies. The Supreme Court has extended this class of complex crime complaints/information.
to those cases when the offender performed not a single act but a series of
acts as long as it is the product of a single criminal impulse.
In People v. Pabasa, the Supreme Court through Jusitce Aquino ruled that
there is only one count of forcible abduction with rape committed by the
You cannot find an article in the Revised Penal Code with respect to the offenders who abducted the two women and abused them several times. This
continued crime or continuing crime. The nearest article is Article 48. Such was only a dissenting opinion of Justice Aquino, that there could be only one
situation is also brought under the operation of Article 48. complex crime of abduction with rape, regardless of the number of rapes
committed because all the rapes are but committed out of one and the same
In People v. Garcia, the accused were convicts who were members of a certain lewd design which impelled the offender to abduct the victim.
gang and they conspired to kill the other gang. Some of the accused killed
their victims in one place within the same penitentiary, some killed the others In People v. Bojas, the Supreme Court followed the ruling in People v.
in another place within the same penitentiary. The Supreme Court ruled that Jose that the four men who abducted and abused the offended women were
all accused should be punished under one information because they acted in held liable for one crime one count or forcible abduction with rape and distinct
conspiracy. The act of one is the act of all. Because there were several victims charges for rape for the other rapes committed by them.
killed and some were mortally wounded, the accused should be held for the
complex crime of multiple homicide with multiple frustrated homicide. There
In People v. Bulaong, the Supreme Court adopted the dissenting opinion of (1) The theft of 13 cows belonging to two different persons committed by the
Justice Aquino in People v. Pabasa, that when several persons abducted a accused at the same place and period of time (People v. Tumlos, 67 Phil.
woman and abused her, regardless of the number of rapes committed, there 320);
should only be one complex crime of forcible abduction with rape. The rapes
committed were in the nature of a continued crime characterized by the same (2) The theft of six roosters belonging to two different owners from the same coop
lewd design which is an essential element in the crime of forcible abduction. and at the same period of time (People v. Jaranilla);

The abuse amounting to rape is complexed with forcible abduction because the
abduction was already consummated when the victim was raped. The forcible
(3) The illegal charging of fees for service rendered by a lawyer every time he
abduction must be complexed therewith. But the multiple rapes should be
collected veterans benefits on behalf of a client who agreed that attorneys
considered only as one because they are in the nature of a continued crime.
fees shall be paid out of such benefits (People v. Sabbun, 10 SCRA
156). The collections of legal fees were impelled by the same motive, that of
Note: This is a dangerous view because the abductors will commit as much collecting fees for services rendered, and all acts of collection were made under
rape as they can, after all, only one complex crime of rape would arise. the same criminal impulse.

In adultery, each intercourse constitutes one crime. Apparently, the singleness On the other hand, the Supreme Court declined to apply the concept in the
of the act is not considered a single crime. Each intercourse bring with it the following cases:
danger of bringing one stranger in the family of the husband.
(1) Two Estafa cases, one which was committed during the period from January
Article 48 also applies in cases when out a single act of negligence or 19 to December, 1955 and the other from January 1956 to July 1956 (People
imprudence, two or more grave or less grave felonies resulted, although only v. Dichupa, 13 Phil 306). Said acts were committed on two different
the first part thereof (compound crime). The second part of Article 48 does occasions;
not apply, referring to the complex crime proper because this applies or refers
only to a deliberate commission of one offense to commit another offense.
(2) Several malversations committed in May, June and July 1936 and falsifications
However, a light felony may result from criminal negligence or imprudence,
to conceal said offenses committed in August and October, 1936. The
together with other grave or less grave felonies resulting therefrom and the
malversations and falsifications were not the result of one resolution to
Supreme Court held that all felonies resulting from criminal negligence should
embezzle and falsity (People v. CIV, 66 Phil. 351);
be made subject of one information only. The reason being that, there is only
one information and prosecution only. Otherwise, it would be tantamount to
splitting the criminal negligence similar to splitting a cause of action which is (3) Seventy-five estafa cases committed by the conversion by the agents of
prohibited in civil cases. collections from the customers of the employers made on different dates.

Although under Article 48, a light felony should not be included in a complex
crime, yet by virtue of this ruling of the Supreme Court, the light felony shall In the theft cases, the trend is to follow the single larceny doctrine, that is
be included in the same information charging the offender with grave and/or taking of several things, whether belonging to the same or different owners, at
less grave felonies resulting from the negligence of reckless imprudence and the same time and place, constitutes one larceny only. Many courts have
this runs counter to the provision of Article 48. So while the Supreme Court abandoned the separate larceny doctrine, under which there was distinct
ruled that the light felony resulting from the same criminal negligence should larceny as to the property of each victim:
be complexed with the other felonies because that would be a blatant violation
of Article 48, instead the Supreme Court stated that an additional penalty Also abandoned is the doctrine that the government has the discretion to
should be imposed for the light felony. This would mean two penalties to be prosecute the accused for one offense or for as many distinct offenses as there
imposed, one for the complex crime and one for the light felony. It cannot are victims (Santiago v. Justice Garchitorena, decided on December 2,
separate the light felony because it appears that the culpa is crime itself and 1993). Here, the accused was charged with performing a single act that of
you cannot split the crime. approving the legalization of aliens not qualified under the law. The
prosecution manifested that they would only file one
Applying the concept of the continued crime, the following cases have been information. Subsequently, 32 amended informations were filed. The
treated as constituting one crime only: Supreme Court directed the prosecution to consolidate the cases into one
offense because (1) they were in violation of the same law Executive Order
No. 324; (2) caused injury to one party only the government; and (3) they
were done in the same day. The concept of delito continuado has been applied
to crimes under special laws since in Article 10, the Revised Penal Code shall
be supplementary to special laws, unless the latter provides the contrary.
A warrant of arrest will be issued by the court and the accused will be made
to serve the rest of the remaining or unexpired portion of his sentence. (But
Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISLAW): How in probation you go back to number 1, serving of sentence will be from the
to determine maximum and minimum
penalties Application of ISLAW:
(Act no 4103 as amended)
How to get maximum and minimum penalty in Special Law:
The Indeterminate Sentence Law is mandatory in all cases, EXCEPT if the 1. The maximum penalty should NOT exceed the maximum provided for by
accused will fall in any of the following exceptions: that law.
2. The minimum penalty should NOT fall below the minimum provided by
1. if sentenced with a penalty of death or life imprisonment the law.
2. if convicted of treason, conspiracy, proposal to commit treason
3. if convicted of misprision of treason, sedition, rebellion or espionage How to get maximum and minimum penalty in Revised Penal Code:
4. if convicted of piracy Example: In the crime of homicide, under the Revised Penal Code, the
5. if the offender is a habitual delinquent offender is sentenced to reclusion temporal.
6. those who escaped from prison or evaded sentence
7. those who violated the terms of conditional pardon of the chief executive The maximum penalty under the Indeterminate Sentence Law is reclusion
8. where the maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed 1 year temporal. But reclusion temporal is a divisible penalty consisting of
(important!) maximum, medium and minimum periods. Which period will we place the
9. if convicted by final judgement at the time of the effectivity of Act No. maximum term of the Indeterminate Sentence?
10. if penalized with suspension or distierro Guide for determining the maximum penalty:
1. Determine the entire range of the penalty
If accused fall in any of the foregoing exceptions. DO NOT APPLY ISLAW! 2. Determine if there is mitigating or aggravating circumstance

ISLAW applies to offenses punished by Special Law and Revised Penal Which period will the maximum penalty be placed?
Code. In pursuant to art 64, when there is no mitigating and no aggravating
circumstance, it should be placed at the medium period. Thus, the maximum
Why is ISLAW mandatory? penalty for the example above is reclusion temporal in the medium period.

In the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law the judge will get the
maximum penalty and likewise the minimum penalty. If the accused was What is the minimum penalty now?
already able to serve the minimum term of his indeterminate sentence and
In getting the minimum penalty, the rule is to simply get the penalty one (1)
upon the approval of the Board, the accused now becomes eligible for parole.
degree lower from the maximum penalty without taking into account the
ISLAW is favorable to the accused.
mitigating and aggravating circumstance. Thus, the penalty one degree lower
If the accused was granted parole and violated some conditions of the from reclusion temporal, without taking into account any mitigating or
aggravating circumstance, is prision mayor. Prision mayor is now the
parole, What will happen?
minimum penalty for our example.
Important: If your maximum penalty is wrong, it follows that the minimum 3 mitigating, NO aggravating
penalty will also be wrong. maximum penalty: prision mayor in the minimum period
minimum penalty: prision correctional any period
Again, prision mayor is a divisible penalty. Which period can it be placed?
Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, it would depend upon the In the preceding example, there are 3 mitigating circumstance present and
discretion of the court on which period to place it. Thus, the minimum no aggravating circumstance. The first two mitigating circumstance shall be
penalty is prision mayor in any of its period. a privileged mitigating circumstance. Thus, the penalty will be reduced by 1
degree from reclusion temporal to prision mayor. The 3rd mitigating
Factors that could affect the imposition of minimum penalty: circumstance shall place the penalty in the minimum period.
1. Age
2. Conduct during trial 4 mitigating, NO aggravating
3. Mental or physical condition maximum penalty: prision correctional in the medium period (2 privileged
circumstance. Thus we lower by 2 degrees)
Suppose in the example above, 1 aggravating circumstance was proven. minimum penalty: arresto mayor any period
What is now the maximum penalty?
It would still be reclusion temporal, but it shall be placed in the maximum 5 mitigating, NO aggravating
period because of the presence of 1 aggravating circumstance. maximum penalty: prision correctional in the minimum period
minimum penalty: arresto mayor any period
How about the minimum penalty?
It would still be 1 degree lower from reclusion temporal, which is prision At most we can only lower by 2 degrees. Thus, if there are 6 mitigating
mayor. In which period? It shall be discretionary upon the court. circumstance and NO aggravating:
maximum penalty: prision correctional in the minimum period
(More examples) minimum penalty: arresto mayor any period

1 mitigating but NO aggravating How is Indeterminate Sentence Law applied in complex crimes (Article
maximum penalty: reclusion temporal in the minimum period 48)?
minimum penalty: prision mayor in any period A complex crime is punished by the most serious offense and shall be
imposed in its maximum period.
2 mitigating, NO aggravating (privileged mitigating)
maximum penalty: prision mayor in the medium period Example: Estafa through falsification of public documents.
minimum penalty: prision correctional any period
Under the Revised Penal Code, falsification of public documents (Article 171)
The preceding example is an exception to the rule. If there is a privileged is a more serious offense punished by prision mayor than estafa (Article 315),
mitigating circumstance, we take it into account first in order to obtain the punished only by prision correctional.
proper maximum penalty. Then, from that maximum penalty, we obtain the
proper minimum penalty by getting the penalty 1 degree lower. Same rule
applies as to the period of the minimum penalty. Thus, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum penalty for
estafa through falsification of public documents shall be prision mayor in the
Remember: It will never become a privileged mitigating circumstance if maximum period. Minimum penalty shall be prision correctional, any period.
there is an aggravating circumstance present. 8 mitigating and 1
aggravating will never become privileged mitigating circumstance.
Suppose there was 1 mitigating circumstance proven. Maximum penalty
would still be prision mayor in the maximum period. In pursuant to Article 48,
even if there is a mitigating circumstance present, it should still be imposed
at the maximum period.

How about if there are 2 mitigating circumstance and no aggravating?

The rule is, if it is a privileged mitigating circumstance, we lower by the
penalty by one degree but still place it at the maximum period. Thus, the
maximum penalty shall be prision correctional in the maximum period.

4 mitigating, NO aggravating
maximum penalty: arresto mayor in its maximum period