LAW 1
The doctrine of pro reo advocates that penal laws and laws penal in
nature are to be construed and applied in a way lenient or liberal to
the offender, constant to and consistent with the constitutional
guarantee that an accused shall be presumed innocent until his
guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt. Following the pro reo
doctrine, under Art. 48 of the Revised penal Code, crimes are
complexed and punished with a single penalty (i.e., that prescribed
for the most serious crime and to be imposed in its maximum
period). The rationale being, that the accused who commits two
crimes with single criminal impulse demonstrates lesser perversity
that when the crimes are committed by different acts and several
criminal resolutions. (People vs Comadre, 431 SCRA 366, 384
[2004]). However, Art. 48 shall be applied only when it would bring
about the imposition of a penalty lesser than the penalties if
prosecuted separately instead of being complexed.
IV. CIRCUMSTANCES
AFFECTING
CRIMINAL LIABILITY
PEOPLE v RETUBADO
It is indispensable that the state of necessity
must not be brought about by the intentional
provocation of the party invoking the same
PEOPLE v GENOSA
the battered woman syndrome is characterized
by the so-called cycle of violence,which has
three phases: (1) the tension-building phase; (2)
the acute battering incident; and (3) the
tranquil, loving (or, at least, nonviolent) phase.
2003]
Appellants plea of guilty to the two charges against him
must be taken into consideration in imposing the proper
penalty on him. Under Article 13(7) of the Revised Penal
Code, a plea of guilty on arraignment is a mitigating
circumstance. To effectively alleviate the criminal liability
of an accused, a plea of guilty must be made at the first
opportunity, indicating repentance on the part of
theaccused. A plea of guilty made after arraignment
and after trial had begun does not entitle the accused to
have such plea considered as a mitigating circumstance.
Requisites:
1. That armed men or persons took part in the
commission of the crime, directly or indirectly.
2. That the accused availed himself of their aid
relied upon them when the crime was
committed.
V. PERSONS CRIMINALLY
LIABLE
A. PRINCIPALS (induction)
POPLE v YAMSON-DUMANCAS 320 SCRA
584
HELD: Jeanette Yanson Dumancas is not
guilty as principals by induction because there
are not other evidence that can prove the
shes guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Article
17. Principals The following are considered
principals: Those who take a direct part in the
execution of the acts; Those who directly force
or induce other to commit it; Those who
cooperate in the commission of the offense by
another act without which it would not have
been accomplished.
A. PRINCIPALS (induction)
PEOPLE v BOLIVAR 317 SCRA 577
HELD: Principals are those who directly force or
induce others to commit an offense. One is
induced to commit a crime either by a command
(precepto) or for a consideration (pacto), or by
any other similar act w/c constitutes the real and
moving cause of the crime and w/c was done for
the purpose of inducing such criminal act and was
sufficient for that purpose. The inducement exists
whenever the act performed by the physical
author of the crime is determined by the influence
of the inducer over the mind of him who commits
the act whatever the source of such influence
A. PRINCIPALS (induction)
PEOPLE v DELA CRUZ 97 SCRA 385
HELD: The requisites necessary in order that a person
may be convicted as a principal by inducement are:
That the inducement be made directly with the
intention of procuring the commission of the crime;
and that such inducement be the determining cause
of the commission of the crime by the material
executor. One is induced to commit a crime either by
a commans (precepto) or for a consideration (pacto),
or by any other similar act w/c constitutes the real
and moving cause of the crime & w/c was done for
the purpose of inducing such criminal act & was
sufficient for that purpose. The person who gives
promises, or offers the consideration & the one who
actually commits the crime by reason of such
promise, remuneration or reward are both principals.
A. PRINCIPALS (indispensable
cooperation)
PEOPLE v MONTEALEGRE 161 SCRA 700
HELD: The requisites of this provision:
Participating in the criminal resolution, i.e.,
theres either anterior conspiracy or unity of
criminal purpose & intention immediately
before the commission of the crime charged;
& Cooperation in the commission of the
offense by performing another act w/o w/c it
would not have been accomplished. But
although there was no evidence of prior
agreement between Capalad & Montealegre,
their subsequent acts should prove the
presence of such conspiracy.
B. ACCOMPLICES
PEOPLE v SUNGA 399 SCRA 624
HELD: The rule in this jurisdiction is that
thetestimony of aself-confessed accomplice or
co-conspiratorimputing the blame to or
implicating his co-accused cannot,by itself and
without corroboration, be regarded as proof to a
moral certainty that the latter committed or
participated in the commission of the crime. The
testimony must be substantially corroborated
inits materialpointsbyunimpeachable
testimony and strong circumstances and must
be to such an extent that its trustworthiness
becomes manifest.
B. ACCOMPLICES
PEOPLE v PILOLA 405 SCRA 134
HELD: To hold a person liable as an accomplice, two
elements must concur: (a) the community of criminal
design; that is, knowing the criminal design of the
principal by direct participation, he concurs with the
latter in his purpose;(b) the performance of previous or
simultaneous acts that are not indispensable to the
commission of the crime. Accomplices come to know
about the criminal resolution of the principal by direct
participation after the principal has reached the decision
to commit the felony and only then does the accomplice
agree to cooperate in its execution.Accomplices do not
decide whether the crime should be committed; they
merely assent to the plan of the principal by direct
participation and cooperate in its accomplishment.
B. ACCOMPLICES
BAR Q & A: ACCOMPLICE
Ponciano borrowed Rubens gun, saying that he would use it to kill
Freddie. Because Ruben also resented Freddie, he readily lent his gun,
but told Ponciano: "O, pagkabaril mo kay Freddie, isauli mo kaagad,
ha." Later, Ponciano killed Freddie, but used a knife because he did
not want Freddies neighbors to hear the gunshot. What, if any, is the
liability of Ruben? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Rubens liability is that of an accomplice only
because he merely cooperated in Poncianos determination to kill
Freddie. Such cooperation is not indispensable to the killing, as in fact
the killing was carried out without the use of Rubens gun. Neither
way Ruben may be regarded as a co-conspirator since he was not a
participant in the decision-making of Ponciono to kill Freddie; he
merely cooperated in carrying out the plan which was already in place
(Art. 18, RPC).
C. ACCESSORIES
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1612
- ANTI-FENCING LAW OF 1979
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1829
- PENALIZING OBSTRUCTION OF
APPREHENSION AND
PROSECUTION OF CRIMINAL
OFFENDERS
C. ACCESSORIES
PEOPLE v TALINGDAN [84 SCRA 19 (1978)]
Held: The court affirmed the decision held by the
trial court with costs. There are two aggravating
circumstances present, treachery and evident
premeditation, with no mitigating circumstances to
offset the accused-appellants. Talingdan, Tobias,
Berras, and Bides are guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of murder and are sentenced to DEATH to be
executed in accordance with law. Teresa Domogma
is guilty as accessory to the same murder, and is
hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate
penalty of 5 years prision correccional as minimum
to 8 years of prision mayor as maximum, with the
accessory penalties of the law.
C. ACCESSORIES
PEOPLE v CUI [314 SCRA 153 (1999)]
HELD: There is no question that Basingan escaped and
never testified in court to affirm his accusation against the
Cuis, Obeso and Sarte. Thus, the trial court committed
reversible error in admitting and giving weight to
Basingans the sworn statements. Undeniably, they are
hearsay for any oral or documentary evidence is hearsay
by nature if its probative value is not based on the personal
knowledge of the witnesses but on the knowledge of some
other person who was never presented on the witness
stand.Conviction cannot be based on hearsay evidence. In
the case at bar, the alleged conspiracy among the accused
was not priorly established by independent evidence. Nor
was it was shown that the extra-judicial statements of
Basingan were made while they were engaged in carrying
out the conspiracy.
PENALTIES
suffering inflicted by the State
for the transgression of a law
A. PURPOSE OF PENALTIES
1. Retribution or expiation the penalty is
commensurate with the gravity of the
offense.
2. Correction or reformation shown by the
rules which regulate the execution of the
penalties consisting in deprivation of
liberty.
3. Social defense shown by its inflexible
severity to recidivists and habitual
delinquents.
C. RETROACTIVITY
PEOPLE vs. PATALIN 311 SCRA 18 (1999)
Held:Although at the time of the effectivity of the 1987
Constitution the present casewas still its trialstage, it is clear
that the framers intended the provision to have a retroactive
effect on pending cases without anypenaltyof death having
been imposed yet. The retroactive effect may be given during
three possible stages of a criminal prosecution: a) when the
crime has been committed and the prosecution began; b)
when sentence has been passed but service has not begun;
and c) when the sentence is being carried out. The abolition of
the deathpenaltybenefitshereinaccusedby virtue of Art 22
of the RPC which provides that penal laws shall have
retroactive effect insofar as they favor the person guilty of the
felony who is not ahabitualcriminal.Hence, they are subject
to a reduction ofpenaltyfrom death to reclusion perpetua. A
subsequent statute cannot be applied retroactively as to
impair a right that accrued under the old law.
C. RETROACTIVITY
PEOPLE v GALLO 315 SCRA 461 (1999)
C. RETROACTIVITY
PEOPLEv GANO 363 SCRA 126
HELD: The SC found the accused guilty of robbery with homicide,
but imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua. It should be noted
that there is no law providing that the additional rape/s or
homicide/s should be considered as aggravating circumstance.
The enumeration of aggravating circumstances under Article 14 of
the Revised Penal Code is exclusive as opposed to the
enumeration in Article 13 of the same Code regarding mitigating
circumstances where there is specific paragraph (paragraph 10)
providing for analogous circumstances. It is true that the
additional rapes (or killings in the case of multiple homicide on the
occasion of the robbery) would result in an anomalous situation
where from the standpoint of the gravity of the offense, robbery
with one rape would be on the same level as robbery with multiple
rapes. However, the remedy lies with the legislature. A penal law
is liberally construed in favor of the offender and no person should
be brought within its terms if he is not clearly made so by the
statute.
C. RETROACTIVITY
PEOPLE v BUAYABAN 400 SCRA 48
A. PRINCIPAL PENALTIES
DEATH/CAPTIAL PUNISHMENT
A. PRINCIPAL PENALTIES
DEATH/CAPTIAL PUNISHMENT
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7659 - AN ACT TO IMPOSE THE
DEATH PENALTY ON CERTAIN HEINOUS CRIMES,
AMENDING FOR THAT PURPOSE THE REVISED
PENAL LAWS, AS AMENDED, OTHER SPECIAL PENAL
LAWS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Republic Act No. 8177 - AN ACT DESIGNATING
DEATH BY LETHAL INJECTION AS THE METHOD OF
CARRYING OUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, AMENDING
FOR THE PURPOSE ARTICLE 81 OF THE REVISED
PENAL CODE, AS AMENDED BY SECTION 24 OF
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7659
Republic Act No. 9346 -AN ACT PROHIBITING THE
IMPOSITION OF DEATH PENALTY IN THE PHILIPPINES
A. PRINCIPAL PENALTIES
HARDEN v Director of Prisons,supra
A. PRINCIPAL PENALTIES
PEOPLE v VENERACION, supra
A. PRINCIPAL PENALTIES
PEOPLE v ESPARAS, 260 SCRA 539
there is more wisdom in our existing
jurisprudence mandating our review ofalldeath
penalty cases, regardless of the wish of the
convict and regardless of the will of the
Court.Nothing less than life is at stake and any
court decision authorizing the State to take life
must be as error-free as possible.
No litigant can repudiate this power which is
bestowed by the Constitution.The power is more
of a sacred duty which we have to discharge to
assure the People that the innocence of a citizen
is our concern not only in crimes that slight but
even more, in crimes that shock the
conscience.This concern cannot be diluted.
A. PRINCIPAL PENALTIES
PEOPLE v ECHEGARAY, supra
A. PRINCIPAL PENALTIES
PEOPLE v GALIGAO January 14, 2003
The death penalty could thus be decreed; nevertheless, Section
22 of Republic Act No. 7659, amending Article 47 of the Revised
Penal Code, recognizes that in death penalty cases the High
Tribunal puts to a vote not only the issue of guilt of an appellant
but also the question on the imposition of the death penalty
itself.The law provides thusly: Sec. 22. Article 47 of the same
Code is hereby amended to read as follows: ART. 47.In what cases
the death penalty shall not be imposed; Automatic review of
Death Penalty Cases.The death penalty shall be imposed in all
cases in which it must be imposed under existing laws, except
when the guilty person is below eighteen (18) years of age at the
time of the commission of the crime or is more than seventy years
of age or when upon appeal or automatic review of the case by
the Supreme Court, the required majority vote is not obtained for
the imposition of the death penalty, in which cases, the penalty
shall bereclusion perpetua.
A. PRINCIPAL PENALTIES
PEOPLE v EMPANTE, APRIL 21, 1999
Qualified rape is thus punishable by the
single indivisible penalty of death, which
must be applied regardless of any
mitigating or aggravating circumstance
which may have attended the
commission of the deed.
A. PRINCIPAL PENALTIES
PEOPLE v GALIGAO January 14, 2003
In People v. Santos, the Court considered the acts of the
deceased victim, a former municipal mayor, in clearing and
working on the land claimed by the Ilongots which could have
been seen by the accused as an act of oppression and abuse of
authority which he felt morally bound to forestall, as well as the
limited schooling of the accused, as justification to reduce the
penalty of death to reclusion perpetua. In People v. De la Cruz,
the Court took into account in lowering the penalty to reclusion
perpetua on the accused most of whom were already death row
convicts, the deplorable sub-human conditions of the National
Penitentiary where the crime was committed. In People v.
Marcos, the failure of appellant to realize the gravity of his
offense was held to justify the reduction of the penalty to
reclusion perpetua. Where, as in the above-mentioned Santos
case, accused-appellants limited schooling was taken into
consideration to reduce his penalty to reclusion perpetua, we can
do no less herein considering that accused-appellant is an
unlettered fisherman.
A. PRINCIPAL PENALTIES
DEATH/CAPTIAL PUNISHMENT
PEOPLE v GREGORIO, 255 SCRA 380
A. PRINCIPAL PENALTIES
DEATH/CAPTIAL PUNISHMENT
PEOPLE v BALLABARE, 265 SCRA 350
While life imprisonment may appear to be the English
translation ofreclusion perpetua, in reality, it goes deeper
than that.First, life imprisonment is invariably imposed for
serious offenses penalized by special laws, while reclusion
perpetuais prescribed under The Revised Penal
Code.Second, life imprisonment, unlikereclusion perpetua,
does not carry with it accessory penalty.Third, life
imprisonment does not appear to have any definite extent
or duration, whilereclusion perpetuaentails imprisonment
for at least thirty (30) years after which the convict
becomes eligible for pardon, although the maximum period
thereof shall in no case exceed forty (40) years
A. PRINCIPAL PENALTIES
AFFLICTIVE PENALTIES
PEOPLE v GATWARD, 267 SCRA 785
A. PRINCIPAL PENALTIES
AFFLICTIVE PENALTIES
PEOPLE v ALVARADO, 275 SCRA 727
Reclusion perpetua, therefore, retains its
nature as having no minimum, medium
and maximum periods. It is imposed in
its entirety regardless of any mitigating
or aggravating circumstances that may
have attended the commission of the
crime.
A. PRINCIPAL PENALTIES
AFFLICTIVE PENALTIES
PEOPLE v LATUPAN, 360 SCRA 60
The penalty of life imprisonment is not the same
asreclusion perpetua.They are distinct in nature, in
duration and in accessory penalties.First, life imprisonment
is imposed for serious offenses penalized by special laws,
whilereclusion perpetuais prescribed under the Revised
Penal Code.Second, life imprisonment does not carry with it
any accessory penalty.Reclusion perpetuahas accessory
penalties.Third, life imprisonment does not appear to have
any definite extent or duration, whilereclusion
perpetuaentails imprisonment for at least thirty (30) years
after which the convict becomes eligible for pardon,
although the maximum period thereof shall in no case
exceed forty (40) years.
HELD:
Subsidiary
Penalty
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 5465
AN ACT AMENDING ARTICLE 39 OF ACT NO. 3815
(REVISED PENAL CODE) INCREASING THE RATE PER DAY
OF SUBSIDIARY PENALTY FROM TWO PESOS AND FIFTY
CENTAVOS TO EIGHT PESOS.
3. No subsidiary penalty
When the penalty imposed is higher than prisin
correccional
Illustration/Example
A is convicted of a crime and
sentenced to 4 years, 9 months and 10
days of prisin correccional, as the
maximum term of the intermediate
penalty, and to pay a fine of Php
4,000.00. He has no property to pay the
fine.
Given:
- 4 years - 10 days
- 9 months - Php 4,000.00
Illustration/Example
365
x
4
1460 (days)
30
x 9
270
(days)
1740
/
3
580 (days less than
1460
270
10
+
1740 (days)
4,000
/
8
500
(days)
Illustration/Example
A is sentenced to suffer
imprisonment of 3 years and to pay a
fine of Php 2,000.00. He cannot pay
the fine.
1/3 of 3 years is 1 year.
2,000 / 8 = 250 days
The subsidiary imprisonment is 250
days because it is not more than 1/3
of the principal penalty of 3 years and
it does not exceed 1 year.
Illustration/Example
If A was sentenced to 21 days of
imprisonment and a fine of Php
1,000.00.
Illustration/Example
B is sentenced to pay a fine of
Php 800.00 for a crime punishable by
a fine not exceeding Php 2,000.00.
8oo / 8 = 100 days
Illustration/Example
C is sentenced to 4 years, 9
months and 10 days of destierro and
to pay a fine of Php 4,000. he cannot
pay the fine.
He shall suffer an additional period
of destierro at the same rate of Php
8.00 per day.
the rule is the same when the
principal penalty is suspension and
fine.
APPLICATION AND
COMPUTATION OF PENALTIES
Penalty
Prescribe for
the crime
Penalty to be
imposed upon
Penalty to be
Penalty to be
the principal in
imposed upon
imposed upon
an attempted
Penalty to be
the principal in
the accessory in
crime, the
imposed upon
a frustrated
a frustrated
accessory in the
the accessory in
crime, and
crime, and the
consummated
an attempted
accomplice in a
accomplices in
crime and the
crime
consummated
an attempted
accomplices in
crime
crime
a frustrated
crime.
First Case
Death
Reclusion
Perpetua
Reclusion
Temporal
Prision Mayor
Prision
Correccional
Second Case
Reclusion
Perpetua to Death
Reclusion
Temporal
Prision Mayor
Prision
Correccional
Arresto Mayor
Third Case
Reclusion
Temporal in its
maximum period
to death
Prision Mayor in
its maximum
period to
reclusion
temporal in its
medium period
Prision
correccional in its
maximum period
to prision mayor
in its medium
period
Arresto Mayor in
it's maximum
period to prision
correccional in its
medium period
Fourth Case
Prision Mayor in
its maximum
period to
reclusion
temporal in its
medium period.
Prision
correccional in its
maximum period
to prision mayor
in its medium
period.
Arresto mayor in
its maximum
period to prision
correccional in its
medium period.
Fine.
Complex crime in
relation with
Rebellion
Complex crime in
relation with Rebellion
ARTICLE 48, RPC Penalty for
complex crimes.- When a single act
constitutes two or more grave or less
grave felonies, or when an offense is
a necessary means for committing
the other, the penalty for the most
serious crime shall be imposed, the
same to be applied in its maximum
period.
Complex crime in
relation with Rebellion
ARTICLE 134, RPC Rebellion or
insurrection; How committed.- The crime of
rebellion or insurrection is committed by
rising publicly and taking arms against the
Government for the purpose of removing
from the allegiance to said Government or
its laws, the territory of the Philippine
Islands or any part thereof, of any body of
land, naval or other armed forces, depriving
the Chief Executive or the Legislature,
wholly or partially, of any of their powers or
prerogatives. (As amended by R.A. 6968).
Complex crime in
relation with Rebellion
Rebellion the object ofthe movement
is completely to overthrow and
supersede the existing government.
Insurrection used in reference to
amovement which seeks merely to
effect some change of minor
importance, or to prevent the exercise
of governmental authority with
respect to particular matters or
subject.
Complex crime in
relation with Rebellion
HOW COMMITTED?
1.There be a public uprising and taking
armsagainst the government
2.The purpose of the uprising ormovement is
either :
a. To remove from the allegiance to said
government or its laws:
i. theterritoryofthePhilippinesorany part thereof;
ii. any body of land,naval or otherarmed forces ; or
Complex crime in
relation with Rebellion
WHO ARE LIABLE?
Any person who:
1. Promotes,
maintains, or heads a rebellion or
insurrection; or
2. Any person who, while holding any public office or
employment, takes part therein by:
a. Engaging in war against the forces of the
government
b. Destroying property or committing serious violence
c. Exacting contributions or diverting public funds
from
the lawful purpose for which they have been
appropriated
d. Any person merely participating or executing the
command of others in rebellion
(Note: diverting public funds or malversation is
absorbed in rebellion)
Complex crime in
relation with Rebellion
Is there a complex crime of rebellion
with murder and other common crimes?
Common crimes perpetrated in
furtherance of a political offense are
divested of their character as common
offenses and assume the political
complexion of themain crime which
they aremere ingredients, and
consequently, cannot be punished
separately from the principal offense, or
complexed with the same.
Complex crime in
relation with Rebellion
PEOPLE v HERNANDEZ, 99 Phil. 515 (1956)
HELD:The Supreme Court ruled that rebellion
cannot be complexed with other crimes, such
as murder and arson. Rebellion in itself would
include and absorb the said crimes, thus
granting the accused his right to bail. Murder
and arson are crimes inherent and concomitant
when rebellion is taking place. Rebellion in
theRevised Penal Code constitutes one single
crime and that there is no reason to complex it
with other crimes. Thus, the petition for bail
was granted. On May 30, 1964, the Supreme
Court acquitted Hernandez.
SINGLE LARCENY
DOCTRINE
valid even if it is
accused to raise or
filing the proper
he pleads to the
convicted
under
that
RECKLESS
IMPRUDENCE
(The Reodica and Ivler Doctrines)
RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE
(The Reodica and Ivler
Doctrines)
REQUISITES (ARTICLE 48, RPC):
1.That only a single act is performed
by the offender.
2.That the single act produces:
a.) two or more grave felonies;
b.) one or more grave felonies;
c.) two or more less grave
felonies.
RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE
(The Reodica and Ivler
Doctrines)
What about several light felonies
resulting from one single act?
It does not constitute the
characteristics of complex crimes,
rather, it shall be treated and
punished as separate offenses or
may be absorbed by the grave
felony.
RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE
(The Reodica and Ivler
Doctrines)
REODICA v CA, 242 SCRA 87
FACTS: IsabelitaReodica was allegedly recklessly
driving a van and hit Bonsol causing him physical
injuries and damage to property amounting to P
8,542.00. Three days after the accident a complaint
was filed before the fiscals office against the
petitioner. She was chargedof"Reckless Imprudence
Resulting in Damage to Property with Slight Physical
Injury.
HELD: After pleading not guilty trial ensued. RTC of
Makati rendered the decision convicting petitioner of
"quasi offense of reckless imprudence, resulting in
damage to property with slight physical injuries"
witharrestomayor of 6 months imprisonment and a
fine of P 13,542.00.
RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE
(The Reodica and Ivler
Doctrines)
Applicability of the Rule on Complex
Crimes:
The Supreme Court said: Clearly, if a
reckless, imprudent, or negligent act
results in two or more grave or less grave
felonies, a complex crime is committed.
HOWEVER
In jurisprudence, the Supreme court has
declared that where one of the resulting
offenses in criminal negligence constitutes
a light felony, there is no complex crime.
RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE
(The Reodica and Ivler
Doctrines)
Hence, the trial court erred in
considering the following felonies as
complex crime: the less grave felony
of reckless imprudence resulting in
damage to property in the amount of
P8,542.00 and the light felony of
reckless imprudence resulting in
physical injuries. They should be
treated as separate crimes.
RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE
(The Reodica and Ivler
Doctrines)
IN RE: JASON IVLER CASE
FACTS: Following a vehicular collision in
August 2004, petitioner Jason Ivler was
charged before the MeTC of Pasig City, Branch
71, with two separate offenses: 1.) Reckless
Imprudence Resulting in Slight Physical
Injuries, for injuries sustained by private
respondent, Evangeline L. Ponce (CC No.
82367); and 2.) Reckless Imprudence
Resulting in Homicide and Damage to
Property for the death of respondent Ponces
husband Nestor C. Ponce and the damage to
the spouses Ponces vehicle (C.C No. 82366).
RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE
(The Reodica and Ivler
Doctrines)
On September 7, petitioner pleaded
guilty to the charge in Criminal Case
No. 82367 and was meted out the
penalty of public censure. Petitioner
moved to quash the information in
criminal case no. 82366 for placing
him in jeopardy of second
punishment for the same offense of
reckless imprudence.
RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE
(The Reodica and Ivler
Doctrines)
Is Reckless Imprudence a Single Crime? In
this case, YES.
HELD: We find for the petitionerReckless
Imprudence is a single crime, its
consequences on persons and property are
material only to determine the penalty
The two charges against the petitioner,
arising from the same facts, were
prosecuted under the same provision of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended, namely
Article 365: defining and penalizing quasioffenses.
RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE
(The Reodica and Ivler
Doctrines)
ARTICLE 365, RPC Imprudence and negligence.- Any
person who, by reckless imprudence, shall commit any
act which, had it been intentional, would constitute a
grave felony, shall suffer the penalty ofarresto mayorin
its maximum period to prision correccional in its medium
period; if it would have constituted a less grave felony,
the penalty ofarresto mayorin its minimum and medium
periods shall be imposed; if it would have constituted a
light felony, the penalty ofarresto menorin its maximum
period shall be imposed.
Any person who, by simple imprudence or negligence,
shall commit an act which would otherwise constitute a
grave felony, shall suffer the penalty ofarresto mayorin
its medium and maximum periods; if it would have
constituted a less serious felony, the penalty ofarresto
mayorin its minimum period shall be imposed.
RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE
(The Reodica and Ivler
Doctrines)
When the execution of the act covered by this article
shall have only resulted in damage to the property of
another, the offender shall be punished by a fine
ranging from an amount equal to the value of said
damages to three times such value, but which shall
in no case be less than twenty-five pesos.
A fine not exceeding two hundred pesos and censure
shall be imposed upon any person who, by simple
imprudence or negligence, shall cause some wrong
which, if done maliciously, would have constituted a
light felony.
In the imposition of these penalties, the court shall
exercise their sound discretion, without regard to the
rules prescribed in Article sixty-four.
RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE
(The Reodica and Ivler
Doctrines)
The provisions contained in this article shall not
be applicable:
1. When the penalty provided for the offense is
equal to or lower than those provided in the first
two paragraphs of this article, in which case the
court shall impose the penalty next lower in
degree than that which should be imposed in the
period which they may deem proper to apply.
2. When, by imprudence or negligence and with
violation of the Automobile Law, to death of a
person shall be caused, in which case the
defendant shall be punished by prision
correccional in its medium and maximum periods.
RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE
(The Reodica and Ivler
Doctrines)
Reckless imprudence consists in voluntary, but without
malice, doing or falling to do an act from which material
damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of
precaution on the part of the person performing of failing
to perform such act, taking into consideration his
employment or occupation, degree of intelligence,
physical condition and other circumstances regarding
persons, time and place. Simple imprudence consists in
the lack of precaution displayed in those cases in which
the damage impending to be caused is not immediate
nor the danger clearly manifest.
The penalty next higher in degree to those provided for
in this article shall be imposed upon the offender who
fails to lend on the spot to the injured parties such help
as may be in this hand to give. (As amended by R.A.
1790, approved June 21, 1957).
RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE
(The Reodica and Ivler
Doctrines)
In Reodica Doctrine, the two crimes
was penalized under two different
paragraphs of ARTICLE 365, thus
separating the two crimes.
In Ivler Doctrine, Reckless
Imprudence is considered only a
single crime embodied in ARTICLE
365.
THE THREE-FOLD
RULE
REPUBLIC ACT
NO. 4103
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW
1. Crime:
Penalty:
HOMICIDE
RECLUSION TEMPORAL
2. Not applicable!
3. MINIMUM INDETERMINATE SENTENCE
One degree lower = PRISION MAYOR
4. MAXIMUM INDETERMINATE SENTENCE
No MC, No AC = RECLUSION TEMPORAL, MEDIUM TERM
IS: PRISION MAYOR to RECLUSION TEMPORAL,
MEDIUM TERM
Death
Rec.
Rec
Perpetua
Temporal
12y,Prision
1d to 20
y mayor
6 y, 1d to 12
Prision Corec
years
6 m, 1d to 6
years
Arresto
MINIMUM
12y, 1d to
14y, 8m
MINIMUM
6y, 1d to 8y
MINIMUM
6m, 1d to 2y,
4m
MINIMUM
MEDIUM
14y, 8m, 1d to
17y, 4m
MEDIUM
8y, 1d to 10y
MEDIUM
2y, 4m, 1d to 4y,
2m
MEDIUM
MAXIMUM
17y, 4m, 1d to
20y
MAXIMUM
10y, 1d to 12y
MAXIMUM
4y, 2m, 1d to
6y
MAXIMUM
penalty
2. Lower
penalty by:
1deg:2+ MC, no
AC
1deg: >15<18
1deg: unlawful
aggression
only
2 degs: unlawful
aggression +
any other 2
remaining
elements
3. MINIMUM =
one degree
lower from
imposed
penalty
4. MAXIMUM =
imposable
penalty, apply
remaining AC
1. Crime:
HOMICIDE
2. Not applicable!
3. MINIMUM INDETERMINATE SENTENCE
One degree lower = PRISION MAYOR
4. MAXIMUM INDETERMINATE SENTENCE
One MC (Voluntary surrender), No AC = RECLUSION
TEMPORAL, MINIMUM
IS: PRISION MAYOR to RECLUSION TEMPORAL, MINIMUM
Death
Rec.
Rec
Perpetua
Temporal
12y,Prision
1d to 20
y mayor
6 y, 1d to 12
Prision Corec
years
6 m, 1d to 6
years
Arresto
MINIMUM
12y, 1d to
14y, 8m
MINIMUM
6y, 1d to 8y
MINIMUM
6m, 1d to 2y,
4m
MINIMUM
MEDIUM
14y, 8m, 1d to
17y, 4m
MEDIUM
8y, 1d to 10y
MEDIUM
2y, 4m, 1d to 4y,
2m
MEDIUM
MAXIMUM
17y, 4m, 1d to
20y
MAXIMUM
10y, 1d to 12y
MAXIMUM
4y, 2m, 1d to
6y
MAXIMUM
penalty
2. Lower
penalty by:
1deg:2+ MC, no
AC
1deg: >15<18
1deg: unlawful
aggression
only
2 degs: unlawful
aggression +
any other 2
remaining
elements
3. MINIMUM =
one degree
lower from
imposed
penalty
4. MAXIMUM =
imposable
penalty, apply
remaining AC
1. Crime and
EXAMPLES TO fix indeterminate sentence
penalty
Case # 3: Rolex killed Chelnag. Rolex was a recidivist.
2. Lower
penalty by:
1. Crime: HOMICIDE
Penalty: RECLUSION TEMPORAL
1deg:2+ MC, no
AC
2. Not applicable!
1deg: >15<18
1deg: unlawful
3. MINIMUM INDETERMINATE SENTENCE
aggression
One degree lower = PRISION MAYOR
only
2 degs: unlawful
4. MAXIMUM INDETERMINATE SENTENCE
aggression +
No MC, One AC (recidivism) = RECLUSION TEMPORAL,
any other 2
MAXIMUM TERM
remaining
elements
IS: PRISION MAYOR to RECLUSION TEMPORAL, MAXIMUM
3. MINIMUM =
one degree
Death
lower from
Rec.
Rec
Perpetua
imposed
MINIMUM
MEDIUM
MAXIMUM
Temporal
12y, 1d to
14y, 8m, 1d to
17y, 4m, 1d to
penalty
12y,Prision
1d to 20
14y, 8m
17y, 4m
20y
y mayor
4. MAXIMUM =
MINIMUM
MEDIUM
MAXIMUM
6 y, 1d to 12
6y, 1d to 8y
8y, 1d to 10y
10y, 1d to 12y
imposable
Prision
Corec
MINIMUM
MEDIUM
MAXIMUM
years
penalty, apply
6 m, 1d to 6
6m, 1d to 2y, 2y, 4m, 1d to 4y,
4y, 2m, 1d to
years
4m
2m
6y
remaining AC
Arresto
MINIMUM
MEDIUM
MAXIMUM
1. Crime and
EXAMPLES TO fix indeterminate sentence
penalty
Case # 4: Rolex killed Chelnag. Rolex was a recidivist. Rolex voluntarily
2. Lower
surrendered and pleaded guilty.
penalty by:
1. Crime: HOMICIDE
Penalty: RECLUSION TEMPORAL
1deg:2+ MC, no
AC
2. Not applicable!
1deg: >15<18
1deg: unlawful
3. MINIMUM INDETERMINATE SENTENCE
aggression
One degree lower = PRISION MAYOR
only
2 degs: unlawful
4. MAXIMUM INDETERMINATE SENTENCE
aggression +
Two MC, One AC = One MC
any other 2
Maximum IS = RECLUSION TEMPORAL, MINIMUM TERM
remaining
elements
IS: PRISION MAYOR to RECLUSION TEMPORAL, MINIMUM
3. MINIMUM =
one degree
Death
lower from
Rec.
Rec
Perpetua
imposed
MINIMUM
MEDIUM
MAXIMUM
Temporal
12y, 1d to
14y, 8m, 1d to
17y, 4m, 1d to
penalty
12y,Prision
1d to 20
14y, 8m
17y, 4m
20y
y mayor
4. MAXIMUM =
MINIMUM
MEDIUM
MAXIMUM
6 y, 1d to 12
6y, 1d to 8y
8y, 1d to 10y
10y, 1d to 12y
imposable
Prision
Corec
MINIMUM
MEDIUM
MAXIMUM
years
penalty, apply
6 m, 1d to 6
6m, 1d to 2y, 2y, 4m, 1d to 4y,
4y, 2m, 1d to
years
4m
2m
6y
remaining AC
Arresto
MINIMUM
MEDIUM
MAXIMUM
1. Crime and
EXAMPLES TO fix indeterminate sentence
penalty
Case # 5: Rolex killed Chelnag. Rolex voluntarily surrendered and pleaded 2. Lower
guilty.
penalty by:
1. Crime: HOMICIDE
Penalty: RECLUSION TEMPORAL
1deg:2+ MC, no
AC
2. Two MC (voluntary surrender & plea of guilty)
1deg: >15<18
Penalty = one degree lower = PRISION MAYOR
1deg: unlawful
aggression
3. MINIMUM INDETERMINATE SENTENCE
only
One degree lower = PRISION CORRECCIONAL
2 degs: unlawful
aggression +
4. MAXIMUM INDETERMINATE SENTENCE
any other 2
No MC, No AC
remaining
Maximum IS = PRISION MAYOR, MEDIUM TERM
elements
3. MINIMUM =
IS: PRISION CORRECCIONAL to PRISION MAYOR, MEDIUM
one degree
Death
lower from
Rec.
Rec
Perpetua
imposed
MINIMUM
MEDIUM
MAXIMUM
Temporal
12y, 1d to
14y, 8m, 1d to
17y, 4m, 1d to
penalty
12y,Prision
1d to 20
14y, 8m
17y, 4m
20y
y mayor
4. MAXIMUM =
MINIMUM
MEDIUM
MAXIMUM
6 y, 1d to 12
6y, 1d to 8y
8y, 1d to 10y
10y, 1d to 12y
imposable
Prision
Corec
MINIMUM
MEDIUM
MAXIMUM
years
penalty, apply
6 m, 1d to 6
6m, 1d to 2y, 2y, 4m, 1d to 4y,
4y, 2m, 1d to
years
4m
2m
6y
remaining AC
Arresto
MINIMUM
MEDIUM
MAXIMUM
1. Crime and
EXAMPLES TO fix indeterminate sentence
penalty
Case # 6: Rolex when he was 17 y/o killed Chelnag with discernment.
2. Lower
Rolex voluntarily surrendered.
penalty by:
1. Crime: HOMICIDE
Penalty: RECLUSION TEMPORAL
1deg:2+ MC, no
AC
2. Minority: 17 y/o with discernment (RA9344)
1deg: >15<18
Penalty = one degree lower = PRISION MAYOR
1deg: unlawful
aggression
3. MINIMUM INDETERMINATE SENTENCE
only
One degree lower = PRISION CORRECCIONAL
2 degs: unlawful
aggression +
4. MAXIMUM INDETERMINATE SENTENCE
any other 2
One MC (Voluntary surrender), No AC
remaining
Maximum IS = PRISION MAYOR, MINIMUM TERM
elements
3. MINIMUM =
IS: PRISION CORRECCIONAL to PRISION MAYOR, MINIMUM
one degree
Death
lower from
Rec.
Rec
Perpetua
imposed
MINIMUM
MEDIUM
MAXIMUM
Temporal
12y, 1d to
14y, 8m, 1d to
17y, 4m, 1d to
penalty
12y,Prision
1d to 20
14y, 8m
17y, 4m
20y
y mayor
4. MAXIMUM =
MINIMUM
MEDIUM
MAXIMUM
6 y, 1d to 12
6y, 1d to 8y
8y, 1d to 10y
10y, 1d to 12y
imposable
Prision
Corec
MINIMUM
MEDIUM
MAXIMUM
years
penalty, apply
6 m, 1d to 6
6m, 1d to 2y, 2y, 4m, 1d to 4y,
4y, 2m, 1d to
years
4m
2m
6y
remaining AC
Arresto
MINIMUM
MEDIUM
MAXIMUM
Case # 7: Rolex when he was 17 y/o robbed and killed Chelnag with
discernment. Rolex voluntarily surrendered.
MINIMUM
12y, 1d to
14y, 8m
MINIMUM
6y, 1d to 8y
MINIMUM
6m, 1d to 2y,
4m
MINIMUM
MEDIUM
14y, 8m, 1d to
17y, 4m
MEDIUM
8y, 1d to 10y
MEDIUM
2y, 4m, 1d to 4y,
2m
MEDIUM
MAXIMUM
17y, 4m, 1d to
20y
MAXIMUM
10y, 1d to 12y
MAXIMUM
4y, 2m, 1d to
6y
MAXIMUM
1. Crime and
penalty
2. Lower
penalty by:
1deg:2+ MC, no
AC
1deg: >15<18
1deg: unlawful
aggression
only
2 degs: unlawful
aggression +
any other 2
remaining
elements
3. MINIMUM =
one degree
lower from
imposed
penalty
4. MAXIMUM =
imposable
penalty, apply
remaining AC
or MC
Step 1
Step 2
Step 4
Step 3
1. Crime and
penalty
2. Lower
penalty by:
1deg:2+ MC, no
AC
1deg: >15<18
1deg: unlawful
aggression
only
2 degs: unlawful
aggression +
any other 2
remaining
elements
3. MINIMUM =
one degree
lower from
imposed
penalty
4. MAXIMUM =
imposable
penalty, apply
remaining AC
or MC
Step 1
Step 2,
Step 4, MAX
Penalty
Step 3, MIN
IP
1. Crime and
penalty
2. Lower
penalty by:
1deg:2+ MC, no
AC
1deg: >15<18
1deg: unlawful
aggression
only
2 degs: unlawful
aggression +
any other 2
remaining
elements
3. MINIMUM =
one degree
lower from
imposed
penalty
4. MAXIMUM =
imposable
penalty, apply
remaining AC
or MC
Case # 10: People vs. Jaurigue. The woman stabbed the man when
placed his hand on the womans thigh, w/o any provocation on her part.
Death
Rec.
Rec
Perpetua
Temporal
12y,Prision
1d to 20
y mayor
6 y, 1d to 12
Prision Corec
years
6 m, 1d to 6
years
Arresto
Arresto
Mayor
Mayor
1 m, 1d to 6 m
MINIMUM
MEDIUM
12y, 1d to
14y, 8m, 1d to
14y, 8m
17y, 4m
MINIMUM
MEDIUM
6y, 1d to 8y
8y, 1d to 10y
MINIMUM
MEDIUM
6m, 1d to 2y, 2y, 4m, 1d to 4y,
4m
2m
MINIMUM
MEDIUM
MINIMUM
MEDIUM
1m, 1d to 2m
2m, 1d to 4m
MAXIMUM
17y, 4m, 1d to
20y
MAXIMUM
10y, 1d to 12y
MAXIMUM
4y, 2m, 1d to
6y
MAXIMUM
MAXIMUM
4m, 1d to 6m
1. Crime and
penalty
2. Lower
penalty by:
1deg:2+ MC, no
AC
1deg: >15<18
1deg: unlawful
aggression
only
2 degs: unlawful
aggression +
any other 2
remaining
elements
3. MINIMUM =
one degree
lower from
imposed
penalty
4. MAXIMUM =
imposable
penalty, apply
remaining AC
or MC
Step 1
1. Crime and
penalty
2. Lower
penalty by:
1deg:2+ MC, no
AC
1deg: >15<18
1deg: unlawful
aggression
only
2 degs: unlawful
aggression +
any other 2
remaining
elements
3. MINIMUM =
one degree
lower from
imposed
penalty
4. MAXIMUM =
imposable
penalty, apply
remaining AC
or MC
1. Crime and
penalty
2. Lower
penalty by:
1deg:2+ MC, no
AC
1deg: >15<18
1deg: unlawful
aggression
only
2 degs: unlawful
aggression +
any other 2
remaining
elements
3. MINIMUM =
one degree
lower from
imposed
penalty
4. MAXIMUM =
imposable
penalty, apply
remaining AC
or MC
Rec
Temporal
12y,Prision
1d to 20
y mayor
6 y, 1d to 12
Prision Corec
years
6 m, 1d to 6
MINIMUM
6y, 1d to 8y
1. Crime and
penalty
2. Lower
penalty by:
1deg:2+ MC, no
AC
1deg: >15<18
1deg: unlawful
aggression
only
2 degs: unlawful
aggression +
any other 2
remaining
elements
3. MINIMUM =
one degree
lower from
imposed
penalty
4. MAXIMUM =
imposable
penalty, apply
remaining AC
or MC
Step
1
MEDIUM
8y, 1d to 10y
Step
3
MAXIMUM
10y, 1d to 12y
Step
4
1. Crime and
penalty
2. Lower
penalty by:
1deg:2+ MC, no
AC
1deg: >15<18
1deg: unlawful
aggression
only
2 degs: unlawful
aggression +
any other 2
remaining
elements
3. MINIMUM =
one degree
lower from
imposed
penalty
4. MAXIMUM =
imposable
penalty, apply
remaining AC
or MC
Case # 14: Rolex attempted to kill his uncle, Joey, a senior citizen.
He was not able to kill Joey because he was arrested upon complaint
of Joey of Rolexs threats that he will kill him.
2. Not applicable!
3. MINIMUM IP: ARRESTO MAYOR
4. MAXIMUM INDETERMINATE PENALTY
No MC, 2 Acs (Relationship & disregard of the respect due on
account of his age)
Maximum IP = PRISION CORRECCIONAL, MAXIMUM, max range
IP: Arresto Mayor as minimum to prision correccional in its maximum
period as maximum
Rec
Temporal
12y,Prision
1d to 20
y mayor
6 y, 1d to 12
Prision Corec
years
6 m, 1d to 6
years MINIMUM
6m, 1d to 2y,
4m
Arresto
Arresto
Mayor
Mayor
Step
1MEDIUM
Step
3
MAXIMUM
4y, 2m, 1d to
6y
Step
4
1. Crime and
penalty
2. Lower
penalty by:
1deg:2+ MC, no
AC
1deg: >15<18
1deg: unlawful
aggression
only
2 degs: unlawful
aggression +
any other 2
remaining
elements
3. MINIMUM =
one degree
lower from
imposed
penalty
4. MAXIMUM =
imposable
penalty, apply
remaining AC
or MC
1. Crime and
penalty
2. Lower
penalty by:
1deg:2+ MC, no
1. Crime: ESTAFA thru FALSIFICATION (Complex crime)
AC
Penalty: ESTAFA:
PRISION CORRECCIONAL (Min-Med(Art.315) 1deg: >15<18
FALSIFICATION: PRISION MAYOR (Art. 171)
1deg: unlawful
aggression
Penalty to be considered: PRISION MAYOR (Higher)
only
2 degs: unlawful
2. Not applicable!
aggression +
any other 2
3. MINIMUM IP: PRISION CORRECCIONAL
remaining
4. MAXIMUM INDETERMINATE PENALTY
elements
Maximum IP = PRISION MAYOR, MAXIMUM (Art.48), medium range
3. MINIMUM =
one degree
lower from
Prision
imposed
Step
mayor
6 y, 1d to 12
penalty
1 MEDIUM
MAXIMUM
years MINIMUM
Step
4. MAXIMUM =
6m, 1d to 2y, 2y, 4m, 1d to 4y,
4y, 2m, 1d to
4
4m
2m
6y
imposable
Prision Corec
Step
6 m, 1d to 6
penalty, apply
3
years
remaining AC
or MC
Case # 15: Rolex, who was a public employee took advantage of
his position to falsify a document defrauding the victim of P10,000.
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE
LAW
PEOPLE v CLAREON, Nov. 29, 1982 (SPECIAL
LAW)
Penalty: 10 years, 1 day
Court of Appeals: ISL to be applied
Ruling: Accused is not disqualified to avail of
the ISL even if the crime was committed
while on parole.
IND. MINIMUM PENALTY: 6 years, 8 months &
1 day
IND. MAXIMUM PENALTY: not exceed
maximum fixed by law
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE
LAW
PEOPLE v LOPE VIENTE, 225 SCRA 361
(SPECIAL LAW)
Crime: Carnapping (violation of RA 6539)
Penalty: 17 years & 4 months to 30 years
Imposed penalty: 30 years
Solicitor General: Straight penalty of 30 year
should not be applied
Ruling: Agreed with the Solicitor General
IND. MINIMUM PENALTY: 17 years & 4 months
IND. MAXIMUM PENALTY: 30 years
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE
LAW
BACAR v DE GUZMAN, APRIL 18, 1997
Crime: Homicide with 2 MC
Imposed Penalty: Straight penalty of 3 years
Petitioners: Parents of the victim complained of gross
ignorance of law against Judge De Guzman
Ruling: Judge is liable for gross ignorance of law.
Crime: Homicide (penalty: Reclusion temporal) (Step 1)
With 2 MC, penalty = Prision Mayor, medium (Step 2)
IND. MINIMUM PENALTY: Prision Correccional (Step 3)
IND. MAXIMUM PENALTY: Prision Mayor, Medium (Step
4, no other MC & AC)
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE
LAW
ARTICLE 315, RPC Swindling (estafa).- Any person
who shall defraud another by any of the means
mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by:
1st.The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum
period to prision mayor in its minimum period, if the
amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does not
exceed 22,000 pesos, and if such amount exceeds the
latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall
be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year
for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty
which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years.
In such cases, and in connection with the accessory
penalties which may be imposed under the provisions
of this Code, the penalty shall be termed prision mayor
or reclusion temporal, as the case may be.
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE
LAW
2nd.The penalty of prision correccional in its
minimum and medium periods, if the amount
of the fraud is over 6,000 pesos but does not
exceed 12,000 pesos;
3rd.The penalty ofarresto mayorin its
maximum period to prision correccional in its
minimum period if such amount is over 200
pesos but does not exceed 6,000 pesos; and
4th.Byarresto mayorin its maximum period, if
such amount does not exceed 200 pesos,
provided that in the four cases mentioned, the
fraud be committed by any of the following
means:
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE
LAW
1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely:
(a) By altering the substance, quantity, or quality or anything of
value which the offender shall deliver by virtue of an obligation
to do so, even though such obligation be based on an immoral
or illegal consideration.
(b) By misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of
another, money, goods, or any other personal property received
by the offender in trust or on commission, or for administration,
or under any other obligation involving the duty to make
delivery of or to return the same, even though such obligation
be totally or partially guaranteed by a bond; or by denying
having received such money, goods, or other property.
(c) By taking undue advantage of the signature of the offended
party in blank, and by writing any document above such
signature in blank, to the prejudice of the offended party or of
any third person.
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE
LAW
2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or
fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously
with the commission of the fraud:
(a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to
possess power, influence, qualifications, property,
credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or
by means of other similar deceits.
(b) By altering the quality, fineness or weight of
anything pertaining to his art or business.
(c) By pretending to have bribed any Government
employee, without prejudice to the action for calumny
which the offended party may deem proper to bring
against the offender. In this case, the offender shall be
punished by the maximum period of the penalty.
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE
LAW
(d) By post-dating a check, or issuing a check in payment of
an obligation when the offender therein were not sufficient
to cover the amount of the check. The failure of the drawer
of the check to deposit the amount necessary to cover his
check within three (3) days from receipt of notice from the
bank and/or the payee or holder that said check has been
dishonored for lack of insufficiency of funds shall be prima
facie evidence of deceit constituting false pretense or
fraudulent act. (As amended by R.A. 4885, approved June
17, 1967.)
(e) By obtaining any food, refreshment or accommodation
at a hotel, inn, restaurant, boarding house, lodging house,
or apartment house and the like without paying therefor,
with intent to defraud the proprietor or manager thereof, or
by obtaining credit at hotel, inn, restaurant, boarding house,
lodging house, or apartment house by the use of any false
pretense, or by abandoning
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE
LAW
or surreptitiously removing any part of his baggage
from a hotel, inn, restaurant, boarding house, lodging
house or apartment house after obtaining credit, food,
refreshment or accommodation therein without
paying for his food, refreshment or accommodation.
3. Through any of the following fraudulent means:
(a) By inducing another, by means of deceit, to sign
any document.
(b) By resorting to some fraudulent practice to insure
success in a gambling game.
(c) By removing, concealing or destroying, in whole or
in part, any court record, office files, document or any
other papers.
From
To
Divide
4 years, 2 5 years, 5
Prision mayor, MIN: 6y, 1d to
into 3
months & 1 months and
8y
Prision Corec, Max: 4y, 2m,
equal
Minimum day
10 days
1d to 6y
periods
5 years, 5
6 years, 8
months and months and
Prision Corec, MED: 2y, 4m, 1d
to 4y, 2m
Medium 11 days
20 days
Prision Corec, MIN: 6m, 1d to
6 years, 8
2y, 4m
months and
All cases involving 42,000 and below were
Maximum 21 days
8 years
Divide
into 3
equal
periods
From
To
4 years, 2 5 years, 5
months & 1 months and
Minimum day
10 days
5 years, 5
6 years, 8
months and months and
Medium 11 days
20 days
6 years, 8
months and
Maximum 21 days
8 years
ESTAFA
CR1397: Amount P45,000.00
TC imposed IP:
Minimum: 3 years, 6 months, 21 days
Maximum: 7 years, 4 months, 1 day
SC imposed IP:
Minimum: 3 years, 6 months, 21 days
Maximum: 8 years, 8 months, 21 day
Prision correccional
Prision mayor
Prision correccional, med
Prision mayor, max
Divide
into 3
equal
periods
From
To
4 years, 2 5 years, 5
months & 1 months and
Minimum day
10 days
5 years, 5
6 years, 8
months and months and
Medium 11 days
20 days
6 years, 8
months and
Maximum 21 days
8 years
ESTAFA
CR1426: Amount P40,000.00
TC imposed IP:
Minimum: 1 year, 7 months, 11 days Prision correccional
Maximum: 6 years, 5 months, 11 day Prision mayor
SC imposed IP:
Minimum: 2 years, 4 months, 1 day
Prision correccional, m
Maximum: 7 years, 8 months, 21 day Prision mayor, min
Computation: 40,000-22,000 = 18, 000/10,000 = 1.8 years = 1 year
EXECUTION OF
PENALTIES
By lethal injection.
To be executed under the authority of the Director of
the Bureau of Corrections.
All personnel involved in the administration of lethal
injection shall be trained prior to the performance of
such task.
The authorized physician of the Bureau of Corrections
shall officially make a pronouncement of the
convict's death and shall certify thereto in the records
of the Bureau of Corrections.
Shall be carried out not earlier than one (1) year nor
later than eighteen (18) months after the judgment
has become final and executory without prejudice to
the exercise by the President of his executive
clemency powers at all times.
*Amended by Republic Act No. 8177 and expressly repealed by
Republic Act No. 9346
AN ACT PROHIBITING
THE IMPOSITION OF DEATH PENALTY IN THE
PHILIPPINES
Republic Act No. 9346
Suspension of the
execution of the death
sentence.
Article 83
Place of execution
and persons who may witness the
same.
Article 84
Article 87
Destierro.
Execution of destierro:
Convict shall not be permitted to enter the place or places
designated in the sentence nor within the radius therein
specified, which shall be not more than 250 and not less
than 25 kilometers from the place designated.
If convict enters the prohibited area, he commits evasion of
sentence.
Article 88
menor.
Arresto
TITLE FOUR
EXTINCTION OF
CRIMINAL
LIABILITY
CHAPTER ONE
TOTAL EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
How criminal
liability is totally
extinguished.
Article 89
By death:
Extinguishment of criminal liability is a
ground for motion to quash.
Criminal liability whether before or after
final judgment is extinguished upon death
because it is a personal penalty.
Pecuniary penalty is extinguished only
when death occurs before final judgment.
The death of the offended party does not
extinguish the criminal liability of the
accused because it is a crime against the
state.
How criminal
liability is totally
extinguished.
Article 89
By service of sentence:
Crime is a debt, hence extinguished upon payment.
Service does not extinguish civil liability.
By amnesty:
Amnesty is an act of the sovereign power granting
oblivion or general pardon. It wipes all traces and
vestiges of the crime but does not extinguish civil
liability.
By absolute pardon:
Pardon is an act of grace proceeding from the
power entrusted with the execution of laws, which
exempts the individual from punishment of law.
How criminal
liability is totally
extinguished.
Article 89
How criminal
liability is totally
extinguished.
Article 89
How criminal
liability is totally
extinguished.
Article 89
AMNESTY
PARDON
How criminal
liability is totally
extinguished.
Article 89
How criminal
liability is totally
extinguished.
Article 89
oConditions:
1.There must be final judgment
2.The period must have elapsed.
How criminal
liability is totally
extinguished.
Article 89
Crimes covered:
1.Rape
2.Seduction
3.Abduction
4.Acts of lasciviousness
The marriage must be contracted
in good faith
Article 90
crime.
Prescription of
Article 90
crime.
Prescription of
Computation of
prescription of offenses.
Article 91
Article 91 Computation of
prescription of offenses.
Computation of
prescription of offenses.
Article 91
Computation of
prescription of offenses .
Article 91
Computation of
prescription of offenses .
Article 91
Computation of
the prescription of
penalties.
Article 93
Computation of the
prescription of penalties.
Article 93
Interruption:
Gives himself up
Be captured
Goes to foreign country with which we have no extradition
treaty.
Commits another crime before the expiration of the period of
prescription
Accepts a conditional pardon (People vs. Puntilos, L-45296,
June 15, 1938)
o Prescription of penalty of imprisonment imposed by final
sentence to commence o run the culprit should escape during
the term of such imprisonment. The convict was never placed
in confinement. Prescription of Penalty does no run in her
favor. (Tanega vs. Masakayan, GR No. L-27191, Feb. 28, 1967)
Recommence:
When the convict escapes AGAIN after having been captured
and returned to prison
Computation of the
prescription of penalties.
Article 93
Computation of the
prescription of penalties.
Article 93
Prescription of
Crime
Prescription of
Penalty
Chapter Two
PARTIAL EXTINCTION OF
CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Partial
Extinction of criminal
liability.
Article 94
Partial
Extinction of criminal
liability.
Article 94
Partial Extinction of
criminal liability.
Article 94
Partial
Extinction of criminal
liability.
Article 94
CONDITIONAL
PARDON
Given after final
judgment
Granted by Chief
Executive
For violation, convict
may be prosecuted
under Article 159
PAROLE
Given after service of
the minimum penalty
Given by the Board of
Pardons and Parole
For violations, convict
may be rearrested and
serves his remaining
sentence
Partial
Extinction of criminal
liability.
Article 94
ALLOWANCE
The Probation
Law
PD 968 AS amended by PD No. 1257
and as further amended by BP Blg. 76
and PD No. 1990
Title Five
CIVIL
LIABILITY
Chapter One
PERSON CIVILLY LIABLE FOR FELONIES
Civil liability of a
person guilty of felony.
Article 100
Civil liability of a
person guilty of felony.
Article 100
Civil liability of a
person guilty of felony.
Article 100
Civil liability of a
person guilty of felony.
Article 100
Civil liability of a
person guilty of felony.
Article 100
Civil liability of a
person guilty of felony.
Article 100
Civil liability
of a person guilty of
felony.
Article 100
Civil liability of a
person guilty of felony.
Article 100
Civil liability of a
person guilty of felony.
Article 100
Civil liability
of a person guilty of
felony.
Article 100
Civil liability of a
person guilty of felony.
Article 100
Rules regarding
civil liability in certain
cases.
Article 101
Rules regarding
civil liability in certain
cases.
Article 101
Rules regarding
civil liability in certain
cases.
Article 101
Subsidiary civil
liability of other persons.
Article 103
Subsidiary civil
liability of other persons.
Article 103
Chapter Two
WHAT CIVIL LIABILITY INCLUDES
What is included in
civil liability.
Article 104
What is included
in civil liability.
Article 104
Article 108
Obligation to make
restoration, reparation for damages, or
indemnification for consequential damages and
actions to demand the same; Upon whom it
devolves.
Article 108
Obligation to make
restoration, reparation for damages, or
indemnification for consequential damages and
actions to demand the same; Upon whom it
devolves.
Article 108
Obligation to make
restoration, reparation for damages, or
indemnification for consequential damages and
actions to demand the same; Upon whom it
devolves.
Article 108
Obligation to make
restoration, reparation for damages, or
indemnification for consequential damages and
actions to demand the same; Upon whom it
devolves.
Article 108
Obligation to make
restoration, reparation for damages, or
indemnification for consequential damages and
actions to demand the same; Upon whom it
devolves.
Article 108
Obligation to make
restoration, reparation for damages, or
indemnification for consequential damages and
actions to demand the same; Upon whom it
devolves.
Article 108
Obligation to make
restoration, reparation for damages, or
indemnification for consequential damages and
actions to demand the same; Upon whom it
devolves.
Article 108
Article 108
Obligation to make
restoration, reparation for damages, or
indemnification for consequential damages and
actions to demand the same; Upon whom it
devolves.
Obligation to make
restitution in certain cases.
Article 111
Chapter Three
EXTINCTION AND SURVIVAL OF
CIVIL LIABILITY
Extinction of
civil liability.
Article 112
Extinction of
civil liability.
Article 112
oOther causes:
1. Annulment;
2. Recission;
3. Fulfillment of resolutory condition;
4. Prescription. (Article 1231, New Civil
Code)
Obligation to
satisfy civil liability.
Article 113
Criminal Law 1
Presentation by:
CORTEZ, GRAIL
PATI, JEZEN ESTHER B.
GARCIA, PATRICK
GUINTO, KYLE KELVIN