Você está na página 1de 19

CRIMINAL

LAW 1 REVIEWER

SECTION 2 RULES FOR THE APPLICATION OF PENALTIES


WITH REGARD TO MITIGATING AND AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCES, AND HABITUAL DELINQUENCY

Article 62. Effects of the attendance of mitigating or aggravating
circumstances and of habitual delinquency.
Mitigating or aggravating circumstances and habitual delinquency
shall be taken into account for the purpose of diminishing or
increasing the penalty in conformity with the following rules:
1. Aggravating circumstances which in themselves constitute a
crime specially punishable by law or which are included by the
law in defining a crime and prescribing the penalty therefor
shall not be taken into account for the purpose of increasing
the penalty.
1(a). When in the commission of the crime, advantage was
taken by the offender of his public position, the penalty to be
imposed shall be in its maximum regardless of mitigating
circumstances.
The maximum penalty shall be imposed if the offense was
committed by any person who belongs to an
organized/syndicated crime group.
An organized/syndicated crime group means a group of two or
more persons collaborating, confederating or mutually helping
one another for purposes of gain in the commission of the
crime.
2. The same rule shall apply with respect to any aggravating
circumstances inherent in the crime to such a degree that it
must of necessity accompany the commission thereof.
3. Aggravating or mitigating circumstances which arise from the
moral attributes of the offender, or from his private relations
with the offended party, or from any other personal cause,
shall only serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of the
principals, accomplices, and accessories as to whom such
circumstances are attendant.

4. The circumstances which consist in the material execution of


the act, or in the means employed to accomplish it, shall serve
to aggravate or mitigate the liability of those persons only who
had knowledge of them at the time of the execution of the act
or their cooperation therein.
5. Habitual delinquency shall have the following effects:
(a) Upon a third conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to
the penalty provided by law for the last crime of which he
be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision
correccional in its medium and maximum periods;
(b) Upon a fourth conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to
the penalty provided for the last crime of which he be
found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision mayor
in its minimum and medium periods; and
(c) Upon a fifth or additional conviction, the culprit shall be
sentenced to the penalty provided for the last crime of
which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of
prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal
in its minimum period.

Notwithstanding the provisions of this article, the total of the two
penalties to be imposed upon the offender, in conformity herewith,
shall in no case exceed 30 years.

For the purposes of this article, a person shall be deemed to be
habitual delinquent, if within a period of ten years from the date of his
release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious
physical injuries, robo, hurto, estafa, or falsification, he is found guilty
of any of said crimes a third time or oftener. (As amended by Republic
Act No. 7659.)

POINTS


Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)

212

CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER



I. Effects Of The Attendance Of Aggravating Or Mitigating
Circumstances Or Of Habitual Delinquency
1. Aggravating circumstances (generic and specific) have effect of
increasing penalty (w/o exceeding the max provided by law).
2. Mitigating circumstances have effect of diminishing the
penalty.
3. Habitual delinquency has effect increasing penalty (cause of
recidivism that is implied in habitual delinquency) PLUS
imposing an additional penalty.

PARAGRAPH 1:
I. When Aggravating Circumstances Are Not To Be Taken Account In
Increasing The Penalty To Be Imposed
1. (Inherent in the crime) If the circumstance constitutes a crime
especially punished by law; or
2. (Element of the crime) If it is included by the law in defining a
crime and prescribing the penalty therefor.

II. Examples:
A. Which In Themselves Constitute A Crime:
That crime be committed by means of fire (Article 14,
paragraph 2) NOT considered as aggravating in arson.
That crime be committed by means of derailment of a
locomotive (Article 14, paragraph 12) NOT considered as
aggravating in crime known as Damages and obstruction to
means of communication (Article 330 which punishes the act
of damaging any railway resulting in derailment of cars).

B. Which Are Included By Law In Defining A Crime:
That crime was committed in the dwelling of offended party
NOT aggravating in robbery with force upon things (Article 299).
Abuse of confidence is not aggravating in qualified theft
committed with grave abuse of confidence (Article 310).

That crime was committed by means of poison (Article 14,


paragraph 12) Not aggravating in crime of murder by means
of poison (since using poison to kill victim included by law in
defining the crime of murder Article 248, paragraph 3).


III. When Maximum Of The Penalty Shall Be Imposed (Special
Aggravating Circumstance That Cant Be Offset By A Generic Mitigating
Circumstance)
1. When in the commission of the crime, advantage was taken by
the offender of his public position;
2. If the offense was committed by any person who belongs to an
organized/syndicated crime group.

IV. What Is An Organized/Syndicated Crime Group?
Means a group of 2 or more persons collaborating
confederating or mutually helping one another for purposes of
gain in the commission of any crime

PARAGRAPH 2:
The same rule applies with respect to aggravating circumstances
which are inherent in the crime.
o Example: Evident premeditation is inherent in robbery
and theft (U.S. Castroverde)

PARAGRAPH 3:
I. Aggravating Or Mitigating Which Arise From:
1. Moral attributes of offender
2. From his private relations with offended party
3. From any other personal cause
These serve to aggravate or mitigate liability of: principals,
accomplices, accessories as to whom such circumstances are
attendant.

II. Examples


Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)

213

CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER



A. Moral Attributes Of Offender:
A + B killed C. A acted w/ evident premeditation; B w/ passion
and obfuscation.
Circumstances of evident premeditation + passion &
obfuscation arises from moral attributes of offenders.
Evident premeditation should only affect and aggravate only
penalty for A & passion and obfuscation mitigates only Bs
liability.

B. From His Private Relations With The Offended Party:
A and C inflicted slight physical injuries on B.
o A son of B.
o C father of B.
Alternative circumstance of relationship as aggravating will only
be against A (lower degree relative of B).
Alternative circumstance of relationship as mitigating will only
be for C (higher degree relative of B).
This ruling holds true even if there was conspiracy.
o The rule that in conspiracy the act of one is the act of all
does not mean that the crime of one is the crime of all

C. From Any Other Personal Cause:
A and B committed a crime.
o A was 16 i.e. minor
o B was a recidivist
Each will carry the corresponding additional/mitigated penalty

PARAGRAPH 4:
The circumstances which consist of (1) and (2) shall serve only
to aggravate or mitigate the liability of those persons only who
had KNOWLEDGE of them AT THE TIME of the execution.

I. Examples:
A. Material Execution Of The Crime

A induced B and C to kill D. B and C killed D using treachery not


previously agreed with A.
As liability is not aggravated by treachery.
BUT if A was present or had knowledge of the treachery used,
then A is also liable for murder qualified by treachery.


B. Means To Accomplish The Crime
A ordered B to kill C. B used poison without knowledge of A.
Only B will suffer the aggravating circumstance.

II. There Is No Mitigating Circumstance Relating To The Means
Employed In The Execution Of The Crime
It is impossible to conceive of any mitigating circumstance
which can properly be considered as to one of the defendants,
but is not equally applicable to the rest, EVEN to those who had
no knowledge of the same at the time of the commission of the
crime, or their cooperation therein.

III. Difference Between (1) Circumstances Relating To Persons
Participation In The Same And (2) Circumstances Consisting In The
Material Execution Of The Means Employed
Persons Participation
Material Execution / Means Employed
Do not affect all the Have a direct bearing upon the criminal
participants in the crime but liability of all the defendants who had
only those to whom they knowledge thereof at the time of the
particularly apply.
commission of the crime, or of their
cooperation therein.
Example: People v. Villanueva
Defendants though forming of the conspiracy of kidnapping,
were not the ones who actually kidnapped the victim.
Thus, they are not bound or affected by the aggravating
circumstance of nighttime UNLESS THEY KNEW about it prior.


Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)

214

CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER



IV. Is It Necessary That There Be Proof Of Cooperation Or Participation
With Regard To The Act Of Cruelty?
Two views:
o People v. Vocales Although it may be considered as
aggravating against one accused, it may not be so
against another UNLESS there is proof of conspiracy in
the commission of the main act, or there is proof of
cooperation or participation on the part of the latter.
o In accordance with Article 62(4) if cruelty is a means
employed to accomplish the act, only knowledge is
required for one to be liable for it.
Note: Article 14 states that cruelty is that which is not necessary
for the commission of the crime.
o If so, it cannot be part of the material execution nor
means employed to accomplish it.
o Therefore, People v. Vocales would be ruling.

PARAGRAPH 5:
I. Habitual Delinquent
A person who within a period of 10 years from the date of his
(last) release or last conviction of the crimes of
1. Serious or less serious physical injuries (Article263 & 265)
2. Robbery (Article 193-303)
3. Theft (Article 308-311)
4. Estafa (Article 315-318)
5. Falsification (Article 170-174)
He is found guilty of any of said crimes a 3rd time or oftener.

II. Elements
1. That the offender had been convicted of any of the abovementioned crimes.
2. That after the conviction or after serving his sentence, he
against committed, and within 10 years, from his release or

prior conviction, he was again convicted of any of the said


crimes for the second time.
3. That after his conviction or after serving sentence, for the
second offense, he again committed, and within 10 years from
his last release or last conviction, he was again convicted of said
offenses, the third time or oftener.

III. Computation Of The 10-Year Period
NOTE: Defendants last conviction OR last release should be the starting
point from which the 10-year period is to be counted.
Rational: If the starting point is only the date of last conviction,
there will be a case where the offender cannot be considered a
habitual delinquent.

Crimes Committed
Date of Conviction
Date of Release
Theft
June 1915
July 1916
Swindling
May 1920
October 1922
Attempted Robbery
July 1928
August 1930
Theft
August 1937
September 1940
Crime charged
October 1946


Explanation:
The 10-year period should be counted from the date of LAST
conviction or release from the crime charged, which is August
1937 (conviction) or September 1940 (release).
o Note: Regardless of the gap between the first and
second crimes, the accused will be considered a
habitual delinquent if between the second and third
crimes, there is a gap or 10 years or below.
In the accusation of theft, only attempted robbery (conviction:
July 1928, release: August 1930) can be taken into consideration
for the determination of habitual delinquency since it is the last
crime for which he was convicted for.


Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)

215

CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER



o

A would not be a habitual delinquent since swindling is


not one of the crimes listed.


IV. Subsequence Crime Must Be Committed AFTER CONVICTION Of
Former Crime
If (1) the second crime was committed before his first conviction
and (2) the fourth before his third conviction, and (3) the fifth
and sixth were committed on the same day, the six convictions
(although different in dates) are equivalent to only three.

V. The culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided by law for
the last crime of which he be found guilty
If the accused is tried for robbery and previously convicted of
theft and estafa, robbery is the last crime and if found guilty the
penalty for robbery shall be imposed, while also be declared a
habitual delinquent.

A. Additional Penalty For Habitual Delinquency
1. Upon 3rd conviction additional penalty of prision correctional
in its medium and maximum periods.
2. Upon 4th conviction additional penalty of prision mayor in its
minimum and medium periods.
3. Upon 5th conviction additional penalty of prision mayor in is
maximum period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period.

B. Rational:
If after undergoing punishment for his previous crimes, he
continuous to commit said crimes, he is deemed to have shown
a dangerous propensity to crimes. Hence, he is punished with a
severer penalty for committing any of those crimes the third
time or oftener.
Purpose of the law: to render more effective social defense and
the reformation of multi-recidivists.

VI. Total Penalties Should Not Exceed 30 Years


Total (1) the penalty for the last crime which is found guilty
and (2) the additional penalty for being a habitual delinquent.

VII. What Must Be Alleged In The Information
1. The dates of the commission of the previous crimes.
2. The dates of the last conviction or release
3. The dates of the other previous conviction or releases.

A. Effect Of Plea Of Guilty When Allegations Are Insufficient
A plea of guilty to an information which fails to allege the dates
of commission of previous offenses, of convictions and of
releases is not an admission that the offender is a habitual
delinquent but only a recidivist (People v. Masonson).

B. Date Of Release Not Absolutely Necessary
If preceding conviction is less than 10 years from date of
conviction of the offense complained of (People v. Tolentino).

VIII. See Rulings on Habitual Delinquency (p.739-744, Reyes Book)

IX. Habitual Delinquency v. Recidivism

Habitual Delinquency Recidivism
As to crimes The
crimes
are Sufficient that on date of trial,
committed
specified.
accused shall have been
previously convicted of
another crime in the same
title.
As to period Conviction must be 10 No period of time necessary
of commission years from each other.
As to number Conviction must be 3rd That subsequent crime is
of
crimes time or oftener.
embraced in the same title is
committed
sufficient.
As to their Additional
penalty If not offset by mitigating, will


Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)

216

CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER



effects

prescribed by law is increase penalty to maximum


imposed.
only.

A convict can be a habitual delinquent without being a recidivist
if no two of the crimes committed are embraced in the same
title.
The imposition of additional penalty is constitutional as it is
simply punishment for future crimes, the penalty enhanced on
account of criminal propensities of the accused.


Article 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties.
In all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it
shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or
aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of
the deed.

In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two
indivisible penalties the following rules shall be observed in the
application thereof:
1. When in the commission of the deed there is present only one
aggravating circumstance, the greater penalty shall be applied.
2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating
circumstances in the commission of the deed, the lesser
penalty shall be applied.
3. When the commission of the act is attended by some
mitigating circumstance and there is no aggravating
circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances attended
the commission of the act, the courts shall reasonably allow
them to offset one another in consideration of their number
and importance, for the purpose of applying the penalty in
accordance with the preceding rules, according to the result of
such compensation.

POINTS

I. Inoperative Because Of Republic Act No. 9346
In light of this only reclusion perpetua is indivisible.
Cannot be affected by generic mitigating circumstances BUT it
can be affected by privileged mitigating circumstances (like
Article 68 & 69).
o Privileged mitigating always considered whether
divisible or indivisible penalty.

II. Outline Of The Rules
1. When penalty consists of 1 indivisible: applied regardless of any
mitigating or aggravating circumstances
2. When penalty is composed of 2 indivisible penalties:
a. Only 1 aggravating greater penalty shall be imposed
b. No aggravating nor mitigating lesser penalty imposed
c. A mitigating and no aggravating lesser penalty
imposed.
d. Both mitigating and aggravating court will allow
them to offset one another.

III. Article 63 Applies Only When The Penalty Prescribed By The Code Is
Either One Indivisible Penalty Or Two Indivisible Penalties
Article 63 does NOT apply if penalty prescribed: reclusion
temporal in max period to death (Because even if it includes 2
indivisible penalties = it has 3 periods of reclusion temporal
max-min, reclusion perpetua-med, Death-max) Article 64
shall apply in this case)

A. Example Of Single And Indivisible Penalty
Reclusion Perpetua for:
o Kidnapping and failure to return a minor (Article 270)
o Rape (Article 266-B)
Death for:


Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)

217

CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER



o

Kidnapping and serious illegal detention when purpose


of offender is to extort ransom (Article 267 as amended
by Republic Act No. 7659).
Rape with homicide (Article 266-B)


B. Example Of Two Indivisible Penalties
Reclusion perpetua to Death for:
o Parricide (Article 246)
o Robbery with homicide (Article 294, paragraph 1)
o Kidnapping and serious illegal detention without
intention to extort ransom (Article 267)
o Rape committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by
two or more persons (Article 266-B)

IV. When The Penalty Is Composed Of Two Indivisible Penalties, The
Penalty Cannot Be Lowered By One Degree, No Matter How Many
Mitigating Circumstances Are Present
A. General Rule:
When there are 2 or more mitigating and NO aggravating
court cannot proceed by analogy to provisions of subsection 5
Article 64 (imposition of one degree lower penalty)
US v. Relador: Commission of crime of parricide punishable of
RP to Death but attended by two mitigating (illiteracy and lack
of intention to commit so grave a wrong) and NO aggravating
court imposed one degree lower penalty (Article 64 subsection
5)
HELD: Wrong penalty imposed it should be Article 63 applied

B. Exception: When a privileged mitigating circumstance under Article
68 or Article 69 is present.
If circumstance present is a privileged mitigating circumstance
under Article 68 or Article 69 offender may get a penalty one
or two degrees lower

Woman boxed by her husband stabbed him with knife in chest


entitled to penalty one degree lower from RP to Death = RT
People v. Galang: Imposable penalty for rape: RP. Accused had
privileged mitigating circumstance of minority imposable
penalty = RT in medium period (absent other mitigating or
aggravating circumstance)


V. Moral value, not numerical weight of circumstances should prevail.
This is as regards paragraph 4 of Article 63

VI. Mitigating Circumstance Is Not Necessary To Impose Reclusion
Perpetua When The Crime Is Punishable With Two Indivisible Penalties
Of Reclusion Perpetua To Death.
Reason: under Article 63 when crime is penalized with 2
indivisible penalties (reclusion perpetua to death) lesser
penalty should be imposed even when there is no mitigating
circumstance present.

Article 64. Rules for the application of penalties which contain three
periods.
In cases in which the penalties prescribed by law contain three
periods, whether it be a single divisible enalty or composed of three
different penalties, each one of which forms a period in accordance
with the provisions of Articles 76 and 77, the courts shall observe for
the application of the penalty the following rules, according to
whether there are or are no mitigating or aggravating circumstances:
1. When there are neither aggravating nor mitigating
circumstances, they shall impose the penalty prescribed by law
in its medium period.
2. When only a mitigating circumstance is present in the
commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its
minimum period.
3. When only an aggravating circumstance is present in the
commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its


Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)

218

CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER



4.

5.

6.
7.

maximum period.
When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances are
present, the court shall reasonably offset those of one class
against the other according to their relative weight.
When there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no
aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall impose
the penalty next lower to that prescribed by law, in the period
that it may deem applicable, according to the number and
nature of such circumstances.
Whatever may be the number and nature of the aggravating
circumstances, the courts shall not impose a greater penalty
than that prescribed by law, in its maximum period.
Within the limits of each period, the courts shall determine the
extent of the penalty according to the number and nature of
the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the greater
or lesser extent of the evil produced by the crime.


POINTS

I. Article 64 applies only when the penalty has 3 periods.
Article 64 applies when penalty prescribed by law for offense
RT, PM, PC, AM, Am, PC to RT, etc. = because theyre divisible
into 3 periods (minimum, medium, maximum).
When law prescribes single divisible penalty (ex. RT for
homicide) as in Article 76 is distributed in 3 equal parts each
part forms a period called min, med and max.
If penalty made up of 3 diff penalties: PC to RT
Each forms a period according to Article 77
PC = min
PM = med
RT = max
PM is included bec. Its between PC and RT in Scale No. 1 Article
71

II. Outline Of The Rules:


1. No aggravating and no mitigating medium period

2. Only a mitigating minimum period

3. Only an aggravating maximum period
People v. Toling: No generic aggravating nor mitigating
circumstances were proven = penalty for murder imposed in
medium period or RP. Death penalty imposed by trial court was
not warranted.
Illustrations of Nos. 2 and 3: A is convicted of homicide
punishable by reclusion temporal (min, med, max).
o No mitigating nor aggravating medium
o A pleaded guilty, no aggravating minimum
o Committed the crime in the dwelling, no mitigating
maximum
o 2 aggravating, no mitigating still only maximum.

4. When there are aggravating and mitigating offset those of
one class against the other according to relative weight.
Note: The mitigating circumstances must be ordinary not
privileged. The aggravating circumstances must be generic or
specific and not qualifying or inherent.
Illustration of No. 4: A committed homicide in nighttime on
purpose. He surrendered to the mayor of the town and pleaded
guilty.
o Held:
o One mitigating circumstance (surrender or guilty plead)
will offset aggravating circumstance of nighttime.
o Remaining mitigating will result in imposition of
minimum period.


Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)

219

CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER



5. Two or more mitigating and no aggravating penalty next
lower, in the period applicable, according to the number and
nature of such circumstances.
Penalty by law: reclusion temporal max to reclusion perpetua
Max of ISL: prision mayor max to reclusion tempora med.
Min of ISL: prisio correctional max to prisio mayor med.
In determining the proper period applicable, the mitigating
circumstance can no longer be considered since it already
lowered the degree of the penalty.

6. No penalty greater than the maximum period of the penalty
prescribed by law shall be imposed, no matter how many
aggravating circumstances are present.
Thus, even if there are 4 generic aggravating circumstances, the
maximum penalty for homicide is still reclusion temporal.

7. The court can determine the extent of the penalty within the
limits of each period, according to the number and nature
of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the
greater or lesser extent of the evil produced by the crime.
A committed a crime punished by arresto mayor with two
aggravating and one mitigating circumstance.
Steps:
o Apply Rule 4 and offset = 1 aggravating left
o Remaining aggravating will make the imposed penalty
arresto mayor in its maximum period (4 months and 1
day to 6 months).
Rule 7: the court can impose any length from 4 months and 1
day, 5 months or 6 months.
Extent of the evil produced
o Court has the discretion to impose the penalty within
the limits fixed by law.
o Taking into consideration the amount of damage caused
on the economic life of a banking institution, it is proper

for the court to impose the maximum of the medium


degree of the penalty (People v. Velazco).

III. Cases Where Mitigating And Aggravating Circumstances Are Not
Considered In The Imposition Of The Penalty
1. When the penalty is single and indivisible (Article 63)
2. In felonies through negligence such as reckless imprudence
(Article365).
3. Penalty to be imposed upon a Moro or other non-Christian
inhabitant (Section 6, Administrative Code of Mindanao and
Sulu)
4. When the penalty is only a fine impose by an ordinance.
5. When the penalties are prescribed by special laws.

If there are a lot of aggravating but no mitigating, can the courts
increase the penalty to one greater than that prescribed by law?
NO.
If after offsetting (meaning there was aggravating and
mitigating), there are 2 mitigating left, can the penalty be
lowered by one degree? NO. As long as there was aggravating,
cant lower penalty by degree.
If there are four mitigating circumstances, you use two to lower
the penalty by one degree. The remaining two are used to find
the period. You cant use the remaining two to lower the
penalty by another degree.
Imposed by law: RT. 4 mitigating.
Lower to prision mayor. Then use the 2 remaining mitigating to
find the period. So prision mayor minimum.
Article 64 is important in the ISL because the modifying
circumstances are first considered in the determination of the
maximum penalty in the ISL. (sir wont ask to compute ISL)
Article 64 is not considered in the determination of the
minimum penalty in the ISL. The minimum penalty in the ISL


Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)

220

CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER


must be within the whole range of the penalty next lower in


degree.
If the accused is sentenced to reclusion perpetua and has two
generic mitigating circumstances (and no aggravating
circumstances), penalty CANNOT be lowered by one degree
since its an indivisible penalty. (Only a privileged mitigating can
give a penalty lower for an indivisible penalty)
This article doesnt apply to Article 365 because modifying
circumstances dont apply to quasi-offenses.


Article 65. Rules in cases in which the penalty is not composed of
three periods.
In cases in which the penalty prescribed by law is not composed of
three periods, the courts shall apply the rules contained in the
foregoing articles, dividing into three equal portions the time included
in the penalty prescribed, and forming one period of each of the three
portions.

POINTS

I. Purpose Of The Rule
This is applied when the law prescribes a penalty not composed
of three periods (like robbery in an uninhabited place whose
penalty is PC in medium to maximum.)
Just divide the period given by 3 to get the min, med and max.

II. Meaning Of The Rule
1. Compute and determine first the 3 periods of the entire
penalty.
2. Time included in penalty prescribed divided into 3 equal
portions after subtracting minimum (eliminate 1 day) from
maximum of penalty
3. Min or minimum period should be the minimum of the given
penalty (including 1 day)

4. Quotient added to minimum prescribed (eliminate 1 day) = total


represents max of minimum period.

II. Illustration: (See p.756-757 Reyes Book For Detailed Computation)

(1) Duration is 6 months and 1 day to 6 years

(2) Subtract minimum (disregarding 1 day) from the maximum
6 years 6 months = 5 years and 6 months

(3) Divide difference by 3
5 years and 6 months .= 1 year and 10 months
3

(4) Minimum added with quotient = minimum period
6 months (+) 1 year and 10 months = 2 years and 4 months

(5) Maximum of minimum added with quotient = medium period
2 years and 4 months (+) 1 year and 10 months = 4 years and 2 months

(6) Maximum of medium added with quotient = maximum period
4 years and 2 months (+) 1 year and 10 months = 6 years

Final:
Minimum: 6 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months
Medium: 2 years, 4 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months
Maximum: 4 years, 2 months and 1 day to 6 years.

Article 66. Imposition of fines.
In imposing fines the courts may fix any amount within the limits
established by law; in fixing the amount in each case attention shall be
given, not only to the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, but
more particularly to the wealth or means of the culprit.


Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)

221

CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER



POINTS

I. Outline Of This Provision:
1. The court can fix any amount of the fine within the limits
established by law.
2. The court must consider
a. The mitigating and aggravating circumstances; and
b. More particularly, the wealth or means of the culprit.

II. General Points
Study with Article 75.
The LAW can prescribe the following:
o Fine only
o Fine AND imprisonment o Fine OR imprisonment o
Youre so FINE
o The court cant give the accused a penalty of fine OR
imprisonment. The court has to make a choice, it cant
leave to the accused the choice on what penalty he
wants to serve.
If the law states fine of P50k to 150k, the court can choose
between those bounds.
If the law states fine of P15k, thats it, court must impose the
definite fine.
If the law states fine not less than P15k, court must be
judicious. They cant just fine the accused for P1 million.
Increase or reduction in the degree of the fine. (See Article 75)
Fine cannot be used as substitute penalty to imprisonment.
Penalty of fine is independent from penalty of imprisonment.
If the accused drew and issued a check but it bounced, and
during trial he pays the value of the check, should he still be
convicted for a fine? Yes. Penalty of the fine goes to the State,
not the offended party.

III. When The Minimum Of The Fine Is Not Fixed

When the law does not fix minimum of the fine


determination of amount of fine to be imposed: left to the
sound discretion of the court (provided it shall not exceed
maximum authorized by law) (People v. Quinto).


IV. Fines Are Not Divided Into Three Equal Portions
The courts are not bound to divide the amount of fine
prescribed by law into 3 equal portions (as in case of
imprisonment imposed in relation to a divisible penalty).

V. Considerations In Imposing Fines
A. Wealth Or Means Of Culprit Is Main Consideration In Fine
Wealth or means of culprit is emphasized because fixed amount
of fine for ALL offenders of particular crime result to
inequality (ex. P100 for rich versus poor man)
o Example: Laborer earning P208/month who has to pay
P20 versus Office worker with P800/month who has to
pay P50 fine for laborer more severe if ever.
To impose same amount of fine for same offense upon persons
differently circumstances penalty of unequal severity =
unjustly discriminatory (People v. Ching Kuan).

B. But Mitigating And Aggravating Circumstances Are Not Entirely
Disregarded. Factors Other Than Financial Condition Of Accused May
Be Considered By Court.
Article 66 says mitigating and aggravating circumstances may
also be considered by court.
Also other factors such as:
o Gravity or seriousness of crime committed
o Heinousness of its perpetration
o Magnitude of its effects on victim(s) (People v. Manuel)
o Position and standing of accused considered
aggravating in gambling.


Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)

222

CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER


U.S. v. Salaveria Person found guilty of


violating Gambling Law with high standing in
community = maximum penalty imposed
U.S. v. Mercader Accused in gambling case
was municipal treasurer = Court imposed fine of
P500 and 1 year imprisonment (max penalty
provided by law)


Article 67. Penalty to be imposed when not all the requisites of
exemption of the fourth circumstance of Article 12 are present.
When all the conditions required in the circumstance number 4 of
Article 12 of this Code to exempt from criminal liability are not
present, the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision
correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon the culprit,
if he shall have been guilty of a grave felony, and arresto mayor in its
minimum and medium periods, if of a less grave felony.

POINTS

I. Article 67 Applies Only When All The Requisites Of The Exempting
Circumstance Of Accident Are Not Present
Article 12(4) Exempting circumstance of accident.
Four conditions necessary to exempt from liability under
Subsection 4 of Article 12:
a. Act causing the injury be lawful; permitted not only by
law but also by regulations.
b. Performed with due care.
c. Injury is caused by mere accident (example: by an
unforeseen event)
d. There be no fault or intention to cause the injury.
Lack of requisites in performance of lawful act AM max to PC
minimum (if grave), AM min to med (if less grave)

II. If All These Conditions Are Not Present:

(Act considered as) reckless imprudence if act is executed


without taking precautions or measure that most common
prudence would requires
(Act considered as) simple imprudence if its a mere lack of
precaution where either the threatened harm is not imminent
or danger is not openly visible this case will fall under Article
365, paragraph 1.
Penalty provided in Article 67, same as in Article 365.


Article 68. Penalty to be imposed upon a person under eighteen
years of age.
When the offender is a minor under eighteen years and his case is one
coming under the provisions of the paragraph next to the last of
Article 80 of this Code, the following rules shall be observed:
1. Upon a person under fifteen but over nine years of age, who is
not exempted from liability by reason of the court having
declared that he acted with discernment, a discretionary
penalty shall be imposed, but always lower by two degrees at
least than that prescribed by law for the crime which he
committed.
2. Upon a person over fifteen and under eighteen years of age
the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be
imposed, but always in the proper period.

POINTS

I. Article 68 Has Been Partly Repealed By Juvenile Justice Act
Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code (penalty for person under
18 years old) is partly repealed by Republic Act 9344, which
provides that:
a. Child 15 years and below exempt from criminal
responsibility (paragraph 1 repealed).
b. Child 15-18 years old exempt from criminal liability
UNLESS acted with discernment (paragraph 2 modified).


Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)

223

CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER



c. A child above 12 up to 15 who commits a serious crime
(Parricide, Murder, Infanticide, Kidnapping, Serious
illegal detention where the victim is killed or raped,
robbery with homicide or rape, destructive arson, Rape,
carnapping where the driver or occupant is killed or
raped, or offenses under the DDA punishable by more
than 12 years), or an offense for the second time or
oftener:
i. Shall be deemed a neglected child under
Presidential Decree 603, and
ii. Shall be mandatorily placed in a special facility
for the youth (Republic Act No. 10630).

Under Article 68
Offender over 9 yrs. but under 15
yrs. acting with discernment = NOT
exempt from criminal liability
(discretionary penalty shall be
imposed 2 degrees lower than
prescribed by law for crime
committed)
Offender over 15 but under 18
penalty next lower than prescribed
by law imposed

Under Republic Act 9344


9-15 year olds = exempt from
criminal liability No penalty
imposed

15-18 year olds = exempt from


criminal liability UNLESS acted
with discernment will undergo
diversion programs under Chap 2
of Republic Act 9344


If court sees that objective of disposition measures imposed
upon child in conflict with the law was NOT fulfilled or child in
conflict with the law willfully failed to comply with conditions of
his/her disposition or rehab program child in conflict with the
law will be brought to court for execution of judgment. The
child shall enjoy the privileged mitigating circumstance under

Article 68 but shall nevertheless be entitled to suspension of


sentence whether or not he is no longer a minor.
o Penalty imposed on child in conflict with the law is
provided in paragraph 2 of Article 68 (or penalty next
lower than prescribed by law)

II. Suspension Of Sentence
As long as child was under 18 when he did the crime,
suspension of sentence will apply.
o Suspension can apply until he reaches 21, upon
discretion of court.
o Even if minor is charged with a heinous crime, he is still
entitled to suspension of conviction. Republic Act No.
9344 does not distinguish.
What if Special Penal Law which does not follow nomenclature
of Revised Penal Code? Minor will not be entitled to privileged
mitigating circumstance.
o Example: Penalty of life imprisonment in illegal
recruitment cannot be lowered by 1 or 2 degrees.
Recommendation of social worker not binding on the court.
(People v. Candelario).

III. Probation As An Alternative To Imprisonment
The court may place a child in conflict with the law on probation
in lieu of service of a sentence taking into consideration the best
interest of the child.
After the suspension, child may serve his sentence in
agricultural camps or other training facilities.
o After the suspension, he can also be granted probation.
Remember: even if minor criminally exempt, he is still civilly
liable.

Article 69. Penalty to be imposed when the crime committed is not
wholly excusable.


Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)

224

CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER



A penalty lower by one or two degrees than that prescribed by law
shall be imposed if the deed is not wholly excusable by reason of the
lack of some of the conditions required to justify the same or to
exempt from criminal liability in the several cases mentioned in
Articles 11 and 12, provided that the majority of such conditions be
present. The courts shall impose the penalty in the period which may
be deemed proper, in view of the number and nature of the conditions
of exemption present or lacking.

POINTS

I. Unlawful Aggression Is Indispensable In Self-Defense, Defense Of
Relatives And Defense Of Stranger
Unlawful aggression must be present (first circumstance in selfdefense under Subsections 1, 2, 3 of Article11)
Example: B was challenged by A to a fight. B attacked first with a
knife and A retaliated by stabbing B. In the struggle, B killed A.
Can B be given one or two degrees lower penalty than
prescribed for homicide?
Even though conditions to justify the deed is present
(Reasonableness of means employed and Lack of sufficient
provocation), the essential element of unlawful aggression was
absent because there was agreement to fight. As such, NOT
entitled to reduction (U.S. v. Navarro).

II. Important Words And Phrases
A. In the several cases mentioned in Article 11 and 12.
Privileged mitigating circumstances in Article 69 include:
incomplete justifying and incomplete exempting circumstances
BUT majority of the conditions must be present

B. Provided the majority of such conditions be present.
People v. Alvarez: Court of Appeals refused to apply Article 69
because only unlawful aggression was present on the victims

part BUT means employed by accused was not reasonable and


accused provoked aggression.
Homicide case where provocation and unlawful aggression
came from deceased + means employed by offender = not
reasonable:
o More than one of the requisites of self-defense are
present
o When 2 of the essential requisites for justification are
present penalty lower by 2 degrees may be imposed
(People v. Dorado)
o Only unlawful aggression 1 penalty lower imposed
(People v. Cabellon) BUT this decision is contrary to
Article 69 that provides that majority of conditions must
be present.
What if not majority of requisites, just one? Ordinary mitigating
only; lower to minimum period.


C. A penalty lower by one or two degrees than that prescribed by law
shall be imposed x x x in the period which may be deemed proper, in
view of the number and nature of the conditions of exemption present
or lacking.
Court has discretion to impose 1 or 2 degrees lower than
prescribed by law for offense.
o In determining proper period of penalty that is 1 or 2
degrees lower, the court must consider number and
nature of conditions of exemption or justification
present or lacking.
Article 69 makes it privileged mitigating because the penalty is
lowered by one or two degrees.
o Hence, incomplete self-defense (for example) cannot be
offset by any aggravating circumstances.


Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)

225

CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER



V. When The Majority Of The Requisites Of Self-Defense And Two
Mitigating Without Aggravating Circumstances Are Present, The
Penalty Is Three Degrees Lower.
If accused charged with homicide (punishable by reclusion
temporal) proved unlawful aggression by the deceased and
another requisite of self-defense PLUS 2 mitigating
circumstances (surrender and obfuscation) with NO aggravating,
the proper penalty is arresto mayor medium (2 months, 1 day to
4 months).

Article 70. Successive service of sentences.
When the culprit has to serve two or more penalties, he shall serve
them simultaneously if the nature of the penalties will so permit;
otherwise, the following rules shall be observed:

In the imposition of the penalties, the order of their respective
severity shall be followed so that they may be executed successively or
as nearly as may be possible, should a pardon have been granted as to
the penalty of penalties first imposed, or should they have been
served out.

For the purpose of applying the provisions of the next preceding
paragraph the respective severity of the penalties shall be determined
in accordance with the following scale:
1. Death,
2. Reclusion perpetua,
3. Reclusion temporal,
4. Prision mayor,
5. Prision correccional,
6. Arresto mayor,
7. Arresto menor,
8. Destierro,
9. Perpetual absolute disqualification,
10. Temporary absolute disqualification,

11. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted
for, the right to follow profession or calling, and
12. Public censure.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the rule next preceding, the
maximum duration of the convicts sentence shall not be more than
threefold the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the
penalties imposed upon him. No other penalty to which he may be
liable shall be inflicted after the sum of those imposed equals the said
maximum period.
Such maximum period shall in no case exceed forty years.

In applying the provisions of this rule the duration of perpetual
penalties (pena perpetua) shall be computed at thirty years. (As
amended by Com. Act No. 217.)

POINTS

I. Outline Of The Provisions Of This Article:
1. When culprit has to serve 2 or more penalties serve them
simultaneously (if nature of penalties permit).
2. Otherwise, order of their respective severity shall be followed.
3. Respective severity of penalties is as follows:
a. Death
b. Reclusion Perpetua
c. Reclusion Temporal
d. Prision Mayor
e. Prision Correccional
f. Arresto Mayor
g. Arresto menor
h. Destierro
i. Perpetual absolute disqualification
j. Temporary absolute disqualification


Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)

226

CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER



k. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be
voted for, the right to follow profession or calling, and
l. Public censure.

A. The Penalties Which Can Be Simultaneously Served Are:
1. PAD
2. PSD
3. TAD
4. TSD
5. Suspension
6. Destierro
7. Public censure
8. Fine and bond to keep the peace
9. Civil Interdiction, and
10. Confiscation and payment of costs.
Above penalties (except destierro) can be served simultaneously
with imprisonment.
Penalties consisting in deprivation of liberty cannot be served
simultaneously by reason of the nature of such penalties.

II. The Order Of The Respective Severity Of The Penalties Shall Be
Followed So That They May Be Executed Successively
Time of the second sentence does not commence to run until
the expiration of the first (Gordon v. Wolfe).
Imprisonment must be served before destierro. Thus, arresto
menor must be served before destierro (People v. Misa).

III. Limitation On Service Of Sentence: Three-Fold Rule
The maximum duration of the convicts sentence shall not be
more than three times the length of time corresponding to the
most severe of the penalties imposed upon him.
o If the sum of the penalties does not exceed the most
severe multiplied by 3, three-fold rule doesnt apply.

The maximum penalty is three times the most severe or the


total of the penalties imposed, whichever is lower.
o Such max period shall not exceed 40 years. Whatever is
lower between the total penalties and 3x the most
sever, it shall not be more than 40 years.
The three-fold rule applies even if different courts rendered the
penalties at different times.
o The Rules of Court provide that an information must not
charge more than one offense. Necessarily, the various
offenses punished with different penalties must be
charged under different information which may be filed
in the same court or in different courts at the same time
or at different times.
The three-fold rule applies only when the convict has to serve at
least 4 sentences.
If the penalty is complex, the three-fold penalty is three times
the indeterminate sentence also (see Boado for example).
o If an indeterminate sentence is imposed, use the
maximum period in computing because the max period
is the most severe.
o


A. Computation
Step 1: get the most severe penalty meted out as listed in
Article 70
Step 2: Multiply the duration of that by 3
Step 3: Add the duration of all the different sentences
Step 4: Compare the results of 2 and 3
Step 5: Accused to serve the lesser period, unless it is in excess
of 40 years in which case the culprit shall serve only 40 years.

B. The Phrase The Most Severe Of Penalties Includes Equal Penalties
Fact: Sentenced for 6 cases of estafa. Each of which is 3 months
and 11 days of arresto mayor.


Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)

227

CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER


Held: Accused cannot be made to suffer more than 9 months


and 33 days.


IV. The judge should NOT refrain from imposing the correct penalties
even if these would exceed the limitation of penalties in this article.
This article deals with SERVICE of sentence, not with imposition.
The court should impose the correct penalties even if these will
amount to more than the lifetime of the prisoner.
Why? Because when the convict is pardoned, he should still
serve the other sentences meted on him.

V. Duration Of The Convicts Sentence Refers To Several Penalties For
Different Offenses, Not Yet Served Out.
If the convict already served sentence for one offense prior to
the commission and/or conviction for another offense, the
former will not be considered in the three-fold rule.
The second sentence should only commence after the 1st.
Successive nga eh.
Accused is convicted for 10 counts of rape, all reclusion
perpetua. How long should he remain in jail? 40 years.
o What sentence should accuse serve first? Parepareho
lang naman eh. Justice Callejo: Follow order of docket
numbers. Article 70 doesnt strictly apply (People v.
Conte).

VI. Subsidiary Imprisonment Forms Part Of The Penalty
The result from the three-fold rule will be the aggregate
principal penalty which the principal has to serve. IN ADDITION,
he will have to pay all indemnities with or without subsidiary
imprisonment PROVIDED the principal penalty does not
exceed/is not higher than 6 years.
Bagtas v. Director of Prisons
o Facts: A guilty of 17 crimes. Most severe is 6 months
and 1 day PLUS a fine of P1,000.

Three-fold rule: 18 months and 3 days max.


o Held: If the petitioner would not be able to pay the
finem the maximum duration of his imprisonment shall
be 18 months and 3 days of the principal penalty PLUS 6
months and 1 day subsidiary imprisonment.
Exception: Do not include subsidiary imprisonment penalty in
the computation of the 40 years because subsidiary liability is
uncertain if it will even happen (Bagtas v. Director of Prisons).


VII. Different Systems Of Penalty
Material accumulation system no limitation; all penalties for
all violations were imposed even if they reached beyond the
natural span of human life.
o Article 70, Par. 1,2,3 follow this.
Juridical accumulation system Service of several penalties is
limited to not more than three-fold the max and will not exceed
40 years.
o Article 70, Par. 4,5,6 follow this.
Absorption system Observed in the imposition of the
penalty in complex crimes (Article 48), continuing crimes, and
specific crimes like robbery with homicide, etc.

Article 71. Graduated Scales.
In cases in which the law prescribes a penalty lower or higher by one
or more degrees than another given penalty, the rules prescribed in
Article 61 shall be observed in graduating such penalty.

The lower or higher penalty shall be taken from the graduated scale in
which is comprised of the given penalty.

The courts, in applying such lower or higher penalty shall observe the
following graduated scales:

SCALE NO. 1 (Scale for personal penalties)


Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)

228

CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Death
Reclusion perpetua
Reclusion temporal
Prision mayor
Prision correccional
Arresto mayor
Destierro
Arresto menor
Public censure
Fine


SCALE NO. 2 (Scale for penalties depriving political rights)
1. Perpetual absolute disqualification
2. Temporary absolute disqualification
3. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted
for, and the right to follow a profession or calling
4. Public censure
5. Fine

POINTS

I. Death Shall No Longer Form Part Of The Equation In Article 71
Pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346
o This has the effect of appropriately downgrading the
proper penalties attaching to accomplices, accessories,
frustrated and attempted felonies to the level
consistent with the rest of the penal laws.
Since this law bars the application of the death penalty, such
effect necessarily extends to its relevance to the graduated
scale of penalties under Article 71.
o There can be no harmony between Republic Act No.
9346 and the Revised Penal Code unless the later
statute is construed as having downgraded those

penalties attached to death by reason of graduated


scale under Article 71.

II. Position of Destierro in Article 70 v. Article 71
Note that in Art 71, the penalty next lower than arresto mayor is
destierro, not arresto menor. But in Art 70, destierro follows
arresto menor in the degree of severity. Why?
o Arresto mayor is imprisonment or complete deprivation
of liberty. Destierro means banishment for a specified
length of time. They must not be judged by the duration
of each of these penalties, but by degree of deprivation
of liberty involved. Destierro is considered lighter than
arresto mayor.

A. Destierro Next Lower In Degree From Arresto Mayor
The scale, which places destierro below arresto mayor, cannot
be disregarded.
Their respective severities is judged not by duration but by the
degree of deprivation of liberty

B. Who May Impose Destierro?
The metropolitan and municipal trial courts shall exercise
exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with
imprisonment not exceeding 6 years.

C. Must Destierro Be Applied Only When It Is Specifically Imposed By
Law?
No. It may be imposed when it is the penalty next lower.

III. Articles 25, 70, 71 Compared:

Article 25
Article 70
Article 71
Classification classifies
classifies penalties provides for the
of penalties penalties into according to
scales which
principal and severity. (For the
should be


Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)

229

CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER



accessory

purpose of the
successive service
of sentences)

observed in
graduating
penalties in Article
61
Location of Destierro is Destierro is below Destierro is above
Destierro
above arresto arresto menor
arresto menor
menor




Article 72. Preference in the payment of the civil liabilities.
The civil liabilities of a person found guilty of 2 or more offenses shall
be satisfied by following the chronological order of the dates of the
final judgments rendered against him, beginning with the first in order
of time.

POINTS

I. Applicability
This article applies when the offender who is found guilty of 2 or
more offenses is required to pay civil liabilities resulting from
the same.

II. Order Of Payment Of Civil Liabilities
The order is not based on the dates of the commission.
It is based on the dates of the final judgment.

CLASS DISCUSSION
Is it possible for the payment of civil liabilities to differ from how
the criminal liabilities are served?
Is civil liability imposed/specified or considered as an attached
like accessory penalties? Or must it be expressly imposed?


Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)

230