j) Pecuniary Liabilities (Article38)

Order of Payment - in case the property of the offender should not be

sufficient for the payment of all his pecuniary liabilities, the same shall be met
in the following order:
1) The reparation of the damage caused;
2) Indemnification of consequential damages;
3) Fine;
4) Costs of the proceedings

Reparation – amount of the damage, taking into consideration the price of the
thing, whenever possible, and its sentimental value to the injured party (Art.
106).

Indemnification of consequential damage – shall include not only those

caused the injured party, but also those suffered by his family or by a third
person by reason of the crime (Art. 107).
P50, 000 – death; unearned earnings.

k) Costs (Article 37)

Costs - shall include fees and indemnities in the course of the judicial
proceedings, whether they be fixed or unalterable amounts previously
determined by law or regulations in force, or amounts not subject to schedule.

If the convict has no property to pay the fine, he shall be a subject to a

subsidiary personal liability at the rate of 1 day for each P8.

Article 39: Subsidiary Penalty

Subsidiary penalty - a penalty that takes the place of a fine for insolvent convicts

It is neither a principal or accessory penalty, but a substitute penalty for fine only,
subject to the following rules:
1) If the principal penalty imposed is higher than PC – no subsidiary imprisonment;
2) If the principal penalty imposed is PC or Arresto and Fine - shall remain under
confinement until his fine is satisfied, but his subsidiary imprisonment shall not
exceed 1/3 of the term of sentence and in no case continue for more than 1 year.
Example:
Offender is sentenced to 6 years of PC and a P4,000 fine.
Divide the number of days such fine of P4,000 at the rate of P8.00 per day =
500 days.
1/3 of 6 years = 2 years (730 days)
500 days is lesser than the 1/3 term-730
In no case will it exceed - 1 year – 365 days.
So, the subsidiary imprisonment – 365 days
3) If the principal penalty is only Fine- the subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed 6
mos., if the culprit shall have been prosecuted for grave or less grave felony, and
shall exceed 15 days, if for a light felony.
Example:
Penalty is P4, 000
Divide this by P8.00 = 500 days.
Fine of P4,000 is Less Grave - so the subsidiary imprisonment shall be limited
only to 6 mos. or 180 days.
 4) If the penalty is Fine and Destierro (not to be executed by confinement in a penal
institution, but has a fixed duration) – computation is the same as in no. 1.
5) Service of subsidiary imprisonment will not relieve the offender of his pecuniary
liabilities to pay the fine if his financial position improves after his release.

Offender cannot be made to undergo the subsidiary imprisonment unless expressly

provided in the judgment because this is not an accessory penalty.

Subsidiary imprisonment is not imprisonment for debt because the constitutional

prohibition refers to debts incurred in the fulfilment of contracts.

Distinctions between Degree & Period of Penalty:

Degree refers to the entire penalty imposable for a felony committed; period refers to
the three equal portions - maximum, medium and minimum.

Significance of the 1 day – differentiates the gravity of a degree or period of penalty.

Example: 6 years is PC; but 6 yrs. and 1 day is already PM.

Article 65: Rules in arriving the 3 periods for the divisible penalty

Subtract the minimum from the maximum;

Divide by three to get the 3 periods

A) Prision Mayor - 6 yrs. & 1 day to 12 years

Max = 12 – 6 = 6 / 3 = 2 yrs.
Min = 6 plus 2 = 8 (6 yrs. & 1 day to 8 yrs)
Med = 8 plus 2 = 10 (8 yrs. & 1 day to 10 yrs)
Max = 10 plus 2 = 12 (10 yrs. & 1 day to 12 yrs.)

B) Prision Correccional - 6 mos. & 1 day to 6 years

Convert 6 years to months = 72 mos.
72 – 6 = 66 / 3 = 22 mos
(22 + 6 = 28 / 12 = 2 yrs. & 4 mos)
Min = 6 mos. & 1 day to 2 yrs. & 4 mos.
(28 + 22 = 50 / 12 = 4 yrs. & 2 mos)
Med = 2 yrs. 4 mos. & 1 day to 4 yrs. & 2 mos.
50 + 22 = 72 mos / 12 = 6 yrs
Max = 4 yrs. 2 mos. & 1 day to 6 yrs.

Article 45: Confiscation & Forfeiture of the Proceeds or Instruments of the Crime

This accessory penalty is included in every penalty imposed for the commission of a
crime.

Confiscation is in favour of the government.

Property of a third person not liable for the offense is not subject to confiscation.

Property not subject of lawful commerce though it belongs to a third person shall be
destroyed.

Articles 50 to 57:
C F A
Principal - 0 - 1 - 2
 Accomplice - 1 - 2 - 3
Accessory - 2 - 3 - 4

Article 60:
The provisions contained in the above articles shall not be applicable to cases in which the
law expressly prescribes the penalty provided for a frustrated or attempted felony, or to be
imposed upon accomplices or accessories.

Examples of cases wherein the law punish the Accomplice with a penalty
corresponding to the Principals:
1) Article 346 - Ascendants, guardians, curators, teachers and any person who by
abuse of authority or confidential relationship shall cooperate as accomplices in
Rape, Acts of Lasciviousness, Seduction, Corruption of Minors, White Slave Trade or
Abduction;
2) Article 268 - One who furnished the place for the perpetration of the crime of Slight
Illegal Detention.

Cases in which the law punishes an accessory with a penalty corresponding to that
of a Principal or of one degree lower instead of two degrees:
1) Article 162 - Knowingly using counterfeit seal or forged signature of the President;
2) Article 168 - Illegal Possession and Use of False Treasury or Bank Notes;
3) Article 172 (par. 3) - Using Falsified Document;
4) Article 173 (par. 2) - Using Falsified Dispatch

Article 28: Computation of Penalties

Effectivity of Penalties:
1) From the day the judgment becomes final – temporary penalties like suspension, if
the offender is in prison;
2) From the day the offender is placed at the disposal of the judicial authorities for the
enforcement of the penalty - penalty consisting of deprivation of liberty if the offender
is not in prison;
3) From the day the defendant commences to serve the sentence – other penalties.
4) Since a commitment order in case the offender is in prison does not take effect
until after the judgment of conviction becomes final, or fifteen (15) days after its
promulgation, when no appeal is filed- it is only then that the service of sentence is
legally commenced;
5) If the accused is in prison at the time the judgment is promulgated, he is deemed
to have submitted himself for the execution of the said judgment as of the date of
promulgation.

Article 29: Preventive Imprisonment

Offenders or accused who have undergone preventive imprisonment shall be

credited in the service of their sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty, with the
full time during which they have undergone preventive imprisonment, if the detention
prisoner agrees voluntarily in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed
upon convicted prisoners,
Except in the following cases:
1) when they are recidivists, or have been convicted previously twice or more of any
crimes; and
2) when upon being summoned for the execution of their sentence they have failed to
surrender voluntarily.
 If the detention prisoner does not agree to abide by the same disciplinary rules
imposed upon convicted prisoners, he shall be credited in the service of his sentence
with 4/5 of the time during which he has undergone preventive imprisonment (Pp. vs.
Abanes - 73 SCRA 44).

Whenever an accused has undergone preventive imprisonment for a period equal or

more than the possible maximum imprisonment of the offense charged to which he
may be sentenced and his case is not yet terminated, he shall be released
immediately without prejudice to the continuation of the trial thereof or the proceeding
on appeal, if the same is under review. In case the maximum penalty to which the
accused may be sentenced is Destierro, he shall be released after thirty (30) days of
preventive imprisonment (Pp. vs. Magonawal, et al - 63 SCRA 106 & Pp.vs. Bastasa-
Feb. l979). (Destierro constitutes deprivation of liberty).

An accused sentenced to life imprisonment is entitled to deduction (U.S. vs. Ortencio

– 38 Phil. 941).

This also holds true if the penalty is Reclusion Perpetua - because the law does not
make any distinction between temporal or perpetual penalties (Pp. vs. Corpuz- March
l994-49 SCAD). More so since Reclusion Perpetua now has a fixed period although
still indivisible (RA 7659- Pp. vs. Lucas & Pp, vs. Reyes – August 1992).

This does not apply if the sentence does not involve a term of imprisonment like fine,
as the law says “deprivation of liberty.”

An accused undergoes preventive imprisonment if the offense of which he is charged

is not bailable or if bailable he cannot post bail and he is not entitled to recognizance.
The offense is not bailable if it is punished with Reclusion Perpetua to Death and the
evidence of guilt is strong. The mere fact that the offense is punishable with Death or
Reclusion Perpetua does not per se make the offense not bailable. There is the other
requirement that the evidence of guilt is strong.

What is the remedy when the person has already served the maximum penalty
imposable?
The appropriate remedy of the accused is to file a Petition for Habeas Corpus
considering that the decision in this case is now final (In accordance with the
resolution in Angeles vs. Bilibid - Jan. 4, 1995 and Pp. vs. Agustin - Sept. 5, 1995).

Pp. vs.Labriaga (Nov. 1995 - 65 SCAD) - The accused-appellant Rita Labriaga

having served more than the maximum imposable penalty of PC, should be released.

Article 70: Successive Service of Sentence

When the culprit has 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 possible,
should a pardon have been granted as to the penalty or penalties first imposed,
or should they have been served out.
• For the purpose of applying the provisions of the next preceding par. 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) Destierrro
9) Perpetual Absolute Disqualification
10) Temporary Absolute Disqualification
11) Suspension from public office, the right to vote & be voted for, the right to
follow profession or calling
12) Public Censure
• Notwithstanding the provisions of the rule next preceding, the maximum
period of the convict’s sentence shall not be more than three-fold the length of
time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties upon him. No other
penalty to which he may be liable shall be inflicted after the sum total of those
imposed equals the same maximum period.
• Such maximum period shall in no case exceed forty years.
• In applying the provisions of this rule the duration of perpetual penalties
(penal perpetua) shall be computed at thirty years.

What is the rule when a convict is given multiple sentences?

The general rule is that he shall serve them simultaneously if the nature of the
penalties permits simultaneous service of sentence. Otherwise, the penalties
shall be served successively in the order of severity as prescribed under this
article.

Example:
Destierro and Fine
Prision Correccional and Perpetual Special Disqualification
Suspension From Office and Fine (Rodriguez vs. Dir. of Prisons - 47 SCRA 353).

What are the limitations of the service of sentence?

a) The maximum duration of the convict’s 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 same maximum period (3-fold rule).
b) Such maximum period shall in no case exceed forty years.

What is the three-fold rule?

It is the rule that the maximum duration of the sentence should not exceed 3
times the most severe penalty imposed upon the convict and the added
limitation that the maximum period thus computed shall in no case exceed 40
years.

How is the penalty computed?

Steps:
1) Get the most severe penalty meted as listed under Art. 70;
2) Multiply the duration of the most severe penalty by 3;
3) Add the duration of all the different penalties;
4) Compare the results of steps 2 & 3;
5) Accused to serve the lesser period unless it is in excess of 40 years in which
case the accused shall only serve for 40 years.
Examples:
1) Case of Paco Larranaga, et al
Sentence is two Reclusion Perpetua
Range - 20 years and 1 day to 40 years.
(Although the highest period is 40, we do not start it with the same, because
the last provision of Art. 70 provides: “In applying the provisions of this rule,
the duration of perpetual penalties (penal perpetua) shall be computed at 30
years)
30 x 3 = 90 years
Paco, et al will only serve 40 years because the law provides that shall in no
case that the maximum period exceed 40 years.
2) Conviction of four (4) PM
Range - 6 yrs. & 1 day to 12 years
12 x 3 = 36
Add the four penalties – (12+12 + 12 + 12) = 48
Compare the two results = 36 years is lower, so this will be the penalty that
will be serve, as this does not exceed 40 years.
3) Aspra vs. Director of Prisons (85 Phil. 737)
This applies to equal penalties:
Conviction – Six (6) Estafas - sentenced to 3 months and 11 days in each
case.
3 x 3 = 9 mos / 11 x 3 = 33 days
= 9 mos. & 33 days or 10 mos. & 3 days
Add all - (3+3+3+3+3+3) = 18 mos.
- (11+11+11+11+11+11) = 66 days
18 mos. & 66 days or 20 mos. & 6 days
Acc. will only serve the period of – 10 mos. & 3 days.

The three-fold rule applies although the penalties were imposed for different times
and under separate informations. (Torres vs. Superintendent - 56 Phil. 847)

The three-fold maximum penalty does not preclude subsidiary imprisonment. This
means to say that after the prisoner has served the highest penalty under the three-
fold rule, he still has to serve the payment of all indemnities (fine) with or without
subsidiary imprisonment provided the principal penalty does not exceed 6 years. So,
if the prisoner after serving the three-fold maximum penalty cannot pay the fine, he
still has to serve the subsidiary imprisonment as long as the principal does not
exceed 6 years (Bagtas vs. Dir. of Prisons- 47 O.G. l743).

Should the court refrain from imposing the correct penalties if these would exceed
the limitation of the three-fold rule?
NO. It is the duty of the court to impose the penalty for all crimes of which the
accused was found guilty. This article deals with SERVICE OF SENTENCE and not
imposition, hence this article is for the Director of Prisons to follow and not for the
court.

The rationale for imposing the correct penalty is that when the convict is pardoned,
he will still serve the other sentences meted upon him.

Distinction between Imposition of Penalty & Service of Sentence:

The imposition of penalty is determined by the nature, gravity and number of
offenses charged and proved, whereas, service of sentence is determined by
severity and character of the penalties imposed, in the impossibility or practicability of
 the service of sentence, since actual service is a contingency, subject to various
factors like escape of the convict, grant of executive clemency, or natural death of the
prisoner (Pp. vs. Peralta, et al – 25 SCRA 759).

Multiple Death Penalty - Reasons:

The imposition of multiple death penalties, far from being a useless formality, has
practical importance. The sentencing of an accused to several capital penalties is an
indelible badge of his extreme criminal perversity, which may not be accurately
projected by the imposition of only one death sentence irrespective of the number of
capital felonies for which he is liable. Showing thus the reprehensible character of the
convict in its real dimensions, the possibility of a grant of executive clemency is
justifiably reduced in no small measure. Hence, the imposition of multiple death
penalties could effectively serve as a deterrent to an improvident grant of pardon or
commutation. Faced with the utter delinquency of such a convict, the proper
penitentiary authorities would exercise judicious restraint in recommending clemency
or leniency in his behalf.

“Granting, however, that the Chief Executive, in the exercise of his constitutional
power to pardon (one of the presidential prerogatives which is almost absolute),
deems it proper to commute the multiple death penalties to multiple life
imprisonments, then the practical effect is that the convict has to serve the maximum
40 years of multiple life sentences. If only one death penalty is imposed, and then is
commuted to life imprisonment, the convict will have to serve a maximum of only
thirty years corresponding to a single life sentence” (Pp. vs. Jaime Jose, et al- Feb. 6,
l971- 37 SCRA 450; Pp. vs. Peralta –ibid).

If the multiple penalties are death, how will the rule under Art. 70 be complied?
When the sentence is executed, all the death sentences are deemed simultaneously
served (Pp. vs. Peralta - ibid).

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 the given penalty.

The courts, in applying such lower or higher penalty, shall observe the following
graduated scales:
Scale No. 1
1) Death
2) Reclusion Perpetua
3) Reclusion Temporal
4) Prision Mayor
5) Prision Correccional
6) Arresto Mayor
7) Destierro
8) Arresto Menor
9) Public Censure
10) Fine
Scale No. 2
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

In Article 70, the penalty next lower in severity to Arresto Mayor regarding the
successive service of sentence is Arresto Menor; but in Article 71, as to graduated
scales, the penalty next lower in degree to Arresto Mayor is Destierro.

Example: Pp. vs. Cabanban (May 7, 1960) - Accused was convicted of Simple
Seduction which carries a penalty of Arresto Mayor. As he was under l8 at the time
of the commission of the crime, the penalty imposed was Destierro.

Article 61: Rules of Graduating Penalties

For the purpose of graduating the penalties which, according to the provisions of
Articles 50 - 57, inclusive of this Code, are to be imposed upon persons guilty as
principals or any frustrated or attempted felony, or as accomplices or accessories,
the following rules shall be observed:
1) When the penalty prescribed for the felony is SINGLE & INDIVISIBLE, the next
penalty lower in degree shall be that immediately following such scale prescribed
under Art. 71;
Single and Indivisible penalties are Death and Reclusion Perpetua.
If the single penalty is Death – one degree lower to this is Reclusion Perpetua
If the single penalty is Reclusion Perpetua - one degree lower to this is
Reclusion Temporal.
Example: Art. 267 - Kidnapping & Serious Illegal Detention - punishable w/
Death - If the accused is only an Accomplice – penalty is Reclusion Perpetua.
2) When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of TWO INDIVISIBLE
penalties, or of ONE or MORE DIVISIBLE penalties to be imposed to their full extent,
the penalty next lower in degree shall be that immediately following the lesser of the
penalties prescribed in the respective graduated scale;
a) Two indivisible penalties - Reclusion Perpetua to Death
Example: Parricide (Article 248) - Reclusion Perpetua to Death
One degree lower to this - If the crime is frustrated - Reclusion Temporal
b) Divisible penalty imposed in its full extent- Prision Mayor
Penalty next lower in degree of PM is Prision Correccional
Example: Intentional Abortion - Art.256 (par. 2) – PM - If the crime is only
frustrated - penalty is only Prision Correccional.
3) When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of one or two indivisible
penalties and the maximum period of another divisible penalty, the penalty next lower
in degree shall be composed of the medium and minimum periods of the proper
divisible penalty and the maximum period of that immediately following in said
respective scale;
Penalty prescribed consists of ONE or MORE INDIVISIBLE and the
MAXIMUM of a DIVISIBLE PENALTY - next lower in degree consists of
medium and minimum period of proper divisible penalty and the maximum of
the divisible penalty immediately following:
Reclusion Temporal maximum to Death
Example: Pp. vs. Paredes, Jr. (Nov. 1996) - convicted of Murder (prior to RA
7659) - carries a penalty of Reclusion Temporal Maximum to Death-
Period Penalty prescribed
Maximum Death
 Medium Reclusion Perpetua
Minimum Reclusion Temporal Maximum
One degree lower:
Maximum Reclusion Temporal Medium
Medium Reclusion Temporal Minimum
Minimum Prision Mayor Maximum
One degree lower – Prision Mayor maximum to Reclusion Temporal medium
4) When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of several periods,
corresponding to the different divisible penalties, the penalty next lower in degree
shall be composed of the period immediately following the minimum prescribed and
of the two next following, which shall be taken from the penalty prescribed, if
possible; otherwise from the penalty immediately following in the above-mentioned
respective graduated scale;
Example:
a) Penalty is Prision Mayor maximum to Reclusion Temporal medium period
Max. - Reclusion Temporal med.
Med. - Reclusion Temporal min.
Min. - Prision Mayor max.
One degree lower:
Max. - Prision Mayor med.
Med. - Prision Mayor min.
Min. - Prision Correccional max.
One degree lower = Prision Correccional in its max. period to Prision Mayor in
its medium period.
b) Article 306- Brigandage- Prision Mayor in its medium period to Reclusion
Temporal in its minimum period.
Max. - Reclusion Temporal min.
Med. - Prision Mayor max.
Min. - Prision Mayor med.
One degree lower:
Max. - Prision Mayor min.
Med. - Prision Correccional max.
Min. - Prision Correccional med.
One degree lower – Prision Correccional in its medium period to Prision
Mayor in its minimum period.
5) Penalty prescribed in a manner not provided in the preceding 4 rules - Court
proceeds by analogy and shall impose the corresponding penalty:
a) if the penalty prescribed by law is composed of three periods, the penalty lower in
degree is the penalty consisting of three periods down the scale;
b) if the penalty prescribed by law consists of two periods, the penalty next lower in
degree is the penalty consisting of two periods down the scale;
Example: Penalty for Abduction – (Article 343)- Prision Correccional in its
min. and med. periods:
Prision Correccional med.
Prision Correccional min.
One degree lower-
Arresto Mayor max.
Arresto Mayor med.
c) if the penalty prescribed by law consists of one period, the penalty next lower in
degree is the next period in the scale:
Example: Art. 166 (par. 5) Forging Treasury Notes - the penalty is Reclusion
Temporal in its minimum period - penalty next lower in degree is Prision
Mayor in its maximum period
Reclusion Temporal min.
 Prision Mayor max.

In lowering the penalty by degree, aggravating or mitigating circumstances are not

yet considered, because Article 61 refers to the penalty prescribed for the felony.
After the penalty next lower in degree is determined, aggravating or mitigating
circumstances are then considered to determine the proper period of penalty.

This is so, as in arriving at the imposable penalty, the following circumstances will be
considered by the Court:
1) Stages of the commission of the crime(C, F, A)
2) Degree of participation (P, Acco., Acce.)
3) Presence of Aggravating or mitigating circumstances;
4) Indeterminate Sentence law
5) Probation (if the penalty does not exceed 6 yrs)

Article 62: Rules for Application of Penalties with Regard to Mitigating & Aggravating
Circumstances

Effects of the attendance of mitigating and aggravating circumstances and habitual

delinquency:
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 therefore shall not be taken into account for the purpose of
increasing the penalty;
a) Those which in themselves constitute a crime especially punishable by law
Example: “Explosion” (Art. 14, par. 12) - Art. 324 - Crimes involving
Destruction (now amended by PD 1613 - Law on Arson); “by means of fire”-
crime of Arson.
b) Those included by law in defining the crime
Example: ”Abuse of confidence” (Art. 14, par. 4) - crimes of Qualified Theft
(Art. 310) and Estafa (Art. 315).
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 2 or more persons
collaborating, confederating or mutually helping one another for purposes of gain in
the commission of any crime (As am. by RA 7659).
2) The same rule shall apply with respect to any aggravating circumstances inherent
in the crime to such degree that it must of necessity accompany the commission
thereof.
Example: Evident premeditation - Art. 14, par. 13 - crimes of Robbery w/
Force Upon Things (Art. 299) and Murder (Art. 248).
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 each circumstances are attendant.
a) Moral attributes of the offender - Passion or obfuscation – If A and B killed
C and A acted with passion, such mitigating circumstance will only affect A.
In rape - relationship as aggravating circumstance will be appreciated only
against the person who is related to the victim.
 In Adultery - abandonment of the wife by the husband mitigates not only the
liability of the wife, but also of her paramour because in Adultery, the act is
one, juridically (Pp. vs. Avelino – 40 O.G. 115).
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
the persons only who had knowledge of them at the time of the execution of the act
or their cooperation therein.
a) Material execution of the act
Example: If A cooperated with B in the killing of C who killed the latter with
ignominy. Such will aggravate not only the liability of B but also of A, if he has
knowledge of it at the time of the execution of the act.
b) Means to accomplish the crime
Example: A induced B to kill C. A left to B the means he might employ to
execute the act. B killed with treachery. Such aggravating circumstance will
affect B only (Pp. vs. Otero - 51 Phil. 201). But if A was present when B was
killed, such aggravating circumstance will also affect him. In a Per Curiam
decision, the Supreme Court held that since there was conspiracy, the law
should be appreciated against the mastermind as a generic aggravating
circumstance even when he was not present when the crime was committed.
The Otero case was not held applicable as in that case the accused was
convicted as principal by inducement without proof of conspiracy with the
other accused. In conspiracy, the rule is, every conspirator is responsible for
the acts of the other accused (Pp. vs. Pareja - 30 SCRA - 693).
5) Effects of Habitual Delinquency

Article 63: Rules for the Application of Indivisible Penalties

1) Penalty is single and indivisible - penalty shall be applied regardless of the

presence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances. Death or Reclusion Perpetua.
2) Penalty is composed of two indivisible penalties - Reclusion Perpetua to Death.
i) one aggravating cir. present- higher penalty – Death
ii) no mit. nor agg. cir. present- lesser penalty – Reclusion Perpetua
iii) one mit. cir. present- lesser penalty – Reclusion Perpetua.
2) When both agg. and mit. are present, the courts shall reasonably allow them to
offset one another in consideration of their number and importance.

Article 64: Rules for the Application of Divisible Penalties

1) No aggravating and no mitigating circumstance - medium period;

2) One mitigating - minimum period;
3) One aggravating – maximum period;
4) Mitigating and aggravating circumstances are present – offset each other.
5) Two or more mitigating and no aggravating - one degree lower.
6) Any number of aggravating circumstances – penalty cannot exceed the penalty
provided by the law in its maximum period.

Cases wherein Article 64 do not apply:

1) Penalty that is single and indivisible;
2) Felonies thru negligence;
3) Penalty is fine;
4) Penalty is prescribed by special law.

Act 4103: Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISL)

Purpose: Is to uplift and redeem valuable human material and prevent unnecessary
and excessive deprivation of personal liberty and economic usefulness (Pp. vs.
Onate - 78 SCRA 43).

As a rule, it is intended to favor the accused particularly to shorten his term of

imprisonment, depending upon his behavior and his physical, mental, and moral
record as a prisoner to be determined by the Board of Pardon and Parole.

Covers crimes punishable under the RPC or SPL:

a) RPC
Minimum - one degree next lower to the penalty imposed. The term of the
minimum is left to the discretion of the court and this discretion is unqualified.
The only limitation is that it is within the range of the penalty next lower in
degree to that prescribed by the RPC for the offense committed.
Maximum – the penalty imposed as provided by law.
b) SPL
Maximum term of the indeterminate sentence shall not exceed the maximum
fixed by law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum prescribed
by law.
Penalty 1 year to 5 years - (1 year to 3 years or 3 years to 5 years)

ISL will not apply in the following cases:

1) Offenses punished by Death or RP
2) Those convicted of Treason, Conspiracy or Proposal To Commit Treason,
Misprision of Treason, Rebellion, Sedition, Espionage, & Piracy.
3) Habitual Delinquents
4) Those who escaped from confinement;
5) Those granted with conditional pardon and who violated the term of the same;
6) Those whose maximum period does not exceed one year.
7) Those already serving final judgment upon the approval of this act.

Rationale: After serving the minimum term, the prisoner may be released on parole.

Examples:
1) Convicted of Homicide - Reclusion Temporal – 12 years and 1 day to 20 years.
Accused – principal
Crime is consummated
Maximum – 17 years, 4 mos. & 1 day to 20 years;
Medium – 14 years, 8 mos. & 1 day to 17 years and 4 mos.
Minimum – 12 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 mos.
Prision Mayor - 6 years & 1 day to 12 yrs;
Max. - 10 years & 1 day to 12 years
Med. - 8 years & 1 day to 10 years
Min. - 6 years & 1 day to 8 years
Prision Correccional - 6 mos. & 1 day to 6 yrs.
Max. - 4 yrs., 2 mos. & 1 day to 6 yrs.
Med. - 2 yrs., 4 mos. & 1 day to 4 yrs. 2 mos.
Min. - 6 mos. & 1 day to 2 yrs. & 4 mos.
During the trial, he pleaded guilty – (Plea of guilt is an ordinary mitigating
circ.)
12 years and 1 day to 14 years & 8 mos.
Applying the ISL - one degree for the minimum
Prision Mayor min. – 6 yrs and 1 day to 8 yrs.
 Penalty - 6 yrs. & 1 day of PM in its min. period as its minimum to 14 years &
8 mos. of RT in its min. period as its maximum.

Probation – PD 968 as amended

Is a disposition under which a defendant, after conviction and sentence, is released

subject to the conditions imposed by the court and to the supervision of a probation
officer (for those imposed the penalty of 6 years and below).

Article 67: Increasing or Reducing the Penalty of Fines

A) If the law prescribes the minimum as well as the maximum - the court cannot
impose a fine next higher.
Example:
Fine of P200 to P1, 000 (each degree will be equal to ¼ of P1,000 or
P250.00. P250.00 added to P1, 000 to determine the next higher in degree
without changing the minimum of P200 = P 200 to P1, 250.
Fine next lower in degree = P200 to P750.00
B) If the law imposing the fine does not fix the minimum, the determination of the fine
is left to the discretion of the court, provided that it shall not exceed the authorized
maximum - P4,000 ( P200 or P2,000)
Circumstances to be considered by the court:
1) Mitigating or agg. circs
2) Wealth or means of the culprit
3) Gravity or seriousness of the charge.
(Nizurtado vs. Sandiganbayan – the SC reduced the P10, 000 fine to P2, 000
because of the presence of mitigating circumstance.)

EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY

How is criminal liability extinguished?

1) Totally
2) Partially

Article 89: Total Extinction of Criminal Liability

1) By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties, and as to pecuniary

penalties, liability therefore is extinguished only when the death of the offender
occurs before final judgment;
2) By service of the sentence;
3) By amnesty, which completely extinguishes the penalty and all its effect;
4) By absolute pardon;
5) By prescription of the crime;
6) By prescription of the penalty;
7) By the marriage of the offended woman, as provided in Art. 344 of this Code.

A) DEATH
The criminal and civil liabilities are extinguished if the offender dies before
final judgment (Pp. vs. Jose, et a l- June 17, l976).
This is so, as when death occurs, nobody will serve the penalty for the crime
(Pp. vs. Bayotas- Sept. l994-55 SCAD & Petralba vs. Sandiganbayan- Aug.
16, l991).

What is “Final Judgment”?

“Sentencia firma” should be understood as one which is definite. The legal
import of the term final judgment is similarly reflected in Articles 72 & 78 of
this Code, which mention the term final judgment in the sense that it is
already enforceable. Also Sec. 7 of Rule ll6 of the Rules of Court states that a
judgment in a criminal case becomes final after the lapse of the period for
perfecting an appeal for when the sentence has been partially or totally
satisfied or served or the defendant has expressly waived in writing the right
to appeal.

Judgment becomes final when:

1) No appeal is seasonably perfected;
2) Accused commences to serve the sentence;
3) Right to appeal is expressly waived in writing, except where death penalty
was imposed by the trial court; and
4) Accused applies for probation, thereby waiving his right to appeal (Pp. vs.
Salle- Dec. l995 - En banc- 66 SCAD).

If death however, occurs after final judgment, the pecuniary liabilities devolve
upon the heirs only if some properties are left.

Article 89, par. 1 applies only if the civil liability arises from the criminal liability
as its sole basis (Article 100 - “Every person criminally liable for a felony is
also civilly liable”). However, it cannot apply if the civil liability arises not only
from the crime but from another source like a contract of purchase and sale.
Example:
The accused was convicted of Estafa for selling a parcel of land twice.
Pending appeal, he died. His civil liability was not extinguished as it arose out
of the contract of sale.

Under the Civil Code, the civil liability of the accused remains as this civil
liability is independent of his criminal liability. If the accused dies while his
case is pending appeal, the motion for recovery of money may not be
dismissed; but when he dies before final judgment by the trial court, the
money claim should be presented before the probate or intestate court
(Torrijos vs. CA- L-40336, 67 SCRA 394).

The possible civil liability of the deceased accused can be determined in the
exercise of appellate jurisdiction arising from the alleged criminal acts
complained of as if no criminal case has been instituted against him and Art.
30 of the Civil Code will apply in determining his civil liability (Pp. vs.
Sendaydiego - Jan. 20, l978). This rule was applied in the case of Pp. vs.
Tirol- L-30588- Jan. 31, l981- where one of the accused-appellants died
pending appeal, the case was dismissed as to his criminal liability, but the
appeal was to be resolved concerning him to determine his criminal liability as
the basis of his civil liability for which his estate may be liable (Pp. vs. Naboa-
132 SCRA 410).

Does Art. 30 of the Civil Code authorize the appellate court to continue
exercising appellate jurisdiction over the accused’s civil liability ex-delicto
when his death supervenes during appeal?
No. What Art. 30 recognizes is an alternative and separate civil action which
may be brought to demand civil liability from a criminal offense independently
of any criminal action.
 The intendment of Article 100 on civil liability ex-delicto is rooted in the court’s
pronouncement of the guilt or innocence of the accused. Death dissolves all
things (“Mors omnia solvi”).

Article 30 refers to the institution of a separate civil action that does not draw
its life from a criminal proceeding.

How about the death of the offended party?

The death of the offended party does not extinguish criminal liability, as it is
not included in Art. 89. Neither is it mentioned as one of the grounds for a
Motion to Quash under the Rules on Criminal Procedure (Pp. vs. Bandalian -
117 SCRA 718).

B) SERVICE OF SENTENCE

Article 89 of the RPC stipulates that the penalties consisting of deprivation of

liberty shall be executed and served in the places and penal establishments
provided by the Administrative Code in force or which may be provided by
law. The Code thus requires that the service of sentence be in a penal
institution (Martin vs. Eduardo – 121 SCRA). Thus the period during which the
accused was at large during his escapes from the jail cannot be included in
the service of his sentences in fixing the date of his release (Ibid).

C) AMNESTY

Amnesty - is an act of the sovereign power granting oblivion or a general

pardon for a past offense, and is rarely, if ever, exercised in favor of a single
individual, and is usually exercised in behalf of a certain class of persons,
who are subject to trial but have not yet been convicted.

Amnesty extinguishes the criminal liability & not merely the penalty but also
its effects. But the civil liability is not extinguished.

D) ABSOLUTE PARDON

Two kinds of pardon:

1) PARDON BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE (Article 36)
Pardon- is an act of grace proceeding from the power entrusted with
the execution of the laws which exempts the individual on whom it is
bestowed from the punishment the law inflicts for the crime he has
committed.
2 kinds:
a) Absolute
b) Conditional
a) An ABSOLUTE PARDON extinguishes criminal liability of the
offender. But this does not exempt the offender from the payment of
the civil indemnity imposed in the sentence. It does not also restore
the right to hold public office or the right of suffrage unless such rights
are expressly restored by the terms of the pardon.

A pardon to be effective, must be delivered and accepted. The pardon

given by the President upon the woman convicted of Adultery affects
her only and cannot benefit the paramour (U.S. vs. Guarin- 30 Phil.
85).
When may the right to hold public office and to exercise suffrage be
considered restored although not expressly stated in the pardon?
Only in a case when the pardon is granted after the offender has
served the term of imprisonment, because such conviction removes all
that is left on the consequence of conviction (Cristobal vs. Labrado –
71 Phil. 34). This is the exception to the provisions of the law, that is,
where the facts and circumstances of the case clearly show that the
purpose of the Chief Executive is precisely to restore rights although
not expressly stated in the pardon (Pelobello vs. Palatino- 72 Phil.
441).

Limitations of the pardoning power of the President:

1) Such power does not extend in cases of impeachment.
2) The power can only be exercised after conviction.
3) In election offenses, it can be exercised only upon prior
recommendation of the COMELEC.

What is the effect of an appeal of judgment of conviction on the

pardoning power of the President?
An appeal brings the entire case within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
appellate court. A becoming regard for the doctrine of separation of
powers demands that such exclusive authority of the appellate court
be fully respected and kept unimpaired. Had not the present
Constitution adopted the “conviction by final judgment” limitation, the
President could, at any time and even without the knowledge of the
court, extend executive clemency to anyone whom he in good faith or
otherwise believes to merit presidential mercy. To allow the President
to do so, will be a derogation of the jurisdiction of the appellate court.

If an appeal is filed, an appellant may be granted pardon, but he must

first withdraw his appeal, i.e. the appealed conviction must first be
brought to finality.

b) CONDITIONAL PARDON (Art. 94 - par.1) - This must be accepted

to be efficacious because of the conditions imposed which must be
complied strictly.

A Conditional Pardon is in the nature of a contract between the

sovereign power or the Chief Executive and the convicted criminal to
the effect that the former will release the latter subject to the condition
that if he does not comply with the terms of the pardon, he will be
recommitted to prison to serve the unexpired portion of the sentence
or an additional one (Alvarez vs. Dir. Of Prison – 80 Phil. 50). By the
pardonee’s consent to the terms stipulated in the contract, the
pardonee has placed himself under the supervision of the Chief
Executive or his delegate who is duty-bound to see to it that the
pardonee complies with the terms and conditions of the pardon. Under
Sec. 64 (i) of the Revised Administrative Code, the Chief Executive is
authorized to order “the arrest & re-incarceration of any such person
who, in his judgment, shall fail to comply with the condition/s of his
pardon (Torres vs. Dir. of Bureau of Corrections- Dec. l995- 66 SCAD)
and he can be prosecuted under Art. 159 of the RPC.
 May the grant of pardon be subject to the review of the courts?
No. It is now a well-entrenched rule in this jurisdiction that this
exercise of presidential judgment is beyond judicial review. The
determination of the violation of the conditional pardon rests
exclusively in the sound judgment of the Chief Executive. The
pardonee, having consented to place his liberty on conditional pardon
upon the judgment of the power that has granted it cannot invoke the
aid of the courts, however erroneous the findings may be upon which
his recommendation was ordered (Tesoro vs. Dir. of Prisons- 68 Phil.
154).

Is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus the remedy for a person

incarcerated because of violation of the terms of the conditional
pardon? No. Habeas Corpus lies only when the restraint of a person’s
liberty has been judicially adjudged as illegal or unlawful. Solely
vested in the Chief Executive, who in the first place was the exclusive
author of the conditional pardon and its revocation, is the corollary
prerogative to reinstate the pardon.

Conditional pardon does not also extinguish civil liability (Monsanto vs.
Factoran, Jr. - 170 SCRA l989 & Pp. vs. Nacional- Sept. l995 - 64
SCAD).

2) PARDON BY THE OFFENDED PARTY (Article 23)

This does not extinguish criminal liability, except in Art. 266-C and Art. 344 of
the RPC (amendment of the Anti-Rape Law), which requires a valid marriage
between the rapist and the victim to effect an extinguishment of criminal
liability. But civil liability is extinguished by express waiver of the offended
party.

The criminal action in public crimes is not extinguished. Thus, the criminal
liability for Estafa is not affected by the compromise or novation of contract,
for it is a public offense which must be prosecuted and punished by the
government in its own motion even though complete reparation should have
been made of the damages suffered by the offended party (Javier vs. Pp. - 70
Phil. 550).

Reimbursement of, or compromise as to the amount of the crime affects only

the civil liability but does not relieve him from the penalty prescribed by the
law for the offense committed (Pp. vs. Miranda - G.R.No. L- 16122).

Regarding private crimes, which are mentioned under Art. 344, like Rape,
Seduction, Abduction, Acts of Lasciviousness, Adultery and Concubinage, the
criminal action is barred if:
a) the pardon is made before the institution of the action;
b) in Adultery & Concubinage, the pardon must refer to both offenders, which
may either be expressed or implied;
c) in Rape, and other private crimes, the pardon must be expressed (Pp. vs.
Infante- 57 Phil. 138);
d) the marriage between the offender and the offended party totally
extinguishes the criminal liability of the offender.
 In Rape cases, the pardon given by the parents of the minor victim to be
effective must have the concurrence of the minor victim herself (Art. 266-C
R.A. 8353).

Pp. vs. Lacson, Jr - The pardon given by the parents cannot stand alone. This
is inefficacious. This is not sufficient to remove the criminal responsibility of
the offender. Rather, this must be accompanied by the express pardon of the
victim herself (U.S. vs. Luna -1 Phil. 360 & Pp. vs. Tadulan - April l997- 81
SCAD).

What is the effect of an affidavit of desistance?

An affidavit of desistance is merely an additional ground to buttress the
accused’s defenses, not the sole consideration that can result to acquittal.
There must be other circumstances which, when coupled with the retraction
or desistance, create doubts as to the truth of the testimony given by the
witnesses at the trial and accepted by the judge (Pp. vs. Ballabare- Nov. l996-
76 SCAD). All that the accused offered as defenses mainly consisted of
denial and alibi which cannot outweigh the positive identification and
convincing testimonies given by the prosecution (Pp. vs. Echegaray - Feb.
l997- 79 SCAD).

Pardon by the Chief Executive Distinguished from the Pardon by the Offended Party:
1) Pardon by the Chief Executive extinguishes criminal liability, whereas that is not
the case if the pardon is given by the offended party except in case of marriage, as it
only bars the institution of the criminal action;
2) Pardon by the Chief Executive is granted after conviction by final judgment,
whereas pardon given by the offended party is given before the institution of the
action;
3) Pardon by the Chief Executive cannot include the civil liability of the offender,
whereas the civil liability may be expressly waived by the offended party.

Distinction between Amnesty & Absolute Pardon:

1) Application
Amnesty – generally to political crimes & offenders
Pardon – generally to ordinary crimes & offenders
2) Effect
Amnesty – obliterates the effects of conviction as if the act were not criminal
Pardon – relieves the offender of penalty but the effects of conviction stay
3) Congress
Amnesty – concurrence required
Pardon – concurrence not required
4) When given
Amnesty – even before conviction
Pardon – after final conviction
5) To whom given
Amnesty – usually to class of persons
Pardon – specific individual

E) PRESCRIPTION OF CRIME (Article 90)

Prescription of crime – It is the forfeiture or loss of the right of the State to

prosecute the offender after the lapse of a certain time fixed by law.
Prescriptive periods:
a) Death, Reclusion Perpetua and Reclusion Temporal – 20 years
b) Afflictive penalties – 15 years
c) Correctional penalties – 10 years
Arresto Mayor – 5 years
d) Libel or other similar offenses – 1 year
e) Oral Defamation & Slander By Deed – 6 mos.
f) Light offenses – 2 mos.
g) Compound crime – highest penalty shall be made the basis.

Article 91: Computation of Prescription of Offenses

The period of prescription shall commence to run from the day on which the
crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities or their agents, and
shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information, and shall
commence to run again when such proceedings terminate without the
accused being convicted or acquitted, or are unjustifiably stopped for any
reason not imputable to him. The term of prescription shall not run when the
offender is absent from the Philippine Archipelago.

Prescriptive period is not waivable. Since it is for the benefit of the accused,
this cannot be extended. Once prescription sets in, the court loses its
jurisdiction.

In computing the period of prescription, the first day is excluded and the last
day is included (Pp. vs. Galano - 75 SCRA 193).

February 28 and 29 of a leap year as held in Namarco vs. Tuazon, should be

counted as separate days in computing the prescriptive period.

When the last day to file an Information falls on Sunday or legal holiday, the
period of prescription cannot be extended to the next working day. So, this
should be filed on the last working day before the legal holiday (Yapdiangco
vs. Buencamino, et al – 122 SCRA 713).

What is the effect of the delay in the reporting of crimes in its prosecution?
None. The law on prescription would be meaningless if we were to yield to the
proposition that delay in the prosecution of crimes would be fatal to the State
and the offended party. In fixing the different prescriptive periods on the basis
of the gravity of the penalty prescribed therefore, the law takes into account or
allows reasonable delays in the prosecution thereof. In the case of Pp. vs.
Gecomo -254 SCRA- the court ruled that 17 days, 35 days or even 6 mos.
delay by a rape victim in reporting the attack on her honor does not detract
from the veracity of her charge.

Who is the offended party referred to in Art. 91?

State or the private complainant. The law does not make any distinction
between a private crime or public crime. In both cases then, the discovery
may be by the offended party, the authorities or their agents (Garcia vs. CA-
Jan. l997- 78 SCAD). Besides, under Sec. 12, Rule 110 of the Rules on
Criminal Procedure, the offended party is defined as the party to whom the
offender is civilly liable. Furthermore, under Art. 100, it is expressly stated
that “every person criminally liable is civilly liable”.
 The prescriptive is interrupted upon the filing of the case before the
Prosecutor’s Office or that of the Office of the Ombudsman (Francisco vs.
CA).

The prescriptive periods for the crimes punished under SPL - basis is Act no.
3326 - Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the commission of the
violation of the law and if the same be not known at the time, from the
discovery thereof, and the institution of judicial proceedings for its
investigation and punishment (Presl. Ad Hoc Committee on Behest Loans vs.
Ombudsman- August 2001).

Sec. 52 of PD 1529 (Property Registration Decree) – provides for constructive

notice. Knowledge is counted at the time of registration. This constructive
notice, in view of registration, does not apply to the registration of the
marriage contract in the crime of bigamy. This is so, as bigamous marriage is
really entered in secrecy in order to conceal the legal impediment (Pp. vs.
Reyes- July 1989).

Can brief trips abroad qualify as “absence” as contemplated under Art. 91?
No. This is not the absence referred to in said article, as these trips were very
brief.
Example: Slight Physical Injuries-inflicted on July 20, 2009- prescriptive
period is 2 mos.
a) If committed by a public official in relation to office – no need of going to
the Lupong Tagapamayapa
– 31 days for July
- 20 60 – 42= 18 days
-------- September 18, 2009 - last
11 - July day of filing
31- August
---------
42 days

b) If not a public official or a public official and the act is not in relation to
office – undergo a conciliation at the Lupong Tagapamayapa. Filing of the
complaint at the barangay will toll the running of the prescriptive period but
only for 60 days and thereafter, the prescriptive period will again run.

F) PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTY (Article 92)

Prescription of penalty - It is the loss or forfeiture of the right of the

government to execute the final sentence after the lapse of a certain time
fixed by law.

Prescriptive periods of penalties:

1) Death & Reclusion Perpetua- 20 years
2) Other afflictive penalties- 15 years
3) Correctional penalties – 10 years,
except Arresto Mayor – 5 years
4) Light penalties – 1 year

Article 93: Computation of Prescription of Penalty

 Period commences to run from the date the culprit evades the service of sentence. It
is interrupted:
a) if the defendant surrenders;
b) if he is captured;
c) if he should go to foreign country with which the Philippines has no extradition
treaty;
d) if he should commit another crime before the expiration of the period of
prescription.

Evasion of sentence is an essential element of prescription of penalties and takes

place before the running of the period and cannot interrupt it.

Article 94: Partial Extinction of Criminal Liability

1) Conditional pardon
2) Commutation of the sentence
3) Good conduct allowance which the culprit may earn while he is serving his
sentence.
4) Parole (Under ISL)
5) Probation
6) Partial repeal of penal law

Article 96: Commutation of Sentence

The commutation of the original sentence for another of a different length and nature
shall have the legal effect of substituting the latter in the place of the former.

It is the change in the sentence of the court made by the President which consists in
reducing the penalty imposed upon the offender. Such substitutes the original
penalty.

Article 97: Allowance for Good Conduct

The good conduct of a prisoner in any penal institution shall entitle him to the
following deductions from the period of his sentence:
1) First two years – 5 days for each month of good behavior
2) Third to fifth year - 8 days for each mo.
3) Following years to the 10th year - 10 days each mo.
4) Eleventh year and successive years – 15 days for each mo.

The allowance is given in consideration of the good conduct of the prisoner while
serving his sentence (Pp. vs. Martin-68 Phil. 122).

These allowances are granted by the Director of Prisons and once given, these
cannot be revoked (ARTICLE 99).

This right can be enjoyed even though the prisoner has been sentenced to several
penalties and the same have been cut down by Article 70 to three times the most
severe of the penalties.

This does not embrace detention prisoners. Detention prisoners are entitled only to
preventive imprisonment, if he agreed in writing to abide by the rules of the jail
(Baking vs. Director of Prisons, et al. L-30603-28 SCRA 851).
Article 98: Special Time Allowance For Loyalty

A deduction of one-fifth of the period of his sentence shall be granted to any prisoner
who, having evaded the service of his sentence under the circumstances mentioned
in Art. 158 of this Code, gives himself up to the authorities within 48 hours following
the issuance of a proclamation announcing the passing away of the calamity or
catastrophe referred to in said articles.

When is the special time allowance given?

1) The occurrence of disorder resulting from a conflagration, earthquake, explosion
or similar catastrophe or a mutiny in which the prisoner did not participate;
2) The convict must evade the service of his sentence. This article does not apply to
the prisoners who did not escape (Lozada vs. Acenas – 78 Phil. 226);
3) He must give himself up w/n 48 hours after the issuance of a proclamation by the
President announcing the passing away of such calamity.

Loyalty award - 1/5 deduction of the period of his sentence. If he does not return,
additional 1/5 of the term remaining to be served will be imposed, but not to exceed 6
months.

Article 48: Penalty for Complex Crime

Two kinds of complex crimes:

1) Compound (Delito Compuesto)
When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies;
2) Complex Crime Proper ( Delito Complejo)
When an offense is a necessary means of committing another crime.

Compound Crimes:
Single act results to:
a) two or more grave felonies
Example:
Pp. vs. Guillen – 47 O.G. 3433 - single
• Act of throwing a hand grenade resulted to the killing of several
persons (Murder w/ Multiple Frustrated & Attempted Murders);
• One single shot killed two persons- Double Homicide. (Pp. vs. Pama-
44 O.G. 3339);
• When a person planted a bomb in the airplane and it exploded –
several murders and damage to property (Pp. vs. Largo – 99 Phil. 1061);
• Where a paper bag was given by the accused to the occupant of the
house containing some vegetables but when opened it exploded resulting
to the death of several persons and injuring another – complex crime of
Murder with Frustrated Murder (Pp. vs. Villaflores – 115 SCRA 570).