The Three Fold Rule

RPC, Article 70

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 applying 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 or penalties first
imposed, or should they have been served out

Article 70. Successive

Service of Sentences
Notwithstanding the provision of the rule next preceding,
the maximum duration of the convicts sentence SHALL
NOT BE MORE THAN THREE-FOLD 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 total 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 the

perpetual penalties shall be computed at thirty years.

The Order of the

Respective Severity of the
Penalties shall be
followed so that they may
be executed
successively.

Example:

February 14, 2016

5 months for an offense

April 6, 2016
4 months for another offence

He should serve the terms successively and the

time of the second sentence did not
commence to run until the expiration of the
first.

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.

Example:
14

Years
Homicide

15

Years
Another Case

Years
Third Case

17

Years
Fourth Case

12

59 YEARS

 14

Years
Homicide

Years
Another Case

51 YEARS
40

15

Years
Third Case

17

Years
Fourth Case

12

Such maximum period shall

in no case exceed forty
years

If the sum total of all the penalties

does not exceed the most severe
multiplied by 3, the three fold
rule does not apply.

This rule applies only when the convict has to serve

continuous imprisonment for several offences. If the
convict already served sentence for one offence,
that imprisonment will not be considered, for the
purpose of the three-fold rule, if after this release he
commits again and is convicted of new offences.

Mejorada vs.
Sandiganbayan

Whether or not the penalty imposed upon the petitioner is

excessive and contrary to the three-fold rule as provided for by
Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code

Petitioner is mistaken in his application of the three-fold rule as

set forth in Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code. This article is to
be taken into account not in the imposition of the penalty but in
connection with the service of the sentence imposed. Article 70
speaks of "service" of sentence, "duration" of penalty and penalty
"to be inflicted". Nowhere in the article is anything mentioned about
the "imposition of penalty". It merely provides that the prisoner
cannot be made to serve more than three times the most severe of
these penalties the maximum of which is forty years.

Rigor vs Superintendent
Petitioner is sentenced to suffer six (6) months of arresto mayor, as
minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as
maximum; and in Criminal Case No. MC-99-1236-D, petitioner is sentenced
to suffer six (6) months of arresto mayor maximum, as minimum, to four (4)
years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as maximum.

Under Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code, when an

offender has to serve two or more penalties, he should serve
them simultaneously if the nature of the penalties will so
permit. Otherwise said penalties shall be executed
successively, following the order of their respective severity,
in such case, the second sentence will not commence to run
until the expiration of the first.

2013 Bar Exam Question

IX
Roman and Wendy are neighbours. On Valentines Day, without
prior notice, Roman visited Wendy at her condo to invite her to
dinner, but Wendy turned him down and abruptly left, leaving her
condo unlocked. Roman attempted to follow, but appeared to have
second thoughts; he simply went back to Wendys condo, let
himself in, and waited for her return. On Wendys arrival that
evening, Roman grabbed her from behind and, with a knife in hand,
forced her to undress. Wendy had no choice but to comply. Roman
then tied Wendys hands to her bed and sexually assaulted her 5
times that night.

Roman was charged with, and was convicted of, five counts of
rape, but the judge did not impose the penalty of reclusion
perpetua for each count. Instead, the judge sentenced Roman to
40 years of imprisonment on the basis of the three-fold rule.

Was the Judge

correct?

No, the three-fold rule is applicable only in connection with

the service of the sentence not in the imposition of the
proper penalties. The court must impose penalties for all the
crimes for which the accused have been found guilty.

Thus, the court should not make a computation in its decision

and sentence the accused to not more than the three-fold of
the most severe of the penalties imposable.

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.

The three-fold rule applies only when the convict has to

serve at least four sentences.

Maximum period of 40 years.

Subsidiary Imprisonment: This shall be excluded in

computing for the maximum duration.

The best investment you can make is an

investment in yourself.

Warren Buffet