DURATION OF PENALTIES prohibited from entering or coming near that

place designated in the sentence for not less

Reclusion Perpetua than 25 kilometers. However, the court cannot
extend beyond 250 kms. If the convict should
enter the prohibited places, he commits the
What is the duration of reclusion perpetua?
crime of evasion of service of sentence under
Do not use Article 27 in answering this question. Article 157. But if the convict himself would go
The proper answer would be that reclusion further from which he is banished by the court,
perpetua has no duration because it is an there is no evasion of service of sentence
indivisible penalty and indivisible penalties have because the 250km limit is upon the authority
no duration.
of the court in banishing the convict.
Under Article 27, those sentenced to reclusion Under the Revised Penal Code, destierro is the
perpetua shall be pardoned after undergoing
penalty imposed in the following situations:
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 as unworthy of pardon. (1) When a legally married person who had
surprised his or her spouse in the act of sexual
Under Article 70 (the Three-Fold Rule), the
intercourse with another and while in that act
maximum period shall in no case exceed 40
years. If the convict who is to serve several or immediately thereafter should kill or inflict
sentences could only be made to serve 40 serious physical injuries upon the other spouse,
years, with more reason that one who is and/or the paramour or mistress. This is found
sentenced to a single penalty of reclusion in Article 247.
perpetua should not serve for more than 40
years.

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

Destierro
(3) In the crime of concubinage, the penalty
What is the duration of destierro? prescribed for the concubine is destierro under
Article 334.
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 (4) Where the penalty prescribed by law is arresto
a principal penalty. It is a punishment whereby mayor, but the offender is entitled to privileged
a convict is banished from a certain place and is mitigating circumstances and, lowering the
prescribed penalty by one degree, the penalty 1. If the penalty of suspension is imposed
becomes destierro. Thus it shall be the one as an accessory, what is the duration?
imposed.
Its duration shall be that of the principal
penalty.
Civil Interdiction

Civil interdiction is an accessory penalty. Civil

2. If the penalty of temporary
interdiction shall deprive the offender during disqualification is imposed as a principal
the time of his sentence: penalty, what is the duration?

(1) The rights of parental authority, The duration is six years and one day to 12
or guardianship either as to the person or years.
property of any ward;

(2) Marital authority; 3. What do we refer to if it is perpetual or

temporary disqualification?
(3) The right to manage his
property; and We refer to the duration of the disqualification.

(4) The right to dispose of such

property by any act or any conveyance inter 4. What do we refer to if it is special or
vivos. absolute disqualification?

Can a convict execute a last will and testament? We refer to the nature of the disqualification.
YES. The classification of principal and accessory is
found in Article 25.

In classifying the penalties as principal and

PRIMARY CLASSIFICATION OF PENALTIES accessory, what is meant by this is that those
penalties classified as accessory penalties need
Principal penalties and accessory penalties not be stated in the sentence. The accessory
penalties follow the principal penalty imposed
The penalties which are both principal and for the crime as a matter of course. So in the
accessory penalties are the following: imposition of the sentence, the court will
specify only the principal penalty but that is not
the only penalty which the offender will suffer.
Penalties which the law considers as accessory
(1) Perpetual or temporary absolute to the prescribed penalty are automatically
disqualification; 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.
(2) Perpetual or temporary special
disqualification If asked what are the accessory penalties, do
not just state the accessory penalties. State the
principal penalty and the corresponding
accessory penalties.
 Civil interdiction is not an accessory penalty in
Penalties in which other accessory penalties are prision mayor. The convict can convey his
inherent: property.
What accessory penalty is common to all
(1) Article 40. Death—perpetual absolute principal penalties?
disqualification, and civil interdiction during 30
years following date of sentence; Confiscation or forfeiture of the instrument of
the proceeds of the crime.
(2) Article 41. Reclusion perpetua and reclusion
temporal—civil interdiction for life or during the
period of the sentence, as the case may be, and Bond to keep the peace
perpetual absolute disqualification;

(3) Art. 42. Prision mayor—temporary absolute One of the principal penalties common to the
disqualification, perpetual special others is bond to keep the peace. There is no
disqualification from the right of suffrage; crime under the Revised Penal Code which
carries this penalty.
(4) Art. 43. Prision correccional—suspension from
public office, from the right to follow a
profession or calling, and perpetual special
disqualification from the right of suffrage if the Bond for good behavior
duration of the imprisonment shall exceed 18
months;
Bond for good behavior is prescribed by the
(5) Art. 44. Arresto—suspension of the right to hold Revised Penal Code for the crimes of grave
office and the right of suffrage during the term threats and light threats under Article 234. You
of the sentence. cannot find this penalty in Article 25 because
Article 25 provides for bond to keep the peace.
There are accessory penalties which are true to Remember that no felony shall be punished by
other principal penalties. An example is the any penalty not prescribed by law prior to its
penalty of civil interdiction. This is accessory commission pursuant to Article 21.
penalty, and, as provided in Article 34, a convict Is the bond to keep the peace the same as bond
sentenced to civil interdiction suffers certain for good behavior?
disqualification during the term of the
sentence. One of the disqualifications is that of No. The legal effect of each is entirely different.
making conveyance of his property inter vivos. The legal effect of a failure to post a bond to
keep the peace is imprisonment either for 30
Illustration: days or 6 months, depending on whether the
felony committed is grave or less grave on the
A has been convicted and is serving the penalty one hand, or it is light only on the other hand.
of prision mayor. While serving sentence, he The legal effect of failure to post a bond for
executed a deed of sale over his only parcel of good behavior is not imprisonment but
land. A creditor moved to annul the sale on the destierro under Article 284.
ground that the convict is not qualified to
execute a deed of conveyance inter vivos. If you
were the judge, how would you resolve the Divisible and Indivisible Penalties
move of the creditor to annul the sale? When we talk of period, it is implying that the
penalty is divisible.
 whether it made reclusion perpetua a divisible
If, after being given a problem, you were asked penalty.
to state the period in which the penalty of
reclusion perpetua is to be imposed, remember As we know, when a penalty has a fixed
that when the penalty is indivisible, there is no duration, it is said to be divisible and, in
period. Do not talk of period, because when you accordance with the provisions of Articles 65
talk of period, you are implying that the penalty and 76, should be divided into three equal
is divisible since the period referred to is the portions to form one period of each of the
minimum, medium and maximum. If it is three portions. Otherwise, if the penalty has no
indivisible, there is no such thing as a minimum, fixed duration, it is an indivisible penalty. The
medium, or maximum period. nature of the penalty as divisible or indivisible is
decisive of the proper penalty to be imposed
The capital punishment under the Revised Penal Code inasmuch as it
You were asked to state whether you are in determines whether the rules in Article 63 or
favor or against capital punishment. the rules in Article 64 should be observed in
Understand that you are not taking an fixing the penalty.
examination in Theology. Explain the issue on
the basis of social utility of the penalty. Is it Thus, consistent with the rule mentioned, the
beneficial in deterring crimes or not? This Supreme Court, by its First Division, applied
should be the premise of your reasoning. Article 65 of the Code in imposing the penalty
for rape in People v. Conrado Lucas, GR No.
Designation of penalty 108172-73, May 25, 1994. It divided the time
Since the principal penalties carry with them included in the penalty of reclusion perpetua
certain accessory penalties, the courts are not into three equal portions composing a period as
at liberty to use any designation of the principal follows:
penalty. So it was held that when the penalty Minimum—20 years and one day to 26 years
should be reclusion perpetua, it is erroneous for and eight months;
the court to use “life imprisonment”. In other Medium—26 years, eight months and one day
words, the courts are not correct when they to 33 years and four months;
deviate from the technical designation of the Maximum—34 years, four months and one day
principal penalty, because the moment they to 40 years.
deviate from this designation, there will be no
accessory penalties that will go with them. Considering the aggravating circumstance of
relationship, the Court sentenced the accused
Reclusion perpetua as modified to imprisonment of 34 years, four months and
Before the enactment of Republic Act 7659, one day of reclusion perpetua, instead of the
which made amendments to the Revised Penal straight penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed
Code, the penalty of reclusion perpetua had no by the trial court. The appellee seasonably filed
fixed duration. The Revised Penal Code provides a motion for clarification to correct the duration
in Article 27 that the convict shall be pardoned of the sentence, because instead of beginning
after undergoing the penalty for 30 years, with 33 years, four months and one day, it
unless by reason of his conduct or some other began with 34 years, four months and one day.
serious cause, he is not deserving of pardon. As The issue of whether the amendment of Article
amended by Section 21 of RA 7659, the same 27 made reclusion perpetua a divisible penalty
article now provides that the penalty of was raised, and because the issue is one of first
reclusion perpetua shall be from 20 to 40 years. impression and momentous importance, the
Because of this, speculations arose as to First Division referred the motion to the Court
en banc.
 Ultimately, the question arises: “What then may
In a resolution promulgated on January 5, 1995, be the reason for the amendment fixing the
the Supreme Court en banc held that reclusion duration of reclusion perpetua?” This question
perpetua shall remain as an indivisible penalty. was answered in the same case of People v.
To this end, the resolution states: Lucas by quoting pertinent portion of the
decision in People v. Reyes, 212 SCRA 402,
After deliberating on the motion and re- thus:
examining the legislation history of RA 7659,
the Court concludes that although Section 17 of The imputed duration of thirty (30) years for
RA 7659 has fixed the duration of Reclusion reclusion perpetua, thereof, is only to serve as
Perpetua from twenty (20) years and one (1) the basis for determining the convict’s eligibility
day to forty (40) years, there was no clear for pardon or the application of the three-fold
legislative intent to alter its original rule in the service of penalties. Since, however,
classification as an indivisible penalty. It shall in all the graduated scales of penalties in the
then remain as an indivisible penalty. Code, as set out in Article 25, 70 and 21,
reclusion perpetua is the penalty immediately
next higher to reclusion temporal, it follows by
Verily, if reclusion perpetua was classified as a necessary implication that the minimum of
divisible penalty, then Article 63 of the Revised reclusion perpetua is twenty (20) years and one
Penal Code would lose its reason and basis of (1) day with a maximum duration thereafter to
existence. To illustrate, the first paragraph of last for the rest of the convict’s natural life,
Section 20 of the amended RA No. 6425 although pursuant to Article 70 , it appears that
provides for the penalty of reclusion perpetua the maximum period for the service of the
to death whenever the dangerous drugs penalties shall not exceed forty (40) years. It
involved are of any of the quantities stated would be legally absurd and violative of the
herein. If Article 63 of the Code were no longer scales of penalties in the Code to reckon the
applicable because reclusion perpetua is minimum of Reclusion Perpetua at thirty (30)
supposed to be a divisible penalty, then there years since there would thereby be a resultant
would be no statutory rules for determining lacuna whenever the penalty exceeds the
when either reclusion perpetua or death should maximum twenty (20) years of Reclusion
be the imposable penalty. In fine, there would Temporal but is less than thirty (30) years.
be no occasion for imposing reclusion perpetua
as the penalty in drug cases, regardless of the
attendant modifying circumstances. Innovations in the imposition of the death
penalty
Now then, if Congress had intended to reclassify
reclusion perpetua as divisible penalty, then it Aside from restoring the death penalty for
should have amended Article 63 and Article 76 certain heinous crimes, Republic Act No. 7659
of the Revised Penal Code. The latter is the law and Republic Act No. 8177 made innovations on
on what are considered divisible penalties the provisions of RPC regarding the imposition
under the Code and what should be the of the death penalty:
duration of the periods thereof. There are, as
well, other provisions of the RPC involving (1) Article 47 (amended by R.A. No. 7659) has been
reclusion perpetua, such as Art 41 on the reworded to expressly include among the
accessory penalties thereof and paragraphs 2 instances where the death penalty shall not be
and 3 of Art 61, which has not been touched by imposed, the case of an offender who is below
the corresponding amendment. 18 years old at the time of the commission of
the offense. But even without this amendment,
 the death penalty may not be meted out on an In circumstance no.1 when the guilty person is
offender who was below 18 years of age at the at least 18 years of age at the time of the
time of the commission of the crime because commission of the crime, the death penalty can
Article 68 lowers the imposable penalty upon be imposed since the offender is already of
such offenders by at least one degree than that legal age when he committed the crime.
prescribed for the crime.
Circumstance no. 3 no longer operates,
(2) In the matter of executing the death penalty, considering the decision of the Supreme Court
Article 81 has been amended by R.A. No. 81 in People v. Efren Mateo (G.R. No. 147678-87,
and, thus, directs that the manner of putting July 7, 2004) providing an intermediate review
the convict to death shall be by lethal injection for such cases where the penalty imposed us
(formerly electrocution then gas poisoning), and death, reclusión perpetua or life imprisonment
the sentence shall be carried out not earlier before they are elevated to the Supreme Court.
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
(3) The original provision of Article 83, anent the although its execution shall be suspended when
suspension of the execution of the death the convict becomes insane before it could be
penalty for three years if the convict was a executed and while he is insane.
woman, has been deleted and instead, limits
such suspension to last while the woman was Likewise, the death penalty can be imposed
pregnant and within one year after delivery. upon a woman but its execution shall be
The death penalty cannot be inflicted under suspended during her pregnancy and for one
which of the following circumstances? year after her delivery.
1. When the guilty person in at least 18 years of
age at the time of the commission of the crime. A (Alternative): The word “INFLICTED” is found
2. When the guilty person is more than 70 years only in Art. 83 to the effect that the death
of age. penalty may not be “INFLICTED” upon a
3. When, upon appeal or automatic review by the pregnant woman, such penalty is to be
Supreme Court, the required majority for the suspended.
imposition of the death penalty is not obtained.
4. When the person is convicted of a capital crime If “INFLICTED” is to be construed as
but before executin becomes insane. “EXECUTION,” then No.5 is the choice.
5. When the accused is a woman while she is
pregnant or within one year after delivery.
Explain your answer and choice briefly. Subsidiary penalty

A (Suggested): Understanding the word Is subsidiary penalty an accessory penalty?

“inflicted” to mean the imposition of death No.
penalty, not its execution, the circumstance in
which the death penalty cannot be inflicted is If the convict does not want to pay a fine and
no.2: “when the guilty person is more than 70 has so many friends and wants to prolong his
years of age” (Art. 47, Revised Penal Code). stay in jail, can he stay there and not pay the
Instead, the penalty shall be commuted to fine? No.
reclusion perpetua, with the accessory penalties
provided in Article 40, RPC. After undergoing subsidiary penalty and convict
is already released from the jail and his financial
 circumstances improve, can he made to pay? it or not. It must be that the convict is insolvent
Yes, for the full amount with deduction. to pay the fine. That means that the writ of
execution issued against the property of the
convict, if any, is returned unsatisfied.
Article 39 deals with subsidiary penalty. There
are two situations there: In People v. Subido, it was held that the convict
cannot choose not to serve, or not to pay the
(1) When there is a penalty of imprisonment or fine and instead serve the subsidiary penalty. A
any other principal penalty and it carries with it subsidiary penalty will only be served if the
a fine; and sheriff should return the execution for the fine
on the property of the convict and does not
(2) When penalty is only a fine. have the properties to satisfy the writ.
The penalty imposed by the judge is fine only.
Therefore, there shall be no subsidiary penalty The sheriff then tried to levy the property of the
for the non-payment of damages to the defendant after it has become final and
offended party.
executory, but it was returned unsatisfied. The
This subsidiary penalty is one of important court then issued an order for said convict to
matter under the title of penalty. A subsidiary suffer the subsidiary penalty. The convict was
penalty in not an accessory penalty. Since it is detained, for which reason he filed a petition
not an accessory penalty, it must be expressly for habeas corpus contending that his detention
stated in the sentence, but the sentence does is illegal. Will the petition prosper?
not specify the period of subsidiary penalty
because it will only be known if the convict
cannot pay the fine. The sentence will merely
provide that in case of non-payment of fine, the Yes. The judgment became final without
convict shall be required to serve subsidiary statement as to subsidiary penalty, so that even
penalty. It will then be the prison authority who if the convict has no money or property to
will compute this.
satisfy the fine, he cannot suffer subsidiary
So even if subsidiary penalty is proper in a case, penalty because the latter is not an accessory
if the judge failed to state in the sentence that and so it must be expressly stated. If the court
the convict shall be required to suffer subsidiary overlooked to provide for subsidiary penalty in
penalty in case of insolvency to pay the fine, the sentence and its attention was later called
that convict cannot be required to suffer the to that effect, thereafter, it tried to modify the
accessory penalty. This particular legal point is a sentence to include subsidiary penalty after
bar problem. Therefore, the judgment of the
period to appeal had already elapsed, the
court must state this. If the judgment is silent,
he cannot suffer any subsidiary penalty. addition of subsidiary penalty will be null and
void. This is tantamount to double jeopardy.
The subsidiary penalty is not an accessory
penalty that follows the principal penalty as a
matter of course. It is not within the control of
If the fine is prescribed with the penalty of
the convict to pay the fine or not and once the
sentence becomes final and executory and a imprisonment or any deprivation of liberty,
writ of execution is issued to collect the fine, if such imprisonment should not be higher than
the convict has a property to levy upon, the six years or prision correccional. Otherwise,
same shall answer for the fine, whether he likes there is no subsidiary penalty.
 This being a restriction of liberty with a fixed
duration under Article 39 for the nonpayment
of fine that goes with the destierro, the convict
When is subsidiary penalty applied will be required to undergo subsidiary penalty
and it will also be in the form of destierro.

(1) If the subsidiary penalty prescribed for the non-

payment of the which goes with the principal Illustration:
penalty, the maximum duration of the
subsidiary penalty is one year, so there is no
subsidiary that goes beyond one year. But this A convict was sentenced to suspension and fine.
will only be true if the one year period is higher This is a penalty where a public officer
than 1/3 of the principal penalty, the convict anticipates public duties, he entered into the
cannot be made to undergo subsidiary penalty performance of public office even before he has
more than 1/3 of the duration of the principal complied with the required to undergo
penalty and in no case will it be more than 1 subsidiary penalty?
year – get 1/3 of the principal penalty –
whichever is lower.
Yes, because the penalty of suspension has a
fixed duration. Under Article 27, suspension
(2) If the subsidiary penalty is to be imposed for and destierro have the same duration as prision
non payment of fine and the principal penalty correccional. So the duration does not exceed
imposed be fine only, which is a single penalty, six years. Since it is a penalty with a fixed
that means it does not go with another principal duration under Article 39, when there is a
penalty, the most that the convict will be subsidiary penalty, such shall be 1/3 of the
required to undergo subsidiary imprisonment is period of suspension which in no case beyond
six months, if the felony committed is grave or one year. But the subsidiary penalty will be
less grave, otherwise, if the felony committed is served not by imprisonment but by continued
slight, the maximum duration of the subsidiary suspension.
penalty is only 15 days.

If the penalty is public censure and fine even if

There are some who use the term subsidiary the public censure is a light penalty, the convict
imprisonment. The term is wrong because the cannot be required to pay the fine for
penalty is not only served by imprisonment. subsidiary penalty for the non-p0ayment of the
The subsidiary penalty follows the nature of the fine because public censure is a penalty that has
principal penalty. If the principal penalty is no fixed duration.
destierro, this being a divisible penalty, and a
penalty with a fixed duration, the non-payment
of the fine will bring about subsidiary penalty.
Do not consider the totality of the It is the prison authority who will apply the
imprisonment the convict is sentenced to but Three-Fold Rule. As far as the court is
consider the totality or the duration of the concerned, that will be the penalty to be
imprisonment that the convict will be required imposed.”
to serve under the Three-Fold Rule. If the
totality of the imprisonment under this rule
does not exceed six years, then, even if the For the purposes of subsidiary penalty, apply
totality of all the sentences without applying the Three-Fold Rule if the penalty is arresto
the Three-Fold Rule will go beyond six years, mayor and a fine of P200.00 multiplied by 3.
the convict shall be required to undergo This means one year and six months only. So,
subsidiary penalty if he could not pay the fine. applying the Three-Fold Rule, the penalty does
not go beyond six years. Hence, for the non-
payment of the fine of P10,000.00, the convict
Illustration: shall be required to undergo subsidiary penalty.
This is because the imprisonment that will be
served will not go beyond six years. It will only
A collector of NAWASA collected from 50 be one year and six months, since in the service
houses within a certain locality. When he was of the sentence, the Three-Fold Rule will apply.
collecting NAWASA bills, the charges of all these
consumers was a minimum of 10. The collector
appropriated the amount collected and so was It is clearly provided under Article 39 that if the
charged with estafa. He was convicted. Penalty means of the convict should improve, even if he
imposed was arresto mayor and a fine of has already served subsidiary penalty, he shall
P200.00 in each count. If you were the judge, still be required to pay the fine and there is no
what penalty would you impose? May the deduction for that amount which the convict
convict be required to undergo subsidiary has already served by way of subsidiary penalty.
penalty in case he is insolvent to pay the fine?

The Three-Fold Rule should not applied by the

court. In this case of 50 counts of estafa, the Articles 63 and 64
penalty imposed was arresto mayor and a fie of
P200.00. Arresto mayor + P200.00 x 50.
Arresto Mayor is six months x 50 = 25 years. If crime committed is parricide, penalty is
P200.00 x 50 = P10,000.00. Thus, I would reclusion perpetua. The accused, after
impose a penalty of arresto mayor and a fine of committing parricide, voluntarily surrendered
P200.00 multiplied by 50 counts and state and pleaded guilty of the crime charged upon
further that “as a judge, I am not in the position arraignment. It was also established that he
to apply the Three-Fold Rule because the Three- was intoxicated, and no aggravating
Fold Rule is to be given effect when the convict circumstances were present. What penalty
is already serving sentence in the penitentiary. would you impose?
Reclusion perpetua, because it is an indivisible
penalty.
Article 66

When there are two or more mitigating When there are mitigating circumstance and
circumstances and there is no aggravating aggravating circumstance and the penalty is
circumstance, penalty to be imposed shall be only fine, when it is only ordinary mitigating
one degree lower to be imposed in the proper circumstance and aggravating circumstance,
period. Do not apply this when there is one apply Article 66. Because you determine the
aggravating circumstance. imposable fine on the basis of the financial
resources or means of the offender. But if the
penalty would be lowered by degree, there is a
Illustration: privileged mitigating circumstance or the felony
committed is attempted or frustrated, provided
it is not a light felony against persons or
property, because if it is a light felony and
There are about four mitigating circumstances
punishable by fine, it is not a crime at all unless
and one aggravating circumstance. Court
it is consummated. So, if it is attempted or
offsets the aggravating circumstance against
frustrated, do not go one degree lower because
the mitigating circumstance and there still
it is not punishable unless it is a light felony
remains three mitigating circumstances.
against person or property where the
Because of that, the judge lowered the penalty
imposable penalty will be lowered by one
by one degree. Is the judge correct?
degree or two degrees.

No. In such a case when there are aggravating

circumstances, no matter how many mitigating
circumstances there are, after offsetting, do not Penalty prescribed to a crime is lowered by
go down any degree lower. The penalty degrees in the following cases:
prescribed by law will be the penalty to be
imposed, but in the minimum period. Cannot
go below the minimum period when there is an
(1) When the crime is only attempted or frustrated.
aggravating circumstance.

If it is frustrated, penalty is one degree lower

Go into the lowering of the penalty by one than that prescribed by law.
degree if the penalty is divisible. So do not
apply the rule in paragraph 5 of Article 64 to a
case where the penalty is divisible.
 If it is attempted, penalty is two degrees lower
than that prescribed by law.
(5) Whenever the provision of the Revised Penal
Code specifically lowers the penalty by one or
two degrees than what is ordinarily prescribed
His is so because the penalty prescribed by law for the crime committed.
for a crime refers to the consummated stage.

Penalty commonly imposed by the Revised

(2) When the offender is an accomplice or Penal Code may be by way of imprisonment or
accessory only by way of fine or, to a limited extent, by way6
of destierro or disqualification, whether
absolute or special.
Penalty is one degree lower in the case of an
accomplice.
In the matter of lowering the penalty by degree,
the reference is Article 71. It is necessary to
Penalty is two degrees lower in the case of an know the chronology under Article 71 by simply
accessory. knowing the scale. Take note that destierro
comes after arresto mayor so the penalty one
degree lower than arresto mayor is not arresto
This is so because the penalty prescribed by law menor, but destierro. Memorize the scale in
for a given crime refers to the consummated Article 71.
stage.

In Article 37, with respect to the range of each

(3) When there is a privilege mitigating penalty, the range of arresto menor follows
circumstance in favor of the offender, it will arresto mayor, since arresto menor is one to 30
lower the penalty by one or two degrees than days or one month, while arresto mayor is one
that prescribed by law depending on what the month and one day to six months. On the other
particular provision of the Revised Penal Code hand, the duration of destierro is the same as
states. prision correccional which 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
(4) When the penalty prescribed for the crime
than diestierro.
committed is a divisible penalty and there are
two or more ordinary mitigating circumstances
and no aggravating circumstances whatsoever,
the penalty next lower in degree shall be the In homicide under Article 249, the penalty is
one imposed. reclusion temporal. One degree lower, if
homicide is frustrated, or there is an accomplice
 participating in homicide, is prision mayor, and
two degrees lower is prision correccional.
If the penalty prescribed for the crime is prision
correccional medium to maximum, the penalty
one degree lower will be arresto mayor
This is true if the penalty prescribed by the maximum to prision correccional minimum,
Revised Penal Code is a whole divisible penalty and the penalty another degree lower will be
– one degree or 2 degrees lower will also be arresto mayor minimum to medium. Every
punished as a whole. But generally, the
degree will be composed of two periods.
penalties prescribed by the Revised Penal Code
are only in periods, like prision correccional
minimum, or prision correccional minimum to
(3) When the penalty prescribed by the Revised
medium.
Penal Code is made up fo three periods of
different penalties, every time you go down one
degree lower, you have to go down by three
Although the penalty is prescribed by the periods.
Revised Penal Code as a period, such penalty
should be understood as a degree in itself and
the following rules shall govern:
Illustration:

(1) When the penalty prescribed by the Reised

Code is made up of a period, like prision The penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal
correccional medium, the penalty one degree Code is prision mayor maximum to reclusion
temporal medium, the penalty one degree
lower is prision correccional minimum, and the
penalty two degrees lower is arresto mayor lower is prision correccional maximum to
maximum. In other words, each degree will be prision mayor medium. Another degree lower
made up of only one period because the will be arresto mayor maximum to prision
penalty prescribed is also made up only of one correccional medium.
period.

These rules have nothing to do with mitigating

(2) When the penalty prescribed by the Code is or aggravating circumstances. These rules refer
made up of two periods of a given penalty, to the lowering of penalty by one or two
every time such penalty is lowered by one degrees. As to how mitigating or aggravating
degree you have to go down also by two circumstances may affect the penalty, the rules
are found in Articles 63 and 64. Article 63
periods.
governs when the penalty prescribed by the
Revised Penal Code is divisible. When the
penalty is indivisible, no matter how many
Illustration: ordinary mitigating circumstances there are, the
prescribed penalty is never lowered by degree.
It takes a privileged mitigating circumstance to P200.00 to P250.00. If at all, the fine has to be
lower such penalty by degree. On the other lowered further, it cannot go lower than
hand, when the penalty prescribed by the P200.00. So, the fine will be imposed at
Revised Penal Code is divisible, such penalty P200.00. This rule applies when the fine has to
shall be lowered by one degree only but be lowered by degree.
imposed in the proper period, when there are
two or more ordinary mitigating circumstance
and there is no aggravating circumstance
whatsoever.
Article 66

In so far as ordinary mitigating or aggravating

Article 75 - Fines circumstance would affect the penalty which is
in the form of a fine, Article 66 of the Revised
Penal Code shall govern. Under this article, it is
With respect to the penalty of fine, if the fine discretionary upon the court to apply the fine
taking into consideration the financial means of
has to be lowered by degree either because the the offender to pay the same. In other words, it
felony committed is only attempted or is not only the mitigating and/or aggravating
frustrated or because there is an accomplice or circumstances that the court shall take into
an accessory participation, the fine is lowered consideration, but primarily, the financial
by deducting ¼ of the maximum amount of the capability of the offender to pay the fine. For
fine from such maximum without changing the the same crime, the penalty upon an accused
minimum amount prescribed by law. who I poor may be less than the penalty upon
an accused committing the same crime but who
is wealthy.
Illustration:

For instance, when there are two offenders who

If the penalty prescribed is a fine ranging from are co-conspirators to a crime, and their penalty
P200.00 to P500.00, but the felony is frustrated consists of a fine only, and one of them is
so that the penalty should be imposed one wealthy while the other is a pauper, the court
degree lower, ¼ of P500.00, shall be deducted may impose a higher penalty upon the wealthy
therefrom. This is done by deducting P125.00 person and a lower fine for the pauper.
from P500.00, leaving a difference of P375.00.
The penalty one degree lower is P375.00. To go
another degree lower, P125.00 shall again be
Penalty for murder under the Revised Penal
deducted from P375.00 and that would leave a Code is reclusion temporal maximum to death.
difference of P250.00. Hence, the penalty So, the penalty would be reclusion temporal
another degree lower is a fine ranging from
maximum – reclusion perpetua – death. This The chronology of the penalties as provided in
penalty made up of three periods. Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code shall be
followed.

It is in the service of the penalty, not in the

imposition of the penalty, that the Three-Fold
The Three-Fold Rule Rule is to be applied. The Three-Fold Rule will
apply whether the sentences are the product of
one information in one court, whether the
sentences are promulgated in one day or
Under this rule, when a convict is to serve
whether the sentences are promulgated by
successive penalties, he will not actually serve
different courts on different days. What is
the penalties imposed by law. Instead, the most
material is that the convict shall serve more
severe of the penalties imposed on him shall be
than three successive sentences.
multiplied by three and the period will be the
only term of the penalty to be served by him.
However, in no case should the penalty exceed
40 years. For purposes of the Three-fold Rule, even
perpetual penalties are taken into account. So
not only penalties with fixed duration, even
penalties without any fixed duration or
This rule is intended for the benefit of the
indivisible penalties are taken into account. For
convict and so, you will only apply this provided
purposes of the Three-Fold Rule, indivisible
the sum total of all the penalties imposed
penalties are given equivalent of 30 years. If
would be greater than the product of the most
the penalty is perpetual disqualification, it will
severe penalty multiplied by three but in no
be given and equivalent duration of 30 years, so
case will the penalties to be served by the
that if he will have to suffer several perpetual
convict be more than 40 years.
disqualification, under the Three-Fold Rule, you
take the most severe and multiply it by three.
The Three-Fold Rule does not apply to the
Although this rule is known as the Three-Fold penalty prescribed but to the penalty imposed
Rule, you cannot actually apply this if the as determined by the court.
convict is to serve only three successive
penalties. The Three-Fold Rule can only be
applied if the convict I to serve four or more
Illustration:
sentences successively. If the sentences would
be served simultaneously, the Three-Fold Rule
does not govern.
Penalties imposed are –

One prision correccional – minimum – 2 years

 and 4 months A person was sentenced to three death
sentences. Significance: If ever granted pardon
for 1 crime, the two remaining penalties must
One arresto mayor – 1 month and 1 day to 6 still be executed.

months
This rule will apply only if sentences are to be
served successively.
One prision mayor – 6 years and 1 day to 12

years

ACT NO. 4013 (INDETERMINATE SENTENCE

Do not commit the mistake of applying the LAW), AS AMENDED
Three-Fold Rule in this case. Never apply the
Three-Fold Rule when there are only three
sentences. Even if you add the penalties, you Three things to know about the Indeterminate
can never arrive at a sum higher than the
Sentence Law:
product of the most severe multiplied by three.
(1) Its purpose;
The common mistake is, if given a situation,
whether the Three-Fold Rule could be applied. (2) Instances when it does not apply; and
If asked, if you were the judge, what penalty
would you impose, for purposes of imposing the (3) How it operates
penalty, the court is not at liberty to apply the
Three-Fold Rule, whatever the sum total of
penalty for each crime committed, even if it Indeterminate Sentence Law governs whether
would amount to 1,000 years or more. It is only the crime is punishable under the Revised Penal
when the convict is serving sentence that the Code or a special Law. It is not limited to
prison authorities should determine how long violations of the Revised Penal Code.
he should stay in jail.

It applies only when the penalty served is

Illustration: imprisonment. If not by imprisonment, then it
does not apply.

A distinct engineer was sentenced by the court

to a term of 914 years in prison. Purpose

The purpose of the Indeterminate Sentence

law is to avoid prolonged imprisonment, If the crime is a violation of a special law, in
because it is proven to be more destructive fixing the maximum of the indeterminate
than constructive to the offender. So, the sentence, the court will impose the penalty
purpose of the Indeterminate Sentence Law in within the range of the penalty prescribed by
shortening the possible detention of the convict the special law, as long as it will not exceed the
in jail is to save valuable human resources. I limit of the penalty. In fixing the minimum, the
other words, if the valuable human resources court can fix a penalty anywhere within the
were allowed prolonged confinement in jail, range of penalty prescribed by the special law,
they would deteriorate. Purpose is to preserve as long as it will not be less than the minimum
economic usefulness for these people for limit of the penalty under said law. No
having committed a crime – to reform them mitigating and aggravating circumstances are
rather than to deteriorate them and, at the taken into account.
same time, saving the government expenses of
maintaining the convicts on a prolonged
confinement in jail. The minimum and the maximum referred to in
the Indeterminate Sentence Law are not
periods. So, do not say, maximum or minimum
If the crime is a violation of the Revised Penal period. For the purposes of the indeterminate
Code, the court will impose a sentence that has Sentence Law, use the term minimum to refer
a minimum and maximum. The maximum of to the duration of the sentence which the
the indeterminate sentence will be arrived at by convict shall serve as a minimum, and when we
taking into account the attendant mitigating say maximum, for purposes of ISLAW, we refer
and/or aggravating circumstances according to to the maximum limit of the duration that the
Article 64 of the Revised penal Code. In arriving convict may be held in jail. We are not referring
at the minimum of the indeterminate sentence, to any period of the penalty as enumerated in
the court will take into account the penalty Article 71.
prescribed for the crime and go one degree
lower. Within the range of one degree lower,
the court will fix the minimum for the Courts are required to fix a minimum and a
indeterminate sentence, and within the range maximum of the sentence that they are to
of the penalty arrived at as the maximum in the impose upon an offender when found guilty of
indeterminate sentence, the court will fix the the crime charged. So, whenever the
maximum of the sentence. If there is a privilege Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable, there
mitigating circumstance which has been taken is always a minimum and maximum of the
in consideration in fixing the maximum of the sentence that the convict shall serve. If the
indeterminate sentence, the minimum shall be crime is punished by the Revised Penal Code,
based on the penalty as reduced by the the law provides that the maximum shall be
privilege mitigating circumstance within the arrived at by considering the mitigating and
range of the penalty next lower in degree. aggravating circumstances in the commission of
the crime according to the proper rules of the
Revised Penal Code. To fix the maximum,
 consider the mitigating and aggravating Sentence Law. The attendant mitigating and/or
circumstances according to the rules found in aggravating circumstances in the commission of
Article 64. This means – the crime are taken into consideration only
when the maximum of the penalty is to be
fixed. But in so far as the minimum is
(1) Penalties prescribed by the law for the crime concerned, the basis of the penalty prescribed
committed shall be imposed in the medium by the Revised Penal Code, and go one degree
period if no mitigating or aggravating lower than that. But penalty one degree lower
circumstance; shall be applied 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 into account is
(2) If there is aggravating circumstance, no
only an ordinary mitigating circumstance. If the
mitigating, penalty shall be imposed in the
mitigating circumstance is privileged, you
maximum;
cannot follow the law in so far as fixing the
minimum of the indeterminate sentence is
concerned; otherwise, it may happen that the
(3) If there is mitigating circumstance, no maximum of the indeterminate sentence is
aggravating, penalty shall be in the minimum; lower than its minimum.

(4) If there are several mitigating and aggravating In one Supreme Court ruling, it was held that
circumstances, they shall offset against each for purposes of applying the Indeterminate
other. Whatever remains, apply the rules. Sentence Law, the penalty prescribed by the
Revised Penal Code and not that which may be
imposed by court. This ruling, however, is
(5) If there are two or more mitigating obviously erroneous. This is so because such an
circumstance and no aggravating circumstance, interpretation runs contrary to the rule of pro
penalty next lower in degree shall be the one reo, which provides that the penal laws should
imposed. always be construed an applied in a manner
liberal or lenient to the offender. Therefore,
the rule is, in applying the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, it is that penalty arrived at by the
Rule under Art 64 shall apply in determining the
court after applying the mitigating and
maximum but not in determining the minimum.
aggravating circumstances that should be the
basis.

In determining the applicable penalty according

to the Indeterminate Sentence Law, there is no
Crimes punished under special law carry only
need to mention the number of years, months
one penalty; there are no degree or periods.
and days; it is enough that the name of the
Moreover, crimes under special law do not
penalty is mentioned while the Indeterminate
 consider mitigating or aggravating circumstance (5) Persons who are habitual delinquents;
present in the commission of the crime. So in
the case of statutory offense, no mitigating and (6) Persons who shall have escaped from
confinement or evaded sentence;
no aggravating circumstances will be taken into
account. Just the same, courts are required in (7) Those who have been granted conditional
imposing the penalty upon the offender to fix a pardon by the Chief Executive and shall have
minimum that the convict should serve, and to violated the term thereto;
set a maximum as the limit of that sentence.
Under the law, when the crime is punished (8) Those whose maximum term of imprisonment
under a special law, the court may fix any does not exceed one year;
penalty as the maximum without exceeding the
(9) Those already sentenced by final judgment at
penalty prescribed by special law for the crime the time of the approval of Indeterminate
committed. In the same manner, courts are Sentence Law;
given discretion to fix a minimum anywhere
within the range of the penalty prescribed by (10) Those whose sentence imposes penalties which
special law, as long as it will not be lower than do not involve imprisonment, like destierro;
the penalty prescribed.
Reclusion perpetua is equated to life
imprisonment for purposes of the
Indeterminate Sentence Law. There the said law
Disqualification may be divided into three, will be inapplicable to persons convicted of
according to – offenses punishable with the said penalty
(People v. Enriquez, Jr.).
(1) The time committed;
Although the penalty prescribed for the felony
(2) The penalty imposed; and committed is death or reclusion perpetua, if
after considering the attendant circumstances,
(3) The offender involved. the imposable penalty is reclusion temporal or
less, the Indeterminate Sentence Law applies
Q: When would the Indeterminate Sentence (People v. Cempron, 187 SCRA 278).
Law be inapplicable?

A: The Indeterminate Sentence Law is not

inapplicable to: PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 968 (PROBATION
LAW)
(1) Persons convicted of offense punishable with
death penalty or life imprisonment; Among the different grounds of partial
extinction of criminal liability, the most
(2) Persons convicted of treason, conspiracy or important is probation. Probation is a manner
proposal to commit treason; of disposing of an accused who have been
convicted by a trial court by placing him under
(3) Persons convicted of misprision of treason, supervision of a probation officer, under such
rebellion, sedition, espionage; terms and conditions that the court may fix.
This may be availed of before the convict begins
(4) Persons convicted of piracy; serving sentence by final judgment and
provided that he did not appeal anymore from of the earlier conviction, he is not disqualified
conviction. from probation provided that the penalty for
the current crime committed does not go
Without regard to the nature of the crime, only beyond six years and the nature of the crime
those whose penalty does not exceed six years committed by him is not against public order,
of imprisonment are those qualified for national security or subversion (Sec.9,
probation. If the penalty is six years plus one Probation Law).
day, he is no longer qualified for probation.

If the offender was convicted of several Although a person may be eligible for
offenses which were tried jointly and one probation, the moment he perfects an appeal
decision was rendered where multiple from the judgment of conviction, he cannot
sentences imposed several prison terms as avail of probation anymore. So the benefit of
penalty, the basis for determining whether the probation must be invoked at the earliest
penalty disqualifies the offender from probation instance after conviction. He should not wait
or not is the term of the individual up to the time when he interposes an appeal or
imprisonment and not the totality of all the the sentence has become final and executory.
prison terms imposed in the decision. So even The idea is that probation has to be invoked at
if the prison term would sum up to more than the earliest opportunity.
six years, if none of the individual penalties
exceeds six years, the offender is not An application for probation is exclusively
disqualified by such penalty from applying for within the jurisdiction of the trial court that
probation. renders the judgment. For the offender to
apply in such court, he should not appeal such
On the other hand, without regard to the judgment.
penalty, those who are convicted of subversion
or any crime against the public order are not If the offender would appeal the conviction of
qualified for probation. So know the crimes the trial court and the appellate court reduced
under Title III, Book 2 of the Revised Penal code. the penalty to say, less than six years, that
Among these crimes is Alarms and Scandals, the convict can still file an application for probation,
penalty of which is only arresto menor or a fine. because the earliest opportunity for him to avail
Under the amendment to the Probation Law, of probation came only after judgment by the
those convicted of a crime against public order appellate court.
regardless of the penalty are not qualified for Whether a convict who is otherwise qualified
probation. for probation may be give the benefit of
probation or not, the courts are always required
May a recidivist be given the benefit of to conduct a hearing. If the court denied the
Probation Law? application for probation without the benefit of
the hearing, where as the applicant is not
As a general rule, no. disqualified under the provision of the
Probation Law, but only based on the report of
Exception: If the earlier conviction refers to a the probation officer, the denial is correctible
crime the penalty of which does not exceed 30 by certiorari, because it is an act of the court in
days imprisonment or a fine of not more than excess of jurisdiction or without jurisdiction, the
P200.000, such convict is not disqualified of the order denying the application therefore is null
benefit of probation. So even if he would be and void.
convicted subsequently of a crime embraced in
the same title of the Revised Penal Code as that
Probation is intended to promote the correction afford to put up a bail, upon promulgation of
and rehabilitation of an offender by providing the sentence, naturally he goes back to
him with individualized treatment; to provide detention, that does not mean that they already
an opportunity for the reformation of a start serving the sentence even after
penitent offender which might be less probable promulgation of the sentence, sentence will
if he were to serve a prison sentence; to only become final and executory after the lapse
prevent the commission of offenses; to of the 15-day period, unless the convict has
decongest our jails; and to save the government waived expressly his right to appeal or
much needed finance for maintaining convicts otherwise, he has partly started serving
in jail. sentence and in that case, the penalty will
already be final and executory, no right to
Probation is only a privilege. So even if the probation can be applied for.
offender may not be disqualified of probation, Q: Juan was convicted by the RTC of a crime and
yet the court believes that because of the crime sentenced to suffer a penalty of imprisonment
committed it was not advisable to give for a minimum of eight years. He appealed both
probation because it would depreciate the his conviction and the penalty imposed upon
effect of the crime, the court may refuse or him to the CA. CA sustained his conviction but
deny an application for probation. reduced his sentence to a max. of 4 years and 8
months. Could Juan forthwith file an application
Moreover, the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 for probation? Explain.
(Section 24) expressly provides that “Any
person convicted for drug trafficking or pushing A: No. Juan can no longer apply for probation
under the Act, regardless of the penalty because he appealed from the judgment of
imposed by the Court, cannot avail of the conviction of the trial court. Sec. 4 of the
privilege granted by the Probation Law.” Probation Law mandates that no application for
probation shall be entertained or granted if the
Consider not only the probationable crime, but accused has perfected an appeal from a
also the probationable penalty. If it were the judgment of conviction.
non-probationable crime, then regardless of the
penalty, the convict cannot avail of probation. Probation shall be denied if the court finds:
Generally, the penalty which is not
probationable is any penalty exceeding six years (1) That the offender is in need of correctional
of imprisonment. Offenses which are not treatment that can be provided most effectively
probationable are those against natural by his commitment to an institution;
security, those against public order and those
with reference to subversion. (2) That there is undue risk that during the period
of probation the offender will commit another
Persons who have been granted of the benefit crime; or
of probation cannot avail thereof for the second
time. Probation is only available once and this (3) Probation will depreciate the seriousness of the
may be availed only where the convict starts crime.
serving sentence and provided he has not
perfected an appeal. If the convict perfected an
appeal, he forfeits his right to apply for The probation law imposes two kinds of
probation. As far as offenders who are under conditions:
preventive imprisonment, that because a crime (1) Mandatory conditions; and
committed is not bailable or the crime (2) Discretionary conditions.
committed, although bailable, they cannot
 (3) By amnesty which completely extinguished the
Mandatory conditions: penalty and all its effects;

(1) The convict must report to the Probation (4) By absolute pardon;
Officer (PO) designated in the court order
approving his application for Probation within (5) By prescription of the crime;
72 hours from receipt of Notice of such order
approving his application; and (6) By prescription of the penalty;

(2) The convict, as a probationer, must report to (7) By the marriage of the offended women as in
the PO at least once a month during the period the crimes of rape, abduction, seduction and
of probation unless sooner required by the PO. acts of lasciviousness.

These conditions being mandatory, the moment

any of these is violate, the probation is Criminal liability is partially extinguished as
cancelled. follows:

(1) By conditional pardon;

Discretionary conditions:
(2) By commutation of sentence;
The trial court which approved the application
for probation may impose any condition which (3) Fr good conduct, allowances which the culprit
may be constructive to the correction of the may earn while he is serving sentence;
offender, provided the same would not violate
the constitutional rights of the offender and (4) Parole; and
subject ot this two restrictions: (1) the
conditions imposed should not be unduly (5) Probation.
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

EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY as those for partial extinction, you cannot find
among them the election to public office. In
Always provide two classifications when one case, a public official was charged before
answering this question. the Sandiganbayan for violation of Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act. During the ensuing
Criminal liability is totally extinguished as election, he was nevertheless re-elected by the
follows: constituents, one of the defenses raised was
that of condonation of the crime by his
(1) By the death of the convict as to personal constituents, that his constituents have
penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability pardoned him. The Supreme Court ruled that
therefore is extinguished only when the death the re-election to public office is not one of the
of the offender occurs before final judgment. grounds by which criminal liability is
extinguished. This is only true to administrative
(2) By service of sentence; cases but not criminal cases.

Death of the offender

 But if he was serving sentence when he was
Where the offender dies before final judgment, pardoned, that pardon will not wipe out the
his death extinguishes both his criminal and civil effects of the crime, unless the language of the
liabilities. So while a case is on appeal, the pardon absolutely relieve the offender of all the
offender dies, the case on appeal will be effects thereof. Considering that recidivism
dismissed. The offended party may file a does not prescribe, no matter how long ago was
separate civil action under the Civil Code if any the first conviction, he shall still be a recidivist.
other basis for recovery of civil liability exists as
provided under Art 1157 Civil Code. (People v.
Bayotas, decided on September 2, 1994)

Amnesty and pardon Illustration:

The effects of amnesty as well as absolute When the crime carries with it moral turpitude,
pardon are not the same. Amnesty erases not the offender even if granted pardon shall still
only the conviction but also the crime itself. So remain disqualified from those falling in cases
that if an offender was convicted for rebellion where moral turpitude is a bar.
and he qualified for amnesty, and so he was
given an amnesty, then years later he rebelled Pedro was prosecuted and convicted of the
again and convicted, is he a recidivist? No. crime of robbery and was sentenced to six years
Because the amnesty granted to him erased not imprisonment or prision correccional. After
only the conviction but also the effects of the serving sentence for three years, he was
conviction itself. granted absolute pardon. Ten years later,
Pedro was again prosecuted and convicted of
Supposed, instead of amnesty, what was given the crime of theft, a crime embraced in the
was absolute pardon, then years later, the same title, this time he shall be a recidivist. On
offended was again captured and charged for the other hand, if he has served all six years of
rebellion, he was convicted, is he a recidivist? the first sentence, and his name was included in
Yes. Pardon, although absolute does not erase the list of all those granted absolute pardon,
the effects of conviction. Pardon only excuses pardon shall relieve him of the effects of the
the convict from serving the sentence. There is crime, and therefore even if he commits theft
an exception to this and that is when the again, he shall not be considered a recidivist.
pardon was granted when the convict had
already served the sentence such that there is In Monsanto V. Factoran, Jr., 170 SCRA 191, it
no more service of sentence to be executed was held that absolute pardon does not ipso
then the pardon shall be understood as facto entitle the convict to reinstatement to the
intended to erase the effects of the conviction. public office forfeited by reason of his
conviction. Although pardon restores his
So if the convict has already served the eligibility for appointment to that office, the
sentence and in spite of that he was given a pardoned convict must reapply for the new
pardon that pardon will cover the effects of the appointment.
crime and therefore, if he will be subsequently
convicted for a felony embracing the same title Pardon becomes valid only when there is a final
as that crime, he cannot be considered a judgment. If given before this, it is premature
recidivist, because the pardon wipes out the and hence void. There is no such thing as a
effects of the crime. premature amnesty, because it does not
require a final judgment; it may be given before
final judgment or after it.
 witnessed, and revealed that AM killed CV 25
TRY was sentenced to death by final judgment. years ago.
But subsequently he was granted pardon by the
President. The pardon was silent on the Can AM be prosecuted for murder despite the
perpetual disqualification of TRY to hold any lapse of 25 years? Reason briefly.
public office.
After his pardon, TRY ran for office as Mayor of A: Yes, AM can be prosecuted for murder
APP, his hometown. His opponent sought to despite the lapse of 25 years, because the crime
disqualify him. TRY contended that he is not has not yet prescribed and legally, its
disqualified because he was already pardoned prescriptive period has not even commenced to
by the President unconditionally. run.

Is TRY’s contention correct? Reason briefly. The period of prescription of a crime shall
commence to run only from the day on which
A: No, TRY’s contention is not correct. Article 40 the crime has been discovered by the offended
of the Revised Penal Code expressly provides party, the authorities or their agents (Article 91,
that when the death penalty is not executed by RPC). OW, a private person who saw the killing
reason of commutation or pardon, the but never disclosed it, is not the offended party
accessory penalties of perpetual absolute nor has the crime been discovered by the
disqualification and civil interdiction during authorities or their agents.
thirty (30) years from the date of the sentence
shall remain as the effects thereof, unless such “Commission of the crime is public” – This does
accessory penalties have been expressly not mean alone that the crime was within
remitted in the pardon. This is because pardon public knowledge or committed in public.
only excuses the convict from serving the Illustration:
sentence but does not relieve him of the effects
of the conviction unless expressly remitted in In the crime of falsification of a document that
the pardon. was registered in the proper registry of the
government like the Registry of Property or the
Prescription of crime and prescription of the Registry of Deeds of the Civil registry, the
penalty falsification is deemed public from the time the
falsified document was registered or recorded
Prescription of the crime begins, as a general in such public office so even though, the
rule on the day the crime was committed, offended party may not really know of the
unless the crime was concealed, not public, in falsification, the prescriptive period of the crime
which case, the prescription thereof would only shall already run from the moment the falsified
commence from the time the offended party or document was recorded in the public registry.
the government learns of the commission of the So in the case where a deed of sale of a parcel
crime. of land which was falsified was recorded in the
OW is a private person engaged in cattle corresponding Registry of Property, the owner
ranching. One night, he saw AM stab CV of the land came to know of the falsified
treacherously, then throw the man’s body into transaction only after 10 years, so he brought
a ravine. For 25 years, CV’s body was never the criminal action only then. The Supreme
seen nor found; and OW told no one what he Court ruled that the crime has already
had witnessed. prescribed. From the moment the falsified
document is registered in the Registry of
Yesterday, after consulting the parish priest, Property, the prescriptive period already
OW decided to tell the authorities what he commenced to run.
 When a crime prescribes, the State loses the (2) When criminal case is filed in the prosecutor’s
right to prosecute the offender, hence, even office, the prescription of the crime is
though the offender may not have filed a suspended until the accused is convicted or the
motion to quash on this ground the trial court, proceeding is terminated for a cause not
but after conviction and during the appeal he attributable to the accused.
learned that at the time the case was filed, the
crime has already prescribed, such accused can But where the crime is subject to Summary
raise the question of prescription even for the Procedure, the prescription of the crime will be
first time on appeal, and the appellate court suspended only when the information is already
shall have no jurisdiction to continue, if legally, filed with the trial court. It is not the filing of
the crime has indeed prescribed. the complaint, but the filing of the information
in the trial which will suspend the prescription
The prevailing rule now is, prescription of the of the crime.
crime is not waivable, the earlier jurisprudence
to the contrary had already been abrogated or On the prescription of the penalty, the period
overruled. Moreover, for purposes of will only commence to run when the convict has
prescription, the period for filing a complaint or begun to serve the sentence. Actually, the
information may not be extended at all, even penalty will prescribe from the moment the
though the last day such prescriptive period convict evades the service of the sentence. So
falls on a holiday or a Sunday. if an accused was convicted in the trial court,
and the conviction becomes final and
For instance, light felony prescribes in 60 days executory, so this fellow was arrested to serve
or two months. If the 60th day falls on a Sunday, the sentence, on the way to the penitentiary,
the filing of the complaint on the succeeding the vehicle carrying him collided with another
Monday is already fatal to the prosecution of vehicle and overturned, thus enabling the
the crime because the crime has already prisoner to escape, no matter how long such
prescribed. convict has been a fugitive from justice, the
penalty imposed by the trial court will never
The rules on Criminal Procedure for purposes of prescribe because he has not yet commenced
prescription is that the filing of the complaint the service of his sentence. For the penalty to
even at the public prosecutor’s office suspends prescribe, he must be brought to Muntinlupa,
the running of the prescriptive period, but not booked thee, placed inside the cell and
the filing with the barangays. So the earlier thereafter he escapes.
rulings to the contrary are already abrogated by
express provision of the Revised Rules on Whether it is prescription of crime or
Criminal Procedure. prescription of penalty, if the subject could
leave the Philippines and go to a country with
The prescription of the crime is interrupted or whom the Philippines has no extradition treaty,
suspended – the prescriptive period of the crime or penalty
shall remain suspended whenever he is out of
(1) When a complaint is filed in a proper barangay the country.
for conciliation or mediation as required by
Chapter 7, Local government Code, but the When the offender leaves for a country to
suspension of the prescriptive period is good which the Philippines has an extradition treaty,
only for 60 days. After which the prescription the running of the prescriptive period will go on
will resume to run, whether the conciliation or even if the offender leaves Philippine territory
mediation is terminated for not; for that country. Presently the Philippines has
an extradition treaty with Taiwan, Indonesia, woman must be sincere in the marriage and
Canada, Australia, USA and Switzerland. So if therefore must actually perform the duties of a
the offender goes to any of these countries, the husband after the marriage, otherwise,
prescriptive period still continues to run. notwithstanding such marriage, the offended
woman, although already his wife can still
In the case of the prescription of the penalty, prosecute him again, although the marriage
the moment the convict commits another crime remains is avoided or annulled. The marriage
while he is fugitive from justice, prescriptive still subsists although the offended woman may
period of the penalty shall be suspended and re-file the complaint. The Supreme Court ruled
shall not run in the meantime. The crime that marriage contemplated must be a real
committed does not include the initial evasion marriage and not one entered to and not just to
of service of sentence that the convict must evade punishment for the crime committed
perform before the penalty shall begin to because the offender will be compounding the
prescribe, so that the initial crime of evasion of wrong he has committed.
service of sentence does not suspend the
prescription of penalty, it is the commission of Partial extinction of criminal liability
other crime, after the convict has evaded the
service of penalty that will suspend such period. Good conduct allowance

This includes the allowance for loyalty under

Marriage Article 98, in relation to Article 158. A convict
who escapes the place of confinement on the
In the case of marriage, do not say that it is occasion of disorder resulting from a
applicable for the crimes under Article 344. It is conflagration, earthquake or similar
only true in the crimes of rape, abduction, catastrophe or during a mutiny in which he has
seduction and acts of lasciviousness. Do not say not participated and he returned within 48
that it is applicable to private crimes because hours after the proclamation that the calamity
the term includes adultery and concubinage. had already passed, such convict shall be given
Marriages in these cases may even compound credit of 1/5 of the original sentence from that
the crime of adultery or concubinage. It is only allowance for his loyalty of coming back. Those
in the crimes of rape, abduction, seduction and who did not leave the penitentiary under such
acts of lasciviousness that the marriage by the circumstances do not get such allowance for
offender with the offended woman shall loyalty. Article 158 refers only to those who
extinguish civil liability, not only criminal liability leave and return.
of the principal who marries the offended
woman, but also that of the accomplice and
accessory, if there are any. Parole

Co-principals who did not themselves directly This correspondingly extinguishes service of
participate in the execution of the crime but sentence up to the maximum of the
who only cooperated, will also benefit from indeterminate sentence. This is the partial
such marriage, but not when such co-principal extinction referred to, so that if the convict was
himself took direct part in the execution of the never given parole, no partial extinction.
crime.

Marriage as a ground for extinguishing civil CIVIL LIABILITY OF THE OFFENDER

liability must have been contracted in good
faith. The offender who marries the offended
Civil liability of the offender falls under three rape and unjust vexation for the taking of the
categories: earning. The latter crime is not a crime against
property, this is a crime against personal
security and liberty under Title IX of Book II of
Restitution or restoration the RPC. And yet, the offender was required to
restore or restitute the earning to the offended
Restitution or restoration presupposes that the woman.
offended party was divested of property, and
such property must be returned. If the Property will have to be restored to the
property is in the hands of a third party, the offended party even this would require the
same shall nevertheless be taken away from taking of the property was divested from the
him and restored to the offended party, even offended party pursuant to the commission of
though such third party may be a holder for the crime, the one who took the same or
value and a buyer in good faith of the property, accepted the same would be doing so without
except when such third party buys the property the benefit of the just title. So even if the
from a public sale where the law protects the property may have been bought by the third
buyer. person, the same may be taken from him and
restored to the offended party without an
For example, if a third party bought a property obligation on the part of the offended party to
in a public auction conducted by the sheriff pay him whatever he paid.
levied on the property of a judgment creditor
for an obligation, the buyer of the property at The right to recover what he has paid will be
such execution sale is protected by law. The against the offender who sold it ot him. On the
offended party cannot divest him thereof. So other hand, if the crime was theft or robbery,
the offended party may only resort to the one who received the personal property
reparation of the damage done from the becomes a fence, he is not only required to
offender. restitute the personal property but he incurs
criminal liability in violation of the Anti-Fencing
Some believed that this civil liability is true only Law.
in crimes against property, this is not correct.
Regardless of the crime committed, if the If the property cannot be restituted anymore,
property is illegally taken from the offended then the damage must be repaired, requiring
party during the commission of the crime, the the offender to pay the value thereof, as
court may direct the offender to restore or determined by the court. That value includes
restitute such property to the offended party. the sentimental value to the offended party,
It can only be done if the property is brought not only the replacement cost. In most cases,
within the jurisdiction of that court. the sentimental value is higher than the
replacement value. But if what would be
For example, in a case where the offender restored is brand new, then there will be an
committed rape, during the rape, the offender allowance for depreciation, otherwise, the
got on of the earnings of the victim. When offended party is allowed to enrich himself at
apprehended, the offender was prosecuted for the expense of the offender. So there will be a
rape and theft. When the offender was asked corresponding depreciation and the offended
why he got on of the earnings of the victim, the party may even be required to pay something
offender disclosed that he took one of the just to cover the difference of the value of what
earnings in order to have a souvenir of the was restored to him.
sexual intercourse. Supreme Court ruled that
the crime committed is not theft and rape but
The obligation of the offender transcends to his Indemnification of consequential damages
heirs, even if the offender dies, provided he
died after judgment became final, the heirs Indemnification of consequential damages
shall assume the burden of the civil liability, but refers to the loss of earnings, loss of profits.
this is only to the extent that they inherit This does not refer only to consequential
property from the deceased, if they do not damages suffered by the offended party, this
inherit, they cannot inherit the obligations. also includes consequential damages to third
party who also suffer because of the
The right of the offended party transcends to commission of the crime.
heirs upon death. The heirs of the offended
party step into the shoes of the latter to The offender carnapped a bridal car while the
demand civil liability from the offender. newly-weds were inside the church. Since the
car was only rented, consequential damage not
only to the newly-weds but also to the entity
Reparation of the damage caused which rented the car to them.

In case of human life, reparation of the damage Most importantly, refer to the persons who are
cause is basically P50,000.00 value of human civilly liable under Articles 102 and 103. This
life, exclusive of other forms of damages. This pertains to the owner, proprietor of hotels,
P50,000.00 may also increase whether such life inns, taverns and similar establishments, an
was lost through intentional felony or criminal obligation to answer civilly for the loss or
negligence, whether the result of dolo or culpa. property of their guests.

It was held in the case of Espaňa v. People Under Article 102, two conditions must be
(2005) that the award for civil indemnity ex present before liability attaches to the
delicto is mandatory and is granted to the heirs innkeepers, tavern keepers and proprietors:
of the victim without need of proof other than
the commission of the crime. (1) The guest must have informed the
management in advance of his having brought
Also in the crime of rape, the damages awarded to the premises certain valuables aside from the
to the offended woman is generally P30,000.00 usual personal belongings of the guest; and
for the damage to her honor. In earlier rulings,
the amount varied, whether the offended (2) The guest must have followed the rules and
woman is younger or a married woman. regulations prescribed by the management of
Supreme Court ruled that even if the offended such inn, tavern, or similar establishment
woman does not adduce evidence or such regarding the safekeeping of said valuables.
damage, court can take judicial notice of the
fact that if a woman was raped, she inevitably The Supreme Court ruled that even though the
suffers damages. Under the Revised Rules on guest did not obey the rules and regulations
Criminal Procedure, a private prosecutor can prescribed by the management for safekeeping
recover all kinds of damages including of the valuables, this does not absolve
attorney’s fee. The only limitation is that the management from the subsidiary civil liability.
amount and the nature of the damages should Non-compliance with such rules and regulations
be specified. The present procedural law does but the guests will only be regarded as
not allow a blanket recovery of damages. Each contributory negligence, but it won’t absolve
kind of damages must be specified and the the management from civil liability.
amount duly proven.
 Liability specially attaches when the that such subsidiary liability exists and
management is found to have violated any law ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
or ordinance, rule or regulation governing such
establishment. Civil liability of the offender is extinguished in
the same manner as civil obligation is
Even if the crime is robbery with violence extinguished but this is not absolutely true.
against or intimidation of persons or committed Under civil law, a civil obligation is extinguished
by the innkeeper’s employees, management upon loss of the thing due when the things
will be liable, otherwise, not liable because involved is specific. This is not a ground
there is duress from the offender, liable only for applicable to extinction of civil liability in
theft and force upon things. criminal case if the thing due is lost, the
offender shall repair the damages caused.
Under Article 103, the subsidiary liability of an
employer or master for the crime committed by When there are several offenders, the court in
his employee or servant may attach only when the exercise of its discretion shall determine
the following requisites concur. what shall be the share f each offender
depending upon the degree of participation – as
(1) The employer must be engaged in business or principal, accomplice or accessory. If within
in trade or industry while the accused was his each class of offender, there are more of them,
employee such as more than one principal or more than
one accomplice or accessory, the liability in
(2) At the time the crime was committed, the each class of offender shall be subsidiary.
employee-employer relationship must be Anyone of them may be required to pay the civil
existing between the two; liability pertaining to such offender without
prejudice to recovery from those whose share
(3) The employee must have been found guilty of have been paid by another.
the crime charged and accordingly held civilly
liable; If all the principals are insolvent, the obligation
shall devolve upon the accomplice(s) or
(4) The writ of execution for the satisfaction of the accessory(s). But whoever pays shall have the
civil liability was returned unsatisfied because right of covering the share of the obligation
the accused-employee does not have enough from those who did not pay but are civilly liable.
property to pay the civil liability.
To relate with Article 38, when there is an order
When these requisites concur, the employer or preference of pecuniary (monetary) liability,
will be subsidiarily, civilly liable for the full therefore, restitution is not included here.
amount that his employee was adjudged civilly
liable. It is already settled in jurisprudence that To relate with Article 38, when there is an order
there is no need to file a civil action against the or preference of pecuniary (monetary) liability,
employer in order to enforce the subsidiary civil therefore, restitution is not included here.
liability for the crime committed by his
employee, it is enough that the writ of There is not subsidiary penalty for non-payment
execution is returned unsatisfied. There is no of civil liability.
denial of due process of law because the
liability of the employer is subsidiary and not
primary. He will only be liable if his employee Subsidiary civil liability is imposed in the
does not have the property to pay his civil following:
liability, since it is the law itself that, provides
(1) In case of a felony committed under the Example: Murder and theft (killed with
compulsion of an irresistible force. The person treachery, then stole the right).
who employed the irresistible force is Penalty: If complex – Reclusion temporal
subsidiarily liable; maximum to death.
If treated individually – Reclusion temporal to
(2) In case of a felony committed under an impulse Reclusion Perpetua
of an equal or greater injury.
Complex-crime is not just a matter of penalty,
The person who generated such an impulse is but of substance under the Revised Penal Code.
subsidiarily liable.
Plurality of crimes my be in the form of:
The owners of taverns, inns, motels, hotels, (1) Compound Crime,
where the crime is committed within their (2) Complex crime; and
establishment due to noncompliance with (3) Composite crime.
general police regulations, if the offender who
is primarily liable cannot pay, the proprietor, or A compound crime is one where a single act
owner is subsidiarily liable. produces two or more crimes.

Felonies committed by employees, pupils, A complex crime strictly speaking is one where
servants in the course of their employment, the offender has to commit an offense as a
schooling or household chores. The employer, means for the commission of another offense.
master, teacher is subsidiarily liable civilly, while It is said that the offense is committed as a
the offender is primarily liable. necessary means to commit the other offense.
“Necessary’ should not be understood as
In case the accomplice and the principal cannot indispensable, otherwise, it shall be considered
pay, the liability of those subsidiarily liable is absorbed and not giving rise to a complex
absolute. crime.
A composite crime is one in which substance is
In People vs. Tupal, 2003, exemplary damages made up of more than one crime, but which in
were awarded when the offense was the eyes of the law is only a single indivisible
committed with at least 1 aggravating offense. This is also known as special complex
circumstance. crime. Examples are robbery with homicide,
robbery with rape, rape with homicide. These
are crimes which in the eye of the law are
COMPLEX CRIME regarded only as a single indivisible offense.
Q: Distinguish between an ordinary complex
Philosophy behind plural crimes: The treatment crime and a special complex crime as to their
of plural crimes as one is to be lenient to the concepts and as to the imposition of penalties.
offender, who, instead of being made to suffer
distinct penalties for every resulting crime is A: An ordinary complex crime is made up of 2 or
made to suffer one penalty only, although it is more crimes being punished in distinct
the penalty for the most serious one and is in provisions of the RPC but alleged in one
the maximum period. Purpose is in the information, so that only 1 penalty will be
pursuance of the rule of pro reo. imposed, because either they were brought
about by a single act or one offense was a
If be complexing the crime, the penalty would necessary means to commit another. The
turn out to be higher, do not complex anymore. penalty for the most serious crime shall be
imposed in its maximum period.
On the other hand, a special complex crime is that the homicide committed cannot be
made up of 2 or more crimes that are complexed with rebellion. This is because they
considered only as components of a single are indispensable part of rebellion. (Caveat:
indivisible offense punished in one provision of Ortega says rebellion can be complexed with
the RPC. The component crimes are not common crimes in discussion on Rebellion)
regarded as distinct crimes so only one penalty
is specifically prescribed for all of them. The complex crime lies actually in the first form
under Article 148.

Composite Crime/Special Complex Crime The first form of the complex crime is actually a
compound crime, is one where a single act
This is one which is substance is made up of constitutes two or more grave and/or less grave
more than one crime but which in the eyes of felonies. The basis in complexing or
the law is only a single indivisible offense. This compounding the crime is the act. So that
is also known as a special complex crime. when an offender performed more than one
Example are robbery with homicide, robbery act, although similar, if they result in separate
with rape, and rape with homicide. crimes, there is no complex crime at all, instead,
the offender shall be prosecuted for as many
The compound crime and the complex crime crimes as are committed under separate
are treated in Article 48 of the Revised Penal information.
Code. But in such article, a compound crime is
also designated as a complex crime, but When the single act brings about two or more
“complex crimes” are limited only to a situation crimes, the offender is punished with only one
where the resulting felonies are grave and/or penalty, although in the maximum period,
less grave. because he acted only with single criminal
impulse. The presumption is that, since there is
Whereas in a compound crime, there is no limit only one criminal impulse and correctly, only
as to the gravity of the resulting crimes as long one penalty should be imposed.
as a single act brings about two or more crimes.
Strictly speaking, compound crimes are not Conversely, when there are several acts
limited to grave less grave felonies but covers performed, the assumption is that each act is
all single act that results in two or more crimes. impelled by a distinct criminal impulse, a
separate penalty. However, it may happen that
Illustration: the offender is impelled only by a single
criminal impulse in committing a series of acts
A person threw a hand grenade and the people that brought about more than one crime,
started scampering. When the hand grenade considering that Criminal Law, if there is only
exploded, no on was seriously wounded all one criminal impulse which brought about the
were mere wounded. It was held that this is a commission of the crime, the offender should
compound crime, although the resulting be penalized only once.
felonies are only slight.
There are in fact cases decided by the Supreme
Illustration of a situation where the term Court where the offender has performed as
“necessary” in complex crime should not be series of acts but the acts appeared to be
understood as indispensable: impelled by one and the same impulse, the
ruling is that a complex crime is committed. In
Abetting committed during the encounter this case it is not the singleness of the act but
between rebels and government troops such the singlessness of the impulse that has been
considered. There are cases where the be prosecuted and tried not only before the
Supreme Court held that the crime committed court of the place where it was originally
is complex even though the offender performed committed or began, but also before the court
not a single act but a series of acts. The only of the place where the crime was continued.
reason is that the series of acts are impelled by Hence, the term “continuing crime” is used in
a single criminal impulse. criminal procedure when any of the material
Q: A learned two days ago that B received dollar ingredients of the crime was committed in
bills worth $10,000 from his daughter working different places.
in the US. With the intention of robbing B, A
entered B’s house at midnight, armed with a A “continued crime” is one where the offender
knife used to gain entry and began quietly performs a series of acts violating one and the
searching the drawers and other likely same penal provision committed at the same
receptacles for cash. While doing that, B awoke, place and about the same time for the same
rushed out of his room and grappled with A for criminal purpose, regardless of a series of acts
the possession of the knife. A stabbed B to done, it is regarded in law as one.
death, found the latter’s wallet beneath the
pillow, which was bulging with the dollar bills he In People v. de Leon, where the accused took
was looking for. A took the bills and left the five roosters from one and the same chicken
house. What crime/s was/were committed? coop, although the roosters were owned by
different persons, it was held that there is only
A: The crime committed was robbery with one crime of theft committed because the
homicide, a composite crime. A’s primordial accused acted out of a single criminal impulse
criminal intent is to commit a robbery and in only. However performing a series of acts but
the course of the robbery, B was killed. Both this is one and the same intent Supreme Court
robbery and the killing were consummated, ruled that only one crime is committed under
thus giving rise to the special complex crime of one information.
robbery with homicide. The primary criminal
intent being to commit a robbery, any killing on In People v. Lawas, the accused constabulary
the “occasion” of the robbery, though not by soldiers were ordered to march with several
reason thereof, is considered a component of muslims from one barrio to another place.
the crime of robbery with homicide as a single These soldiers feared that on the way some of
indivisible offense. the Muslims may escape. So Lawas ordered
the men to tie the Muslims by the hand
connecting one with the other, so on one would
CONTINUED AND CONTINUING CRIMES run away. When the hands of the Muslims
were tied, one of them protested, he did not
In criminal law, when a series of acts are want to be included among those who were
perpetrated in pursuance of a single criminal tied because he was a Hajjii, so the Hajji
impulse, there is what is called a continued remonstrated and there was commotion. At the
crime. In criminal procedure for purposes of height of the commotion, Lawas ordered his
venue, this is referred to as a continuing crime. men to fire, and the soldiers mechanically fired.
Eleven were killed and several others were
The term “continuing crimes” as sometimes wounded. The question of whether the
used in lieu of the term “continued crimes”, constabulary soldiers should be prosecuted for
however, although both terms are analogous, the killing of each under a separate information
they are not really used with the same import. has reached the Supreme Court. The Supreme
“Continuing crime” is the term used in criminal Court ruled that the accused should be
procedure to denote that a certain crime may prosecuted only in one information, because a
complex crime of multiple homicide was accused killed their victims in one place within
committed by them. the same penitentiary, some killed the others in
another place within the same penitentiary.
In another case, a band of robbers came across The Supreme Court ruled that all accused
a compound where a sugar mill is located. The should be punished under one information
workers of said mill have their quarters within because they acted in conspiracy. The act of
the compound. The band of robbers ransacked one is the act of all. Because there were several
the different quarters therein. It was held that victims killed and some were mortally
there is only one crime committed – multiple wounded, the accused should be held for the
robbery, not because of Article 48 but because complex crime of multiple homicide with
this is a continued crime. When the robbers multiple frustrated homicide. There is a
entered the compound, they were moved by a complex crime not only when there is a single
single criminal intent. Not because there were act but a series of acts. It is correct that when
several quarter robbed. This becomes a the offender acted in conspiracy, this crime is
complex crime. considered as one and prosecuted under one
information. Although in this case, the
The definition in Article 48 is not honored offenders did not only kills one person but killed
because the accused did not perform a single different persons, so it is clear that in killing of
act. There were a series of acts, but the one victim or the killing of another victim,
decision in the Lawas case is correct. The another act out of this is done simultaneously.
confusion lies in this. While Article 48 speaks of Supreme Court considered this as complex.
a complex crime where a single act constitutes Although the killings did not result from one
two or more grave or less grave offenses, event single act.
hose cases when the act is not a single but a
series of acts resulting to two or more grave In criminal procedure, it is prohibited to charge
and less grave felonies, the Supreme Court more than one offense in an information,
considered this a complex crime when the act is except when the crimes is one information
the product of one single criminal impulse. constitute a complex crime or a special complex
crime.
If confronted with a problem, use the standard
or condition that it refers not only to the So whenever the Supreme Court concludes that
singleness of the act which brought two or the criminal should be punished only once,
more grave and/less grave felonies. The because they acted in conspiracy or under the
Supreme Court has extended this class of same criminal impulse, it is necessary to
complex crime to those cases when the embody these crimes under one single
offender performed not a single act but a series information. It is necessary to consider them as
of acts as long as it is the product of a single complex crimes even if the essence of the crime
criminal impulse. does not fit the definition of Art 48, because
there is no other provision in the RPC.
You cannot find an article in the Revised Penal
Code with respect to the continued crime or Duplicity of offenses, in order not to violate this
continuing crime. The nearest article is Article rule, it must be called a complex crime.
48. Such situation is also brought under the
operation of Article 48. In earlier rulings on abduction with rape, if
several offenders abducted the woman and
In People v. Garcia, the accused were convicts abused her, there is multiple rape. The
who were members of a certain gang and they offenders are to be convicted of one count of
conspired to kill the other gang. Some of the rape and separately charged of the other rapes.
In People v. Jose, there were four participants The abuse amounting to rape is complexed with
here. They abducted the woman, after which, forcible abduction because the abduction was
the four took turns in abusing her. It was held already consummated when the victim was
that each one of the four became liable not only raped. The forcible abduction must be
for his own rape but also for those committed complexed therewith. But the multiple rapes
by the others. Each of the four offenders was should be considered only as one because they
convicted of four rapes. In the eyes of the law, are in the nature of a continued crime.
each committed four crimes of rape. One of the
four rapes committed by one of them was Note: This is a dangerous view because the
complexed with the crime of abduction. The abductors will commit as much rape as they
other three rapes are distinct counts or rape. can, after all, only one complex crime of rape
The three rapes are not necessary to commit would arise.
the other rapes. Therefore, separate
complaints/information. In adultery, each intercourse constitutes one
crime. Apparently, the singleness of the act is
In People v. Pabasa, the Supreme Court not considered a single crime. Each intercourse
through Jusitce Aquino ruled that there is only bring with it the danger of bringing one stranger
one count of forcible abduction with rape in the family of the husband.
committed by the offenders who abducted the
two women and abused them several times. Article 48 also applies in cases when out a single
This was only a dissenting opinion of Justice act of negligence or imprudence, two or more
Aquino, that there could be only one complex grave or less grave felonies resulted, although
crime of abduction with rape, regardless of the only the first part thereof (compound crime).
number of rapes committed because all the The second part of Article 48 does not apply,
rapes are but committed out of one and the referring to the complex crime proper because
same lewd design which impelled the offender this applies or refers only to a deliberate
to abduct the victim. commission of one offense to commit another
offense.
In People v. Bojas, the Supreme Court followed However, a light felony may result from criminal
the ruling in People v. Jose that the four men negligence or imprudence, together with other
who abducted and abused the offended women grave or less grave felonies resulting therefrom
were held liable for one crime – one count or and the Supreme Court held that all felonies
forcible abduction with rape and distinct resulting from criminal negligence should be
charges for rape for the other rapes committed made subject of one information only. The
by them. reason being that, there is only one information
and prosecution only. Otherwise, it would be
In People v. Bulaong, the Supreme Court tantamount to splitting the criminal negligence
adopted the dissenting opinion of Justice similar to splitting a cause of action which is
Aquino in People v. Pabasa, that when several prohibited in civil cases.
persons abducted a woman and abused her,
regardless of the number of rapes committed, Although under Article 48, a light felony should
there should only be one complex crime of not be included in a complex crime, yet by
forcible abduction with rape. The rapes virtue of this ruling of the Supreme Court, the
committed were in the nature of a continued light felony shall be included in the same
crime characterized by the same lewd design information charging the offender with grave
which is an essential element in the crime of and/or less grave felonies resulting from the
forcible abduction. negligence of reckless imprudence and this runs
counter to the provision of Article 48. So while
 the Supreme Court ruled that the light felony (2) Several malversations committed in May, June
resulting from the same criminal negligence and July 1936 and falsifications to conceal said
should be complexed with the other felonies offenses committed in August and October,
because that would be a blatant violation of 1936. The malversations and falsifications were
Article 48, instead the Supreme Court stated not the result of one resolution to embezzle and
that an additional penalty should be imposed falsity (People v. CIV, 66 Phil. 351);
for the light felony. This would mean two
penalties to be imposed, one for the complex (3) Seventy-five estafa cases committed by the
crime and one for the light felony. It cannot conversion by the agents of collections from the
separate the light felony because it appears customers of the employers made on different
that the culpa is crime itself and you cannot dates.
split the crime.

Applying the concept of the “continued crime”, In the theft cases, the trend is to follow the
the following cases have been treated as single larceny doctrine, that is taking of several
constituting one crime only: things, whether belonging to the same or
different owners, at the same time and place,
(1) The theft of 13 cows belonging to two different constitutes one larceny only. Many courts have
persons committed by the accused at the same abandoned the separate larceny doctrine,
place and period of time (People v. Tumlos, 67 under which there was distinct larceny as to the
Phil. 320); property of each victim:

(2) The theft of six roosters belonging to two Also abandoned is the doctrine that the
different owners from the same coop and at the government has the discretion to prosecute the
same period of time (People v. Jaranilla); accused for one offense or for as many distinct
offenses as there are victims (Santiago v.
Justice Garchitorena, decided on December 2,
(3) The illegal charging of fees for service rendered 1993). Here, the accused was charged with
by a lawyer every time he collected veteran’s performing a single act – that of approving the
benefits on behalf of a client who agreed that legalization of aliens not qualified under the
attorney’s fees shall be paid out of such law. The prosecution manifested that they
benefits (People v. Sabbun, 10 SCRA 156). The would only file one information. Subsequently,
collections of legal fees were impelled by the 32 amended informations were filed. The
same motive, that of collecting fees for services Supreme Court directed the prosecution to
rendered, and all acts of collection were made consolidate the cases into one offense because
under the same criminal impulse. (1) they were in violation of the same law –
Executive Order No. 324; (2) caused injury to
On the other hand, the Supreme Court declined one party only – the government; and (3) they
to apply the concept in the following cases: were done in the same day. The concept of
delito continuado has been applied to crimes
(1) Two Estafa cases, one which was committed under special laws since in Article 10, the
during the period from January 19 to Revised Penal Code shall be supplementary to
December, 1955 and the other from January special laws, unless the latter provides the
1956 to July 1956 (People v. Dichupa, 13 Phil contrary.
306). Said acts were committed on two
different occasions;
 and upon the approval of the Board, the
accused now becomes eligible for parole. ISLAW
is favorable to the accused.
Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISLAW): How to
determine maximum and minimum penalties If the accused was granted parole and violated
(Act no 4103 as amended) some conditions of the parole, What will
happen?
The Indeterminate Sentence Law is mandatory
A warrant of arrest will be issued by the court
in all cases, EXCEPT if the accused will fall in any
and the accused will be made to serve the rest
of the following exceptions:
of the remaining or unexpired portion of his
sentence. (But in probation you go back to
1. if sentenced with a penalty of death or life
number 1, serving of sentence will be from the
imprisonment
beginning)
2. if convicted of treason, conspiracy, proposal
to commit treason
Application of ISLAW:
3. if convicted of misprision of treason, sedition,
rebellion or espionage
How to get maximum and minimum penalty in
4. if convicted of piracy
Special Law:
5. if the offender is a habitual delinquent
1. The maximum penalty should NOT exceed
6. those who escaped from prison or evaded
the maximum provided for by that law.
sentence
2. The minimum penalty should NOT fall below
7. those who violated the terms of conditional
the minimum provided by the law.
pardon of the chief executive
8. where the maximum term of imprisonment
How to get maximum and minimum penalty in
does not exceed 1 year (important!)
Revised Penal Code:
9. if convicted by final judgement at the time of
Example: In the crime of homicide, under the
the effectivity of Act No. 4103
Revised Penal Code, the offender is sentenced
10. if penalized with suspension or distierro
to reclusion temporal.

If accused fall in any of the foregoing The maximum penalty under the Indeterminate
exceptions. DO NOT APPLY ISLAW! Sentence Law is reclusion temporal. But
reclusion temporal is a divisible penalty
ISLAW applies to offenses punished by Special consisting of maximum, medium and minimum
Law and Revised Penal Code. periods. Which period will we place the
maximum term of the Indeterminate Sentence?
Why is ISLAW mandatory?
Guide for determining the maximum penalty:
In the application of the Indeterminate
1. Determine the entire range of the penalty
Sentence Law the judge will get the maximum
2. Determine if there is mitigating or
penalty and likewise the minimum penalty. If
aggravating circumstance
the accused was already able to serve the
minimum term of his indeterminate sentence
Which period will the maximum penalty be It would still be reclusion temporal, but it shall
placed? be placed in the maximum period because of
the presence of 1 aggravating circumstance.
In pursuant to art 64, when there is no
mitigating and no aggravating circumstance, it
How about the minimum penalty?
should be placed at the medium period. Thus, It would still be 1 degree lower from reclusion
the maximum penalty for the example above is temporal, which is prision mayor. In which
reclusion temporal in the medium period. period? It shall be discretionary upon the court.

What is the minimum penalty now? (More examples)

In getting the minimum penalty, the rule is to 1 mitigating but NO aggravating

simply get the penalty one (1) degree lower maximum penalty: reclusion temporal in the
from the maximum penalty without taking into minimum period
account the mitigating and aggravating minimum penalty: prision mayor in any period
circumstance. Thus, the penalty one degree
lower from reclusion temporal, without taking 2 mitigating, NO aggravating (privileged
into account any mitigating or aggravating mitigating)
circumstance, is prision mayor. Prision mayor is maximum penalty: prision mayor in the medium
now the minimum penalty for our example. period
minimum penalty: prision correctional any
period
Important: If your maximum penalty is wrong, it
follows that the minimum penalty will also be The preceding example is an exception to the
wrong. rule. If there is a privileged mitigating
circumstance, we take it into account first in
Again, prision mayor is a divisible penalty. order to obtain the proper maximum penalty.
Which period can it be placed? Then, from that maximum penalty, we obtain
Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, it the proper minimum penalty by getting the
would depend upon the discretion of the court penalty 1 degree lower. Same rule applies as to
on which period to place it. Thus, the minimum the period of the minimum penalty.
penalty is prision mayor in any of its period.
Remember: It will never become a privileged
Factors that could affect the imposition of mitigating circumstance if there is an
minimum penalty: aggravating circumstance present. 8 mitigating
1. Age and 1 aggravating will never become privileged
2. Conduct during trial mitigating circumstance.
3. Mental or physical condition
3 mitigating, NO aggravating
Suppose in the example above, 1 aggravating maximum penalty: prision mayor in the
minimum period
circumstance was proven. What is now the
minimum penalty: prision correctional any
maximum penalty? period
In the preceding example, there are 3 mitigating Suppose there was 1 mitigating circumstance
circumstance present and no aggravating proven. Maximum penalty would still be prision
circumstance. The first two mitigating mayor in the maximum period. In pursuant to
circumstance shall be a privileged mitigating Article 48, even if there is a mitigating
circumstance. Thus, the penalty will be reduced circumstance present, it should still be imposed
by 1 degree from reclusion temporal to prision at the maximum period.
mayor. The 3rd mitigating circumstance shall
place the penalty in the minimum period. How about if there are 2 mitigating
circumstance and no aggravating?
4 mitigating, NO aggravating
The rule is, if it is a privileged mitigating
maximum penalty: prision correctional in the
medium period (2 privileged circumstance. Thus circumstance, we lower by the penalty by one
we lower by 2 degrees) degree but still place it at the maximum period.
minimum penalty: arresto mayor any period Thus, the maximum penalty shall be prision
correctional in the maximum period.
5 mitigating, NO aggravating
maximum penalty: prision correctional in the 4 mitigating, NO aggravating
minimum period
maximum penalty: arresto mayor in its
minimum penalty: arresto mayor any period
maximum period
At most we can only lower by 2 degrees. Thus, if
there are 6 mitigating circumstance and NO
aggravating:
maximum penalty: prision correctional in the
minimum period
minimum penalty: arresto mayor any period

How is Indeterminate Sentence Law applied in

complex crimes (Article 48)?
A complex crime is punished by the most
serious offense and shall be imposed in its
maximum period.

Example: Estafa through falsification of public

documents.

Under the Revised Penal Code, falsification of

public documents (Article 171) is a more serious
offense punished by prision mayor than estafa
(Article 315), punished only by prision
correctional.

Thus, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law,

the maximum penalty for estafa through
falsification of public documents shall be prision
mayor in the maximum period. Minimum
penalty shall be prision correctional, any period.