Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Justifying Circumstances
(32 Questions)
RPC, Book 1
Aggravating
Circumstances
(27 Questions)
RPC, Book 1
Proximate Cause
(20 Questions)
RPC, Book 1
Ordinary Mitigating
Circumstances
(19 Questions)
RPC, Book 1
Indeterminate
Sentence Law
(17 Questions)
RPC, Book 1
Exempting
Circumstances
(16 Questions)
RPC, Book 1
Complex Crimes
(15 Questions)
Others RPC, Book 1
Others RPC, Book 1
TOPIC # of
Questions
Impossible Crime 10
Stages of Commission 9
Conspiracy 9
Privileged Mitigating Circumstances 9
Civil Liability 6
Territoriality 5
Accessories Exempt from Criminal 5
Liability
Penalty, Complex Crimes 5
Reclusion Perpetua vs. Life 5
Imprisonment
Light Felonies 4
Preventive Imprisonment 4
Prescription of Offense 4
Penalty, Habitual Delinquency 4
TOPIC # of
Questions
Intent vs. Motive 4
Entrapment vs. Instigation 4
Effect of Pardon 4
nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege 3
Definition of Felony 3
Alternative Circumstances 3
Classes of Penalty 3
Extinguishment of Civil Liability upon 3
acquittal
Pardon and Disqualification 3
Pecuniary Liabilities 3
Application of Penalty in Relation to 3
ISL
Subsidiary Liability of Employers 3
Motive 3
Cardinal Principles of Criminal Law 2
Others RPC, Book 1
TOPIC # of
Questions
Limits on Power of Congress 2
Diplomatic Immunity from Criminal 2
Prosecution
Mitigating Circumstances / Voluntary 2
Surrender
Qualifying Circumstances 2
Computation of prescription of 2
offenses
Prescription of penalty 2
Application of Indivisible Penalties 2
Subsidiary penalty 2
Justifying
Circumstances
(32 Questions)
Justifying Circumstances (Art. 11)
Facts: The accused confessed killing the victim but claimed that he
did so only to defend himself and his father. During trial, it was
shown by the post-mortem examination that the victim had
sustained a total of seven wounds: two incised wounds and five
hack wounds. Three of the hack wounds were inflicted on victim’s
neck, one of which fatally extended to and cut the trachea,
esophagus, and the carotid and jugular vessels that supplied blood
to the heart and brain of the victim. The medico-legal expert,
opined at the trial that the injuries were possibly sustained by the
victim from the assailant who was behind him and while he was
already down. Both RTC and CA rejected the claim of self-defense.
Justifying Circumstances (Art. 11)
People v. Mediado
(G.R. No. 169871, 2 February 2011, J. Bersamin)
Held: The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the CA. The
nature, number, and gravity of the victim’s wounds spoke not
of defense on the part accused but of a criminal intent to kill
the victim. Furthermore, accused did not support his claim that
the victim had committed aggression by punching the former’s
father and by throwing stones at him and his father. He and his
father were not able to identify any weapon used by the victim
aside from the stone that he supposedly picked up from the
ground. He did not establish with clear and convincing proof
that the victim had assaulted him or his father as to pose to
either of them an imminent threat of great harm before he
mounted his own attack on the victim.
Justifying Circumstances (Art. 11)
People v. Mediado
(G.R. No. 169871, 2 February 2011, J. Bersamin)
Held:
An accused who asserts self-defense admits his
infliction of the fatal blows and bears the burden of
satisfactorily establishing all the elements of self-defense.
Otherwise, his conviction for the felony of murder or
homicide will be affirmed.
Justifying Circumstances (Art. 11)
People v. Nestor Roxas (G.R. No. 218396, 10 February 2016)
Held: After taking into account the location and the number of stab
wounds sustained by the victim, the accused-appellant's claim of self-
defense further crumbles. To reiterate, the first stab blow hit Severino's
back jibing with Vicente's assertion that the former was stabbed from
behind. Then, when the victim was totally caught by surprise with the
initial attack, the second and third stab blows were delivered.
Additionally, the number of wounds suffered by Severino invalidates the
accused-appellant's allegation that he was only defending himself for the
number of wounds inflicted are rather demonstrative of deliberate and
criminal intent to end the life of the victim. Likewise weakening accused
appellant's contention that he acted in self-defense was his behavior
immediately after the incident. In the case at bar, the accused-appellant
himself admitted that upon seeing the victim lying on the ground, he
boarded a jeep to go to his sister's place in San Pascual, Batangas before
moving to Bicol where he hid from the authorities for several years. The
accused-appellant's flight negates his plea of self-defense and indicates
his guilt.
Justifying Circumstances (Art. 11)
Toledo v. People (439 SCRA 94 [2004])
Held: The Court ruled that it is an aberration for Toledo to invoke
that his bolo accidentally hit the stomach of the victim and that
he was able to prove all the essential elements of self defense
because the said defenses are intrinsically antithetical. There is no
such defense as accidental self-defense in the realm of criminal
law.
The court further ruled that Toledo was not justified in stabbing
Ricky. There was no imminent threat to his life necessitating his
assault. Records reveal that there is no unlawful agression, a
condition sine qua non for the justifying circumstance of self
defense, on the part of Ricky. Ricky arrived at Toledo’s house
unarmed. With no weapon to attack Toledo or defend himself, no
sign of hostility may be deduced from him.
Justifying Circumstances (Art. 11)
2. Defense of Relatives: Any one who acts in
defense of the person or rights of his spouse,
ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural
or adopted brothers or sisters, or his relatives x
x x (Art. 11, par. 2).
1. Unlawful aggression;
REQUISITES:
1. Unlawful aggression;
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it;
3. The person defending be not induced by revenge,
resentment or other evil motive.
Justifying Circumstances (Art. 11)
4. Avoidance of a Greater Evil: Any person
who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does not
act which causes damage to another (Art. 11, par.
4).
REQUISITES:
1. That the evil sought to be avoided actually
exists;
2. That the injury feared be greater than that done
to avoid it;
3. That there be no other practical and less
harmful means of preventing it.
Justifying Circumstances (Art. 11)
People v. Ricohermoso (56 SCRA 431 [1974])
Facts: The land Ricohermoso cultivated belonged to Geminiano.
When the latter went to the house of the former, as if by
prearrangement, Ricohermoso unsheathed his bolo and
approached Geminiano from the left while Severo (Rico’s father-
in-law) got an axe and approached from the right. Rico stabbed
Geminiano first and while in a helpless position, the latter was
hacked on the back by Severo. At that same place and time while
the killing of Geminiano was taking place, Juan (son of Severo)
suddenly embraced Marianito (son of Geminiano), who had a
gun slung on his shoulder, from behind. They grappled and rolled
downhill towards the camote patch. Marianito passed out and
when he regained consciousness, his rifle was gone. He walked
uphill and saw his father. Geminiano died later. Juan invoked the
justifying circumstance of greater necessity in explaining his act
of preventing Marianito from shooting Rico and Severo.
Justifying Circumstances (Art. 11)
People v. Ricohermoso (56 SCRA 431 [1974])
REQUISITES:
1. That the accused acted in the performance of a
duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office;
2. That the injury caused or the offense committed
be the necessary consequence of the due
performance of duty or the lawful exercise of such
right or office.
Justifying Circumstances (Art. 11)
People v. Ulep (340 SCRA 688 [2000])
Accused-appellant and the other police officers involved
originally set out to perform a legal duty: to render police assistance,
and restore peace and order at Mundog Subdivision where the victim
was then running amuck. There were two (2) stages of the incident at
Mundog Subdivision. During the first stage, the victim threatened the
safety of the police officers by menacingly advancing towards them,
notwithstanding accused-appellant's previous warning shot and verbal
admonition to the victim to lay down his weapon or he would be shot.
As a police officer, it is to be expected that accused-appellant would
stand his ground. Up to that point, his decision to respond with a
barrage of gunfire to halt the victim's further advance was justified
under the circumstances. After all, a police officer is not required to
afford the victim the opportunity to fight back. Neither is he expected
– when hard pressed and in the heat of such an encounter at close
quarters – to pause for a long moment and reflect coolly at his peril, or
to wait after each blow to determine the effects thereof.
Justifying Circumstances (Art. 11)
People v. Ulep (340 SCRA 688 [2000])
However, he cannot be exonerated from overdoing his duty
during the second stage of the incident — when he fatally shot the
victim in the head, even after the latter slumped to the ground
due to multiple gunshot wounds sustained while charging at the
police officers. Sound discretion and restraint dictated that
accused-appellant, a veteran policeman, should have ceased firing
at the victim the moment he saw the latter fall to the ground. The
victim at that point no longer posed a threat and was already
incapable of mounting an aggression against the police officers.
Shooting him in the head was obviously unnecessary.
The law does not clothe police officers with authority to
arbitrarily judge the necessity to kill- it must be stressed that their
judgment and discretion as police officers in the performance of
their duties must be excercised neither capriciously nor
oppressively, but within reasonable limits.
Justifying Circumstances (Art. 11)
Pomoy v. People (439 SCRA 439 [2004])
Facts: Police sergeant Pomoy, went near the door of the jail
where Balboa was detained for robbery and directed the latter
to come out, purportedly for tactical interrogation at the
investigation room. At that time, petitioner had a gun, a .45
caliber pistol, tucked in a holster which was hanging by the side
of his belt. The gun was fully embedded in its holster, with only
the handle of the gun protruding from the holster. Balboa tried
to remove Pomoy’s gun and the two grappled for possession of
the gun. Thereafter, 2 gunshots were heard. When the source of
the shots was verified, petitioner was seen still holding a .45
caliber pistol, facing Balboa, who was lying in a pool of blood.
Pomoy invoked the defense of accident for his defense.
Justifying Circumstances (Art. 11)
Pomoy v. People (439 SCRA 439 [2004])
Held: Pomoy is acquitted. At the time of the incident, petitioner was a
member — specifically, one of the investigators — of the Philippine
National Police (PNP) stationed at the Iloilo Provincial Mobile Force
Company. Thus, he was in the lawful performance of his duties as
investigating officer that, under the instructions of his superior, he
fetched the victim from the latter's cell for a routine interrogation.
The participation of petitioner, if any, in the victim's death was
limited only to acts committed in the course of the lawful
performance of his duties as an enforcer of the law. The removal of
the gun from its holster, the release of the safety lock, and the firing of
the two successive shots — all of which led to the death of the victim
— were sufficiently demonstrated to have been consequences of
circumstances beyond the control of petitioner. At the very least,
these factual circumstances create serious doubt on Pomoy’s
culpability.
Justifying Circumstances (Art. 11)
6. Obedience to an Order Issued for Some
Lawful Purpose: Any person who acts in
obedience to an order issued by a superior for
some lawful purpose (Art. 11, par. 6).
REQUISITES:
1. That an order has been issued by a superior.
2. That such order must be for some lawful
purpose.
3. That the means used by the subordinate to
carry out said order is lawful.
Justifying Circumstances (Art. 11)
Held:
The accused are acquitted. The accused is entitled to the
justifying circumstance of obedience to an order issued by a
superior for some lawful purpose. Sandiganbayan claimed that
Marcos’ memo was unlawful because it orders disbursement of
P55M when the Ongpin memo reveals that the liability is only
34.5M. Granting this to be true, it will not affect Tabuena’s good
faith as to make him criminally liable. Thus, even if the order is
illegal, if it is patently legal and the subordinate is not aware
of its illegality, the subordinate is not liable, for then there
would only be a mistake of fact committed in good faith.
Justifying Circumstances (Art. 11)
Tabuena v. Sandiganbayan (268 SCRA 332 [1997])
Held:
This is not a sheer case of blind and misguided
obedience, but obedience in good faith of a duly executed
order. Indeed, compliance to a patently lawful order is rectitude
far better than contumacious disobedience. In the case at
bench, the order emanated from the Office of the President and
bears the signature of the President himself, the highest official
of the land. It carries with it the presumption that it was
regularly issued. And on its face, the memorandum is patently
lawful for no law makes the payment of an obligation illegal.
This fact, coupled with the urgent tenor for its execution
constrains one to act swiftly without question. Obedientia est
legis essentia.
Justifying Circumstances
Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children
Act of 2004 (R.A. No. 9262)
Persons
Criminally Liable
(30 Questions)
Persons Criminally Liable
3. Principals By Indispensable
Cooperation: Those who cooperate
in the commission of the offense by
another act without which it would not
have been accomplished.
Persons Criminally Liable
Aggravating
Circumstances
(27 Questions)
Aggravating Circumstances (Art. 14)
The following are aggravating circumstances:
BY A BAND ABUSE OF
SUPERIOR
STRENGTH
When the offense is The gravamen of
committed by more abuse of superiority is
than 3 armed the taking advantage
malefactors regardless by the culprits of their
of the comparative collective strength to
strength of the victim. overpower their
weaker victims.
Aggravating Circumstances (Art. 14)
The following are aggravating circumstances:
IGNOMINY CRUELTY
Involves moral suffering Refers to physical
suffering
Aggravating Circumstances
Under P.D. 1866, as amended by R.A. No. 8294:
If homicide or murder is committed with the use of an
unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm shall
be considered as an aggravating circumstance (Sec. 1).
Proximate
Cause
(20 Questions)
Proximate Cause
• Rationale:
“el que es causa de la causa es causa del mal
causado”
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of
the evil caused”
Proximate Cause
19 Questions
RPC, Book 1
Ordinary
Mitigating
Circumstances
(19 Questions)
Ordinary Mitigating Circumstances (Art. 13)
Reyes v. People
G.R. No. 177105-06, 4 August 2010, J. Bersamin
PROVOCATION
- Any unjust or improper conduct or act of the offended
party, capable of exciting, inciting, or irritating anyone (Reyes, p.
266).
REQUISITES:
1. That the provocation must be sufficient
2. That it must originate from the offended party
3. That the provocation must be immediate to the act, i.e., to the
commission of the crime by the person who is provoked.
Ordinary Mitigating Circumstances (Art. 13)
PROVOCATION VINDICATION
It is made directly only to the The grave offense may be
person committing the offense committed also against the
offender’s relatives mentioned in
the law.
The cause that brought about the The offended party must have done
provocation need not be a grave a grave offense to the offender or
offense. his relatives mentioned in the law.
It is necessary that the The vindication of the grave offense
provocation or threat immediately may be proximate, which admits of
preceded the act. an interval of time between the
grave offense done by the offended
party and the commission of the
crime.
Ordinary Mitigating Circumstances (Art. 13)
REQUISITES:
1. The accused acted upon an impulse.
2. The impulse must be so powerful that it naturally
produce passion or obfuscation in him.
Ordinary Mitigating Circumstances (Art. 13)
REQUISITES:
1. That the illness of the offender must diminish the
exercise of his will-power.
2. That such illness should not deprive the offender of
consciousness of his acts.
17 Questions
RPC, Book 1
Indeterminate
Sentence Law
(17 Questions)
Indeterminate Sentence Law
• Special Laws:
16 Questions
RPC, Book 1
Exempting
Circumstances
(16 Questions)
Exempting Circumstances (Art. 12)
1. An Imbecile or Insane Person: An imbecile or
an insane person, unless the latter has acted
during a lucid interval (Art. 12, par. 1).
IMBECILE
• one who, while advanced in age, has a mental
development comparable to that of children between
2 and 7 years of age.
• one who is deprived completely of reason or
discernment and freedom of the will at the time of
committing the crime.
• exempt in all cases from criminal liability
Exempting Circumstances (Art. 12)
1. An Imbecile or Insane Person: An imbecile or
an insane person, unless the latter has acted
during a lucid interval (Art. 12, par. 1).
INSANE
• there is a complete deprivation of intelligence in
committing the act but capable of having lucid
intervals. During a lucid interval, the insane acts with
intelligence and thus, not exempt from criminal
liability.
Exempting Circumstances (Art. 12)
DISCERNMENT INTENT
Moral significance that a Desired act of the person
person ascribes to the said
act
ELEMENTS:
1. A person performing a lawful act;
2. With due care;
3. He causes an injury to another by mere accident; and
4. Without fault or intention of causing it.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the compulsion is by means of physical force;
2. That the physical force must be irresistible; and
3. That the physical force must come from a third
person.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the threat which causes the fear is of an evil
greater than or at least equal to, that which he is
required to commit;
2. That it promises an evil of such gravity and
imminence that the ordinary man would have
succumbed to it.
Exempting Circumstances (Art. 12)
6. Lawful or Insuperable Cause: Any person who
fails to perform an act required by law, when
prevented by some lawful or insuperable cause (Art.
12, par. 7).
ELEMENTS:
1. That an act is required by law to be done;
2. That a person fails to perform such act;
3. That his failure to perform such act was due to some
lawful or insuperable cause.
Complex Crimes
15 Questions
RPC, Book 1
Complex
Crimes
(15 Questions)
Complex Crimes and Special Complex
Crimes
Art. 48. Penalty for complex crimes. — When a
single act constitutes two or more grave or less
grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary
means for committing the other, the penalty for the
most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be
applied in its maximum period.
• Examples:
1. Robbery with Homicide (Art. 294 (1))
2. Robbery with Rape (Art. 294 (2))
3. Kidnapping with serious physical injuries (Art.
267 (3))
4. Rape with Homicide (Art. 335)
Complex Crimes and Special Complex
Crimes
People vs. Esugon
(G.R. No. 195244, 22 June 2015, J. Bersamin)
• In a composite crime, the composition of the offenses is fixed by
law, but in a complex or compound crime, the combination of
the offenses is not specified but generalized, that is, grave
and/or less grave, or one offense being the necessary means to
commit the other. In a composite crime, the penalty for the
specified combination of crimes is specific, but in a complex or
compound crime the penalty is that corresponding to the most
serious offense, to be imposed in the maximum period. A light
felony that accompanies the commission of a complex or
compound crime may be made the subject of a separate
information, but a light felony that accompanies a composite
crime is absorbed.
Complex Crimes and Special Complex
Crimes
Fransdilla vs. People
(GR No. 197562, 20 April 2015, J. Bersamin)
• In Sebastian case, when the elements of both robbery by means of
violence and intimidation and robbery by using force upon thing are
present, the accused shall be held liable of the former since the
controlling qualification is the violence and intimidation. However, the
penalty for robbery in inhabited house if the robber is armed is graver
than simple robbery. Hence, by hurting the victim, the offender shall
be penalized with a lighter penalty. Since Sebastian principle defies
logic and reason, People vs. Napolis, G.R. No. L-28865, February 28,
1972 abandoned it. Under the present rule, when the elements
of both robbery by means of violence and intimidation and robbery by
using force upon thing are present, the crime is a complex one under
Article 48 of said Code. Hence, the penalty for robbery in inhabited
house shall be imposed in its maximum period.
Complex Crimes and Special Complex
Crimes
De Castro vs. People
(G.R. No. 171672, 2 February 2015, J. Bersamin)
• The bank teller took advantage of the bank depositors who trusted her
enough to leave their passbooks with her upon her instruction.
Without their knowledge, however, she filled out withdrawal slips that
she signed, and misrepresented to her fellow bank employees that the
signatures had been verified in due course. Her misrepresentation to
her co-employees enabled her to receive the amounts stated in the
withdrawal slips. She thereby committed two crimes, namely: estafa,
by defrauding the bank, her employer, in the various sums withdrawn
from the bank accounts of depositors; and falsification of a commercial
document, by forging the signatures of depositor in the withdrawal
slips to make it appear that the depositor concerned had signed the
respective slips in order to enable her to withdraw the amounts. Such
offenses were complex crimes, because the estafa would not have
been consummated without the falsification of the withdrawal slips.
Impossible Crime
10 Questions
Others RPC, Book 1
TOPIC # of
Questions
Impossible Crime 10
Stages of Commission 9
Conspiracy 9
Privileged Mitigating Circumstances 9
Civil Liability 6
Territoriality 5
Accessories Exempt from Criminal 5
Liability
Penalty, Complex Crimes 5
Reclusion Perpetua vs. Life 5
Imprisonment
Light Felonies 4
Preventive Imprisonment 4
Prescription of Offense 4
Penalty, Habitual Delinquency 4
Held: Jacinto is not liable for the crime of qualified theft for
taking a check without value, as it was subsequently dishonored. Jacinto is
found liable for committing an impossible crime.
Held: Were it not for the fact that the check bounced, she would
have received the face value thereof, which was not rightfully hers.
Therefore, it was only due to the extraneous circumstance of the check
being unfunded, a fact unknown to petitioner at the time, that prevented
the crime from being produced. The thing unlawfully taken by petitioner
turned out to be absolutely worthless, because the check was eventually
dishonored, and Mega Foam had received the cash to replace the value of
said dishonored check.
Impossible Crime
9 Questions
Others RPC, Book 1
TOPIC # of
Questions
Impossible Crime 10
Stages of Commission 9
Conspiracy 9
Privileged Mitigating Circumstances 9
Civil Liability 6
Territoriality 5
Accessories Exempt from Criminal 5
Liability
Penalty, Complex Crimes 5
Reclusion Perpetua vs. Life 5
Imprisonment
Light Felonies 4
Preventive Imprisonment 4
Prescription of Offense 4
Penalty, Habitual Delinquency 4
ATTEMPTED FELONY
Elements:
1. The offender commences the commission of the felony
directly by overt acts;
2. He does not perform all the acts of execution which
should produce the felony;
3. The offender’s act is not stopped by his own spontaneous
desistance; and
4. The non-performance of all acts of execution was due to
cause or accident other than his own spontaneous
desistance.
Stages of Execution
FRUSTRATED FELONY
Elements:
1. The offender performs all the acts of execution;
2. All the acts performed would produce the felony as a
consequence;
3. But the felony is not produced;
4. By reason of causes independent of the will of the
perpetrator.
Requisites:
1. All the acts of execution are present; and
2. The result is achieved.
Civil Liability 6
Territoriality 5
Accessories Exempt from Criminal 5
Liability
Penalty, Complex Crimes 5
Reclusion Perpetua vs. Life 5
Imprisonment
Light Felonies 4
Preventive Imprisonment 4
Prescription of Offense 4
Penalty, Habitual Delinquency 4
• Once proved, the act of one becomes the act of all. All
the conspirators are answerable as co-principals
regardless of the extent or degree of their
participation. (Aquino v. Paste, G.R. No. 147782, June
25, 2008)
Conspiracy
• How proven
9 Questions
Others RPC, Book 1
TOPIC # of
Questions
Impossible Crime 10
Stages of Commission 9
Conspiracy 9
Privileged Mitigating Circumstances 9
Civil Liability 6
Territoriality 5
Accessories Exempt from Criminal 5
Liability
Penalty, Complex Crimes 5
Reclusion Perpetua vs. Life 5
Imprisonment
Light Felonies 4
Preventive Imprisonment 4
Prescription of Offense 4
Penalty, Habitual Delinquency 4
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.
9 Questions
Others RPC, Book 1
TOPIC # of
Questions
Impossible Crime 10
Stages of Commission 9
Conspiracy 9
Privileged Mitigating Circumstances 9
Civil Liability 6
Territoriality 5
Accessories Exempt from Criminal 5
Liability
Penalty, Complex Crimes 5
Reclusion Perpetua vs. Life 5
Imprisonment
Light Felonies 4
Preventive Imprisonment 4
Prescription of Offense 4
Penalty, Habitual Delinquency 4
People v. Bunay
(G.R. No. 171268, 14 September 2010, J. Bersamin)
People v. Bunay
(G.R. No. 171268, 14 September 2010, J. Bersamin)
People v. Bunay
(G.R. No. 171268, 14 September 2010, J. Bersamin)
SERVICE OF SENTENCE
AMNESTY
Pardon Amnesty
Includes any crime Generally political offenses
Given after conviction Given before conviction or
institution of the action
Looks forward and forgives Looks backwards and
the punishment abolished the offense itself
Must be proved as a Being a result of a
defense proclamation, the court may
take judicial notice of the
same
Do not extinguish civil liability
Modification and extinction of criminal liability
PERIOD OF
PENALTY IMPOSED
PRESCRIPTION
Death and Reclusion
20 years
Perpetua
Other afflictive
15 years
penalties
Correctional penalties 10 years
Arresto mayor 5 years
Light Penalties 1 year
Modification and extinction of criminal liability
Discovery by a witness
Prescription runs only upon discovery of the crime by offended
party or person in authority or his agent. For purposes of prescription of
crime, the offended party includes the person to whom the offender is
civilly liable. Thus, the widow of the murdered victim is an offended
party (Garcia vs. CA, G.R. No. 119063, January 27, 1997). Discovery of
crime by a mere witness, who is not an offended party, will not
commence the running of the prescription.
Modification and extinction of criminal liability
1. By conditional pardon;
CONDITIONAL PARDON
• It is considered a contract between the
sovereign power and the convict that the
former will release the latter upon compliance
with the condition (Reyes, p. 868).
COMMUTATION OF SENTENCE
a) Reduction of degree of penalty
b) Decrease in the length of imprisonment
c) Reduction of the amount of fine
PAROLE
PAROLE
7 Questions
Others
TOPIC # of
Questions
Impossible Crime 10
Stages of Commission 9
Conspiracy 9
Privileged Mitigating Circumstances 9
Civil Liability 6
Territoriality 5
Accessories Exempt from Criminal 5
Liability
Penalty, Complex Crimes 5
Reclusion Perpetua vs. Life 5
Imprisonment
Light Felonies 4
Preventive Imprisonment 4
Prescription of Offense 4
Penalty, Habitual Delinquency 4
6 Questions
Others RPC, Book 1
TOPIC # of
Questions
Impossible Crime 10
Stages of Commission 9
Conspiracy 9
Privileged Mitigating Circumstances 9
Civil Liability 6
Territoriality 5
Accessories Exempt from Criminal 5
Liability
Penalty, Complex Crimes 5
Reclusion Perpetua vs. Life 5
Imprisonment
Light Felonies 4
Preventive Imprisonment 4
Prescription of Offense 4
Penalty, Habitual Delinquency 4
A. SOCIAL INJURY
– produced by the disturbance and alarm which are
the outcome of the offense
- this is sought to be repaired through the
imposition of the corresponding penalty.
B. PERSONAL INJURY
– caused to the victim of the crime who may have
suffered damage, either to his person, to his
property, to his honor, or to her chastity.
- this is sought to be repaired through indemnity
which is civil in nature (Reyes, p. 875).
CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM FELONY
GENERAL RULE
• Exceptions:
1. Restitution;
• Under Article 559 of the New Civil Code, one who has
lost any movable or has been unlawfully deprived
thereof, may recover it from the person in possession
of the same. However, if the possessor of a
movable lost has acquired it in good faith at a
public sale, the owner cannot obtain its return
without reimbursing the price paid therefor.
CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM FELONY
WHAT CIVIL LIABILITY INCLUDES
Reparation
• How made (Art. 106): The court shall determine the
amount of damage, taking into consideration the price
of the thing, whenever possible, and its special
sentimental value to the injured party, and reparation
shall be made accordingly.
CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM FELONY
WHAT CIVIL LIABILITY INCLUDES
• FACTS:
AAA, a 13-year old Grade VI pupil was found lifeless in
a grassy lot near an uninhabited farm hut. Abag (fish
vendor) saw the appellant holding a bolo, uneasy and
restless. The RTC gave no credence to the appellant’s
defense of denial and alibi as there was a failure in
showing the impossibility of his presence at the scene.
CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC which found the
appellant guilty of the crime of Rape with Homicide but
added moral and exemplary damages to the civil
indemnity as awarded by the RTC. Furthermore, an
interest rate of 6% shall be applied to the award of civil
indemnity, moral and exemplary damages from the finality
of judgment until fully paid.
CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM FELONY
PEOPLE VS. DULIN
(G.R. No. 211027, 29 June 2015 , J. Bersamin)
• HELD:
The SC held that the amount of damages
awarded by the CA is proper. The Court sustained
the award of P100, 000 as civil indemnity and
increase the awards of moral and exemplary
damages to P100, 000 each. In addition, P25, 000
was awarded to the victim’s heirs as temperate
damages in lieu of unproven actual damages. The
CA correctly added that damages assessed in this
case shall be subject to interest at six percent (6%)
per annum.
Territoriality
5 Questions
Others RPC, Book 1
TOPIC # of
Questions
Impossible Crime 10
Stages of Commission 9
Conspiracy 9
Privileged Mitigating Circumstances 9
Civil Liability 6
Territoriality 5
Accessories Exempt from Criminal 5
Liability
Penalty, Complex Crimes 5
Reclusion Perpetua vs. Life 5
Imprisonment
Light Felonies 4
Preventive Imprisonment 4
Prescription of Offense 4
Penalty, Habitual Delinquency 4
GENERAL RULE:
The penal laws of the country have force
and effect only within its territory. It
cannot penalize crimes committed
outside the country’s territory.
Territoriality
Art. 1, 1987 Constitution
• The territory of the country is not limited to the
land where its sovereignty resides but includes also
its maritime and interior waters as well as its
atmosphere.
•Terrestrial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised
over land.
•Fluvial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over
maritime and interior waters.
•Aerial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over
the atmosphere.
Territoriality
EXTRATERRITORIAL APPLICATION
of the RPC
Art. 2 (1): Crimes committed aboard merchant
vessels.
• The RPC is applied to Philippine vessels if the
crime is committed while the ship is treading
a. Philippine waters (intra-territorial
application), or
b. The High Seas i.e. waters NOT under the
jurisdiction of any State (extraterritorial application)
Territoriality
.
Territoriality
FRENCH RULE:
It is the FLAG/Nationality of the vessel which determines
jurisdiction UNLESS the crime violates the peace and order of
the host country.
ENGLISH RULE:
The location or situs of the crime determines jurisdiction
UNLESS the crime merely relates to internal management of
the vessel.
Note: The Philippines adheres to the ENGLISH RULE.
.
Territoriality
Illustration:
To smoke opium within our territorial limits, even though
aboard a foreign merchant ship, is certainly a breach of the
public order here established, because it causes such drug to
produce its pernicious effects within our territory (People v.
Wong Cheng, G.R. No. L-18924, 19 October 1922).
Territoriality
Art. 2 (2):
Forging/Counterfeiting Coins or Currency Notes in the
Philippines
• Elements:
1. The forgery is committed abroad; and
2. it refers to Philippine coin, currency note, obligation
and security
Territoriality
EXTRATERRITORIAL APPLICATION
of the RPC
Art. 2 (3):
When liable for acts connected with the introduction of
coins or currency notes of the Philippines or obligations and
securities issued by the Philippine Government.
EXTRATERRITORIAL APPLICATION
of the RPC
Art. 2 (4):
When public officers or employees commit an
offense in the exercise of their functions.
Territoriality
NOTE:
The Revised Penal Code governs if the crime
(whether or not in relation to the exercise of public
functions) was committed within the Philippine
Embassy or within the embassy grounds in a foreign
country. This is because embassy grounds are
considered an extension of sovereignty. Thus the
crime is deemed to have been committed in
Philippine soil.
Territoriality
Illustration:
A Philippine consulate official who is validly married
here in the Philippines and who marries again in a foreign
country cannot be prosecuted here for bigamy because
this is a crime not connected with his official duties.
However, if the second marriage was celebrated within the
Philippine embassy, he may be prosecuted here, since it is
as if he contracted the marriage here in the Philippines
Territoriality
EXTRATERRITORIAL APPLICATION
of the RPC
5 Questions
Others RPC, Book 1
TOPIC # of
Questions
Impossible Crime 10
Stages of Commission 9
Conspiracy 9
Privileged Mitigating Circumstances 9
Civil Liability 6
Territoriality 5
Accessories Exempt from Criminal 5
Liability
Penalty, Complex Crimes 5
Reclusion Perpetua vs. Life 5
Imprisonment
Light Felonies 4
Preventive Imprisonment 4
Prescription of Offense 4
Penalty, Habitual Delinquency 4
5 Questions
Others RPC, Book 1
TOPIC # of
Questions
Impossible Crime 10
Stages of Commission 9
Conspiracy 9
Privileged Mitigating Circumstances 9
Civil Liability 6
Territoriality 5
Accessories Exempt from Criminal 5
Liability
Penalty, Complex Crimes 5
Reclusion Perpetua vs. Life 5
Imprisonment
Light Felonies 4
Preventive Imprisonment 4
Prescription of Offense 4
Penalty, Habitual Delinquency 4
4 Questions
Others RPC, Book 1
TOPIC # of
Questions
Impossible Crime 10
Stages of Commission 9
Conspiracy 9
Privileged Mitigating Circumstances 9
Civil Liability 6
Territoriality 5
Accessories Exempt from Criminal 5
Liability
Penalty, Complex Crimes 5
Light Felonies 4
Preventive Imprisonment 4
Prescription of Offense 4
Penalty, Habitual Delinquency 4
1. Principals; and
2. Accomplices.
Light Felonies
RULES RELATIVE TO LIGHT FELONIES:
a. Light felonies are those infractions of law
for the commission of which the penalty of arresto
menor or a fine not exceeding forty thousand pesos
(Php40,000.00) or both is provided. (Art. 9, as
amended by R.A. No. 10951, 29 August 2017)
4 Questions
Others RPC, Book 1
TOPIC # of
Questions
Impossible Crime 10
Stages of Commission 9
Conspiracy 9
Privileged Mitigating Circumstances 9
Civil Liability 6
Territoriality 5
Accessories Exempt from Criminal 5
Liability
Penalty, Complex Crimes 5
Light Felonies 4
Preventive Imprisonment 4
Prescription of Offense 4
Penalty, Habitual Delinquency 4
4 Questions
Others RPC, Book 1
TOPIC # of
Questions
Impossible Crime 10
Stages of Commission 9
Conspiracy 9
Privileged Mitigating Circumstances 9
Civil Liability 6
Territoriality 5
Accessories Exempt from Criminal 5
Liability
Penalty, Complex Crimes 5
Light Felonies 4
Preventive Imprisonment 4
Prescription of Offense 4
Penalty, Habitual Delinquency 4
4 Questions
Others RPC, Book 1
TOPIC # of
Questions
Impossible Crime 10
Stages of Commission 9
Conspiracy 9
Privileged Mitigating Circumstances 9
Civil Liability 6
Territoriality 5
Accessories Exempt from Criminal 5
Liability
Penalty, Complex Crimes 5
Light Felonies 4
Preventive Imprisonment 4
Prescription of Offense 4
Penalty, Habitual Delinquency 4
Civil Liability 6
Territoriality 5
Accessories Exempt from Criminal 5
Liability
Penalty, Complex Crimes 5
Light Felonies 4
Preventive Imprisonment 4
Prescription of Offense 4
Penalty, Habitual Delinquency 4
The single act of rolling the hand grenade on the floor of the
gymnasium which resulted in the death of victims constituted a
compound crime of multiple murders (People v. Mores, G.R. No.
18984, June 26, 2013). Where the use of grenade renders the victim
defenseless, “use of explosives” shall be considered as a qualifying
circumstance because this is the principal mode of attack. Thus,
treachery will be relegated merely as a generic aggravating
circumstance (People v. Comadre, et al. G.R. No. 153559, June 8,
2004). The single act of running over the victims with a van constitutes
compound crime with multiple murders (People v. Punzalan, Jr., G.R.
No. 199892, December 10, 2012).
Single Act Treated As Several Acts
REQUISITES:
1. That at least two offenses are committed
2. That one or some of the offenses must be necessary to
commit the other
3. That both or all the offenses must be punished under the
same statute.
Intent vs. Motive
4 Questions
Others RPC, Book 1
TOPIC # of
Questions
Intent vs. Motive 4
Entrapment vs. Instigation 4
Effect of Pardon 4
nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege 3
Definition of Felony 3
Alternative Circumstances 3
Classes of Penalty 3
Extinguishment of Civil Liability upon 3
acquittal
Pardon and Disqualification 3
Pecuniary Liabilities 3
Application of Penalty in Relation to 3
ISL
Subsidiary Liability of Employers 3
Motive 3
Cardinal Principles of Criminal Law 2
Intent vs. Motive
TOPIC # of
Questions
Intent vs. Motive 4
Entrapment vs. Instigation 4
Effect of Pardon 4
nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege 3
Definition of Felony 3
Alternative Circumstances 3
Classes of Penalty 3
Extinguishment of Civil Liability upon 3
acquittal
Pardon and Disqualification 3
Pecuniary Liabilities 3
Application of Penalty in Relation to 3
ISL
Subsidiary Liability of Employers 3
Motive 3
Cardinal Principles of Criminal Law 2
ENTRAPMENT INSTIGATION
Ways and means are resorted to The instigator practically induces
for the purpose of trapping and the would-be accused into the
capturing the lawbreaker in the commission of the offense and
execution of his criminal plan himself becomes a co-principal.
The means originate from the mind The law enforcer conceives the
of the criminal. commission of the crime and
suggests to the accused who
adopts the idea and carries it into
execution.
A person has planned or is about A public officer or a private
to commit a crime and ways and detective induces an innocent
means are resorted to by a public person to commit a crime and
officer to trap and catch the would arrest him upon or after the
criminal. commission of the crime by the
latter.
Not a bar to the prosecution and The accused must be acquitted.
conviction of the lawbreaker.
Effect of Pardon
(RPC, Art. 266-C)
4 Questions
Others RPC, Book 1
TOPIC # of
Questions
Intent vs. Motive 4
Entrapment vs. Instigation 4
Effect of Pardon 4
nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege 3
Definition of Felony 3
Alternative Circumstances 3
Classes of Penalty 3
Extinguishment of Civil Liability upon 3
acquittal
Pardon and Disqualification 3
Pecuniary Liabilities 3
Application of Penalty in Relation to 3
ISL
Subsidiary Liability of Employers 3
Motive 3
Cardinal Principles of Criminal Law 2
Effect of Pardon (RPC, Art. 266-C)
Article 266-C. Effect of Pardon. - The subsequent
valid marriage between the offended party shall
extinguish the criminal action or the penalty imposed.
3 Questions
Nullum Crimen, Nulla Poena Sine Lege
3 Questions
Classes of Penalty
(Art. 25)
The penalties which may be imposed according to this Code,
and their different classes, are those included in the
following:
Scale
Principal Penalties
Capital punishment:
Death.
Afflictive penalties:
Reclusion perpetua,
Reclusion temporal,
Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification,
Perpetual or temporary special disqualification,
Prision mayor.
Classes of Penalty
(Art. 25)
The penalties which may be imposed according to this Code,
and their different classes, are those included in the
following:
Scale
Principal Penalties
Correctional penalties:
Prision correccional,
Arresto mayor,
Suspension,
Destierro.
Light penalties:
Arresto menor,
Public censure.
Classes of Penalty
(Art. 25)
Accessory Penalties
Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification,
Perpetual or temporary special disqualification,
Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for,
the profession or calling.
Civil interdiction,
Indemnification,
Forfeiture or confiscation of instruments and proceeds of the
offense,
Payment of costs.
Classes of Penalty
3 Questions
Extinguishment of Civil Liability upon
Acquittal
2. The deprivation of the right to vote in any election for any popular
office or to be elected to such office.
3 Questions
Pecuniary Liabilities
3 Questions
Subsidiary Liability of Employers
Generality
• Example:
An American who visits the Philippines in order to kill his
Filipina girlfriend because of extreme jealousy is still
liable for murder although he is a foreigner.
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW
Generality
1. Treaty stipulations
Example: Visiting Forces Agreement of 1998 (VFA)
- Article V (1) (b) United States military authorities shall
have the right to exercise within the Philippines all criminal
and disciplinary jurisdiction conferred on them by the
military law of the US over US personnel in the Philippines.
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW
Generality
US v. Sweet (1901)
Facts: Sweet was an employee of the US army in the
Philippines. He assaulted a prisoner of war for which he was
charged with the crime of physical injuries. Sweet interposed
the defense that the fact that he was an employee of the US
military authorities deprived the court of the jurisdiction to try
and punish him.
GENERAL RULE:
The penal laws of the country have force
and effect only within its territory. It
cannot penalize crimes committed
outside the country’s territory.
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW
Territoriality
Art. 1, 1987 Constitution
• The territory of the country is not limited to the
land where its sovereignty resides but includes also
its maritime and interior waters as well as its
atmosphere.
•Terrestrial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised
over land.
•Fluvial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over
maritime and interior waters.
•Aerial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over
the atmosphere.
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW
Territoriality
EXTRATERRITORIAL APPLICATION
of the RPC
Art. 2 (1): Crimes committed aboard merchant
vessels.
• The RPC is applied to Philippine vessels if the
crime is committed while the ship is treading
a. Philippine waters (intra-territorial
application), or
b. The High Seas i.e. waters NOT under the
jurisdiction of any State (extraterritorial application)
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW
Territoriality
.
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW
Territoriality
FRENCH RULE:
It is the FLAG/Nationality of the vessel which determines
jurisdiction UNLESS the crime violates the peace and order of
the host country.
ENGLISH RULE:
The location or situs of the crime determines jurisdiction
UNLESS the crime merely relates to internal management of
the vessel.
Note: The Philippines adheres to the ENGLISH RULE.
.
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW
Territoriality
Illustration:
To smoke opium within our territorial limits, even though
aboard a foreign merchant ship, is certainly a breach of the
public order here established, because it causes such drug to
produce its pernicious effects within our territory (People v.
Wong Cheng, G.R. No. L-18924, 19 October 1922).
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW
Territoriality
EXTRATERRITORIAL APPLICATION
of the RPC
Art. 2 (2):
Forging/Counterfeiting Coins or Currency Notes in the
Philippines
• Elements:
1. The forgery is committed abroad; and
2. it refers to Philippine coin, currency note, obligation
and security
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW
Territoriality
EXTRATERRITORIAL APPLICATION
of the RPC
Art. 2 (3):
When liable for acts connected with the introduction of
coins or currency notes of the Philippines or obligations and
securities issued by the Philippine Government.
EXTRATERRITORIAL APPLICATION
of the RPC
Art. 2 (4):
When public officers or employees commit an
offense in the exercise of their functions.
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW
Territoriality
NOTE:
The Revised Penal Code governs if the crime
(whether or not in relation to the exercise of public
functions) was committed within the Philippine
Embassy or within the embassy grounds in a foreign
country. This is because embassy grounds are
considered an extension of sovereignty. Thus the
crime is deemed to have been committed in
Philippine soil.
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW
Territoriality
Illustration:
A Philippine consulate official who is validly married
here in the Philippines and who marries again in a foreign
country cannot be prosecuted here for bigamy because
this is a crime not connected with his official duties.
However, if the second marriage was celebrated within the
Philippine embassy, he may be prosecuted here, since it is
as if he contracted the marriage here in the Philippines
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW
Territoriality
EXTRATERRITORIAL APPLICATION
of the RPC
3. If the new law totally repeals the existing law so that the
act which was penalized under the old law is no longer
punishable, the crime is obliterated.
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW
Strict construction of penal laws against
the State
(The “Doctrine of Pro Reo”)
1. Equal Protection
2. Due Process
In criminal proceedings, due process requires that the
accused be informed why he is being proceeded against and
what charge he has to meet, with his conviction being made
to rest on evidence that is not tainted with falsity after full
opportunity for him to rebut it and the sentence being
imposed in accordance with a valid law. It is assumed,
therefore, that the court that renders the decision is one of
competent jurisdiction (Ang Tibay v. CA, 69 Phil. 635).
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF
CONGRESS TO ENACT PENAL LAWS
4. Bill of Attainder
.
CONSULAR AND DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY
(2) The theft of six roosters belonging to two different owners from the
same coop and at the same period of time (People v. Jaranillo, 55 SCRA
563 [1974] ).
DELITO CONTINUADO
(CONTINUED CRIME OR CONTINUOUS CRIME)
Miriam Defensor Santiago v. Garchitorena (G.R. No.
109266, 2 December 1993)
(3) The theft of two roosters in the same place and on the same
occasion (People v. De Leon, 49 Phil. 437 [1926] ).
(4) The illegal charging of fees for services rendered by a lawyer every
time he collects veteran's benefits on behalf of a client, who agreed that
the attorney's fees shall be paid out of said benefits (People v. Sabbun,
10 SCRA 156 [1964] ). The collection of the legal fees were impelled by
the same motive, that of collecting fees for services rendered, and all
acts of collection were made under the same criminal impulse (People v.
Lawas, 97 Phil. 975 [1955] ).
DELITO CONTINUADO
(CONTINUED CRIME OR CONTINUOUS CRIME)
Miriam Defensor Santiago v. Garchitorena (G.R. No.
109266, 2 December 1993)
(1) Two estafa cases, one of which was committed during the period
from January 19 to December 1955 and the other from January 1956 to
July 1956 (People v. Dichupa, 113 Phil. 306 [1961] ). The said acts were
committed on two different occasions.
(2) Several malversations committed in May, June and July, 1936, and
falsifications to conceal said offenses committed in August and October
1936. The malversations and falsifications "were not the result of only
one purpose or of only one resolution to embezzle and falsify . . ."
(People v. Cid, 66 Phil. 354 [1938] ).
DELITO CONTINUADO
(CONTINUED CRIME OR CONTINUOUS CRIME)
Miriam Defensor Santiago v. Garchitorena (G.R. No.
109266, 2 December 1993)
(3) Two estafa cases, one committed in December 1963 involving the
failure of the collector to turn over the installments for a radio and the
other in June 1964 involving the pocketing of the installments for a
sewing machine (People v. Ledesma, 73 SCRA 77 [1976] ).
Foreknowledge Doctrine
There is no delito continuado where the accused when he
committed the first threat against the victim has no knowledge
that he will chance upon the second and third victims to commit
the second and third threat. Without such foreknowledge, three
threats could not be said to have been committed under a single
criminal impulse, which is the basis of applying delito continuado
principle. Several threats can only be considered as continued
crime if the offender threatened three individuals at the same
place and at the same time (Paera v. People, G.R. No. 181626,
May 30, 2011).
MALA IN SE VS. MALA PROHIBITA
Scale
Principal Penalties
Capital punishment:
Death.
Afflictive penalties:
Reclusion perpetua,
Reclusion temporal,
Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification,
Perpetual or temporary special disqualification,
Prision mayor.
Classification (Art. 25)
The penalties which may be imposed according to the RPC,
and their different classes, are those included in the
following:
Scale
Principal Penalties
Correctional penalties:
Prision correccional,
Arresto mayor,
Suspension,
Destierro.
Light penalties:
Arresto menor,
Public censure.
Classification (Art. 25)
Accessory Penalties
Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification,
Perpetual or temporary special disqualification,
Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted
for, the profession or calling.
Civil interdiction,
Indemnification,
Forfeiture or confiscation of instruments and proceeds of the
offense,
Payment of costs.
Classification (Art. 26)
Definition
Consummated 0 1 2
Frustrated 1 2 3
Attempted 2 3 4
10 years------------------upper limit
-6 years and 1 day-----lower limit
-1 .
4 years-------------------time included in the duration of
penalty
6 years
+1 year and 4 months
7 years and 4 months
+1 year and 4 months
8 years and 8 months
+1 year and 4 months
10 years
See: People v. Macabando, G.R. No. 188708, July 31, 2013; People v. Romero, G.R. No. 112985, April 21, 1999; Gonzales v.
People, G.R. No. 159950, February 12, 2007; and People v. Olivia, G.R. No. 122110, September 26, 2000
Penalty Without Specific Legal Form
Reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua prescribed for
malversation under Article 217 is a penalty without specific form. The duration of its
periods is not fixed by Article 76. This penalty cannot be divided into three equal
portions in accordance with Article 65 since reclusion perpetua component is not
divisible. It is not a complex penalty under Article 77, par. 1 since it is merely
composed of two distinct penalties. Thus, its periods shall be determined in
accordance with Article 77, par. 2. Applying this provision, the maximum period shall
be formed out of the most severe penalty, and that is, reclusion perpetua. The
duration of reclusion temporal in its maximum period shall be divided into two equal
portions, and minimum and medium periods shall be formed from each portion. In
sum, reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua is broken down
as follows:
See: Estepa v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 59670, February 15, 1990, Torres v. People, G.R. No. 175074, August 31, 2011,
Cabarlo v. People, G.R. No. 172274, November 16, 2006; Mesina v. People, G.R. No. 162489, June 17, 2015, Bersamin.
Special Mitigating Circumstance
The penalty for possession of dangerous drugs is 12 years and 1 day to 20 years of
imprisonment. The court cannot impose a straight penalty of 12 years and 1 day
since the application of indeterminate sentence law is mandatory (unless the
accused deserves a lenient penalty by confessing pursuant to the Nang Kay
principle). Applying the Islaw, the minimum indeterminate penalty shall not be less
than 12 years and 1 day while the maximum shall not exceed 20 years. Thus, the
court can sentence the accused to suffer 15 years of imprisonment as minimum to
18 years as maximum (Asiatico vs. People. G.R No. 195005, September 12, 2011;
Escalante vs. People, G.R. No. 192727, January 9, 2013)
Under Section 9 of RA 3019, the penalty for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 is
imprisonment for not less than 6 years and 1 months and not more than 15 years.
Applying the ISLAW, the minimum indeterminate penalty shall not be less than 6
years and 1 month while the maximum shall not exceed 15 years. Thus, the court
can sentence the accused to suffer 6 years and 1month of imprisonment as
minimum to 10 years as maximum (People vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 177105-06, August
12, 2010, Bersamin)
Mandatory application of ISLAW
The application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law is mandatory to both the
Revised Penal Code and the special laws (Romero vs. People, G.R No.
171644, November 23, 2011). However, the Supreme Court, in People vs.
Nang Kay, G.R. No. L-3565, April 20, 1951, has provided an exception. In this
case, the accused pleased guilty to offense where the law prescribed a penalty
of 5 to 10 years imprisonment. The court sentenced the accused to suffer 5
years of imprisonment. The Supreme Court sustained the penalty. Fixing the
penalty at the minimum limit without applying Act No. 4103 is favorable to the
accused since the accused shall be automatically released upon serving 5
years of imprisonment. Applying Act No. 4103 would lengthen the penalty
because the indeterminate maximum penalty must be necessarily more than 5
years (People vs. Arroyo, G.R. No. L-35584-85, February 13, 1982). However,
the Nang Kay principle is not applicable where the crime is punishable under
the Revised Penal Code. The application of ISLAW is always mandatory if the
penalty is prescribed by RPC since it is favorable to the accused. It is favorable
to the accused since in fixing the minimum penalty, the prescribed penalty
under the Code shall be lowered by one degree. On the other hand, in fixing the
minimum penalty for offense under special law involved in the Nang Kay case, the
prescribed penalty shall not be lowered (People vs. Judge Lee, Jr, G.R. No. 66859,
September 12, 1984).
Mandatory application of ISLAW
The Nang Kay principle is not also applicable where the accused does not
deserve a lenient penalty. In Batistis vs. People, G.R. No. 181571,
December 16. 2009, the SC through Justice Bersamin said the Nang Kay
exception is not applicable where there is no justification for lenity towards
the accused since he did not voluntarily plead guilty, and the crime
committed is a grave economic offense because of the large number of
fake Fundador confiscated.
Indeterminate Sentence Law
(b) Coverage
(b) Coverage
(b) Coverage
(b) Coverage
(b) Coverage
Conditions of Parole
Conditions of Parole
Conditions of Parole
RPC is not generally applicable to malum prohibitum. However, when a special law,
which punished malum prohibitum, adopts the technical nomenclature of the
penalties in RPC, the provisions under this Code shall apply (People vs. Simon, G.R.
No. 93028, July 29, 1994) such as: (1) Article 68 on the privilege mitigating
circumstance of minority; (2) Article 64 on application on penalty in its minimum
period if there is confession; and (3) Article 160 on special aggravating circumstance
of quasi-recidivism.
RA No.7080 and RA No. 10591 adopt the nomenclature of the penalties in RPC.
Hence, minority, confession (Jacaban vs. People, G.R. No. 184955, March 23, 2015;
Malto vs. People, G.R. No. 164733, September 21, 2007) or quasi-recidivism shall
be considered in plunder and illegal possession of loose firearm.
Under Section 98 of RA No. 9165, the provisions of RPC shall not apply except in
the case of minor offenders. Hence, if the accused is a minor, privilege mitigating
circumstance of minority (People vs. Mantalaba G.R. No. 186227, July 20, 2011;
People vs. Musa, G.R. No. 199735, October 24, 2012; Asiatico vs. People, G.R No.
195005, September 12, 2011), confession or quasi-recidivism (People vs. Salazar,
G.R. No. 98060, January 27, 1997) shall be considered in crime involving dangerous
drugs. In this case, life imprisonment shall be considered as reclusion perpetua. If
the accused is an adult, these circumstances shall not be appreciated.
Adoption of the technical nomenclature of Spanish penalty
If the special law (such as RA No. 6325 on hijacking and RA No. 3019 one
corruption) did not adopt the technical nomenclature of penalties in RPC, the latter
shall not apply. Mitigating circumstance of confession shall not be appreciated since
the penalty not borrowed from RPC cannot be applied in its minimum period. The
crime has no attempted or frustrated stage since penalty not borrowed from RPC
cannot be graduated one or two degrees lower.
Mitigating circumstance of old age can only be appreciated if the accused is over 70
years old at the time of the commission of the crime under RA No. 3019 and not at
the time of promulgation of judgment (People vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 177105-06,
August 12, 2010, J. Bersamin). Moreover, this mitigating circumstance of old age
cannot be appreciated in crime punishable by RA No. 3019 since this law did not
adopt the technical nomenclature of the penalties of the RPC.
Incorrect Penalty
The guilt of the petitioner for four counts of estafa through falsification
of a commercial document was established beyond reasonable doubt. As a
bank teller, she took advantage of the bank depositors who had trusted in her
enough to leave their passbooks with her upon her instruction.
In Criminal Case No. 94-5527, where the amount of the fraud was
P35,000.00, the penalty for estafa (i.e., prision correccional in its maximum
period to prision mayor in its minimum period, or four years, two months
and one day to eight years) is higher than that for falsification of
commercial documents. The indeterminate sentence of two years, 11
months and 10 days of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight years
of prision mayor, as maximum, was prescribed. Considering that the
maximum period ranged from six years, eight months and 21 days to eight
years, the CA should have clarified whether or not the maximum of eight
years of prision mayor already included the incremental penalty of one
year for every P10,000.00 in excess of P22,000.00. Absent the
clarification, we can presume that the incremental penalty was not yet
included. Thus, in order to make the penalty clear and specific, the
indeterminate sentence is hereby fixed at four years of prision
correccional, as minimum, to six years, eight months and 21 days
of prision mayor, as maximum, plus one year incremental penalty. In other
words, the maximum of the indeterminate sentence is seven years, eight
months and 21 days of prision mayor.
Incorrect Penalty