the three fold rule.doc

7/23/2019 THE THREE FOLD RULE.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-three-fold-ruledoc 1/34

Criminal Law

The Three-Fold Rule

Under this rule, when a convict is to serve successive penalties, he will not actually serve the penaltiesimposed by law. Instead, the most severe of the penalties imposed on him shall be multiplied by three

and the period will be the only term of the penalty to be served by him. However, in no case should the penalty exceed ! years.

This rule is intended for the benefit of the convict and so, you will only apply this provided the sum

total of all the penalties imposed would be "reater than the product of the most severe penalty

multiplied by three but in no case will the penalties to be served by the convict be more than ! years.

#lthou"h this rule is $nown as the Three-Fold rule, you cannot actually apply this if the convict is to

serve only three successive penalties. The Three-Fold Rule can only be applied if the convict is toserve four or more sentences successively. If the sentences would be served simultaneously, the Three-

Fold rule does not "overn.

The chronolo"y of the penalties as provided in #rticle %! of the Revised &enal 'ode shall be followed.

It is in the service of the penalty, not in the imposition of the penalty, that the Three-Fold rule is to be

applied. The three-Fold rule will apply whether the sentences are the product of one information in onecourt, whether the sentences are promul"ated in one day or whether the sentences are promul"ated by

different courts on different days. (hat is material is that the convict shall serve more than three

successive sentences.

For purposes of the Three-Fold Rule, even perpetual penalties are ta$en into account. )o not only

penalties with fixed duration, even penalties without any fixed duration or indivisible penalties are

ta$en into account. For purposes of the Three-Fold rule, indivisible penalties are "iven e*uivalent of +!years. If the penalty is perpetual dis*ualification, it will be "iven and e*uivalent duration of +! years,

so that if he will have to suffer several perpetual dis*ualification, under the Three-Fold rule, you ta$e

the most severe and multiply it by three. The Three-Fold rule does not apply to the penalty prescribed but to the penalty imposed as determined by the court.

Illustration

&enalties imposed are

ne prision correcional minimum / years and months

ne arresto mayor - 0 month and 0 day to 1 months

ne prision mayor - 1 years and 0 day to 0/ years

2o not commit the mista$e of applyin" the Three- Fold Rule in this case. 3ever apply the Three-Foldrule when there are only three sentences. 4ven if you add the penalties, you can never arrive at a sum

hi"her than the product of the most severe multiplied by three.

The common mista$e is, if "iven a situation, whether the Three-Fold Rule could be applied. If as$ed, if

0



you were the 5ud"e, what penalty would you impose, for purposes of imposin" the penalty, the court is

not at liberty to apply the Three-Fold Rule, whatever the sum total of penalty for each crimecommitted, even if it would amount to 0,!!! years or more. It is only when the convict is servin"

sentence that the prison authorities should determine how lon" he should stay in 5ail.

Illustration

# district en"ineer was sentenced by the court to a term of 60 years in prison.

# person was sentenced to three death sentences. )i"nificance If ever "ranted pardon for 0 crime, the

two remainin" penalties must still be executed.

This rule will apply only if sentences are to be served successively.

#ct 3o. !0+ 7Indeterminate )entence 8aw9, as amended

Three thin"s to $now about the Indeterminate )entence 8aw

709 Its purpose:

7/9 Instances when it does not apply: and

7+9 How it operates

Indeterminate )entence 8aw "overns whether the crime is punishable under the Revised &enal 'ode or

a special 8aw. It is not limited to violations of the Revised &enal 'ode.

It applies only when the penalty served is imprisonment. If not by imprisonment, then it does notapply.

&urpose

The purpose of the Indeterminate )entence law is to avoid prolon"ed imprisonment, because it is

proven to be more destructive than constructive to the offender. )o, the purpose of the Indeterminate

)entence 8aw in shortenin" the possible detention of the convict in 5ail is to save valuable humanresources. In other words, if the valuable human resources were allowed prolon"ed confinement in 5ail,

they would deteriorate. &urpose is to preserve economic usefulness for these people for havin"committed a crime -- to reform them rather than to deteriorate them and, at the same time, savin" the

"overnment expenses of maintainin" the convicts on a prolon"ed confinement in 5ail.

If the crime is a violation of the Revised &enal 'ode, the court will impose a sentence that has a

minimum and maximum. The maximum of the indeterminate sentence will be arrived at by ta$in" intoaccount the attendant miti"atin" and;or a""ravatin" circumstances accordin" to #rticle 1 of the

Revised &enal 'ode. In arrivin" at the minimum of the indeterminate sentence, the court will ta$e into

account the penalty prescribed for the crime and "o one de"ree lower. (ithin the ran"e of one de"reelower, the court will fix the minimum for the indeterminate sentence, and within the ran"e of the

/



penalty arrived at as the maximum in the indeterminate sentence, the court will fix the maximum of the

sentence. If there is a privile"e miti"atin" circumstance which has been ta$en in consideration in fixin"the maximum of the indeterminate sentence, the minimum shall be based on the penalty as reduced by

the privile"e miti"atin" circumstance within the ran"e of the penalty next lower in de"ree.

If the crime is a violation of a special law, in fixin" the maximum of the indeterminate sentence, the

court will impose the penalty within the ran"e of the penalty prescribed by the special law, as lon" as itwill not exceed the limit of the penalty. In fixin" the minimum, the court can fix a penalty anywhere

within the ran"e of penalty prescribed by the special law, as lon" as it will not be less than theminimum limit of the penalty under said law. 3o miti"atin" and a""ravatin" circumstances are ta$en

into account.

The minimum and the maximum referred to in the Indeterminate )entence 8aw are not periods. )o, do

not say, maximum or minimum period. For the purposes of the indeterminate )entence 8aw, use the

term minimum to refer to the duration of the sentence which the convict shall serve as a minimum, andwhen we say maximum, for purposes of I)8#(, we refer to the maximum limit of the duration that the

convict may be held in 5ail. (e are not referrin" to any period of the penalty as enumerated in #rticle

%0.

'ourts are re*uired to fix a minimum and a maximum of the sentence that they are to impose upon an

offender when found "uilty of the crime char"ed. )o, whenever the Indeterminate )entence 8aw is

applicable, there is always a minimum and maximum of the sentence that the convict shall serve. If thecrime is punished by the Revised &enal 'ode, the law provides that the maximum shall be arrived at by

considerin" the miti"atin" and a""ravatin" circumstances in the commission of the crime accordin" to

the proper rules of the Revised &enal 'ode. To fix the maximum, consider the miti"atin" anda""ravatin" circumstances accordin" to the rules found in #rticle 1. This means

709 &enalties prescribed by the law for the crime committed shall be imposed in the medium period if

no miti"atin" or a""ravatin" circumstance:

7/9 If there is a""ravatin" circumstance, no miti"atin", penalty shall be imposed in the maximum:

7+9 If there is miti"atin" circumstance, no a""ravatin", penalty shall be in the minimum:

79 If there are several miti"atin" and a""ravatin" circumstances, they shall offset a"ainst each other.(hatever remains, apply the rules.

7<9 If there are two or more miti"atin" circumstance and no a""ravatin" circumstance, penalty nextlower in de"ree shall be the one imposed.

Rule under #rt 1 shall apply in determinin" the maximum but not in determinin" the minimum.

In determinin" the applicable penalty accordin" to the Indeterminate )entence 8aw, there is no need to

mention the number of years, months and days: it is enou"h that the name of the penalty is mentioned

while the Indeterminate )entence 8aw is applied. To fix the minimum and the maximum of thesentence, penalty under the Revised &enal 'ode is not the penalty to be imposed by court because the

court must apply the Indeterminate )entence 8aw. The attendant miti"atin" and;or a""ravatin"

circumstances in the commission of the crime are ta$en into consideration only when the maximum ofthe penalty is to be fixed. =ut in so far as the minimum is concerned, the basis of the penalty

+



prescribed by the Revised &enal 'ode, and "o one de"ree lower than that. =ut penalty one de"ree

lower shall be applied in the same manner that the maximum is also fixed based only on ordinarymiti"atin" circumstances. This is true only if the miti"atin" circumstance ta$en into account is only an

ordinary miti"atin" circumstance. If the miti"atin" circumstance is privile"ed, you cannot follow the

law in so far as fixin" the minimum of the indeterminate sentence is concerned: otherwise, it mayhappen that the maximum of the indeterminate sentence is lower than its minimum.

In one )upreme 'ourt rulin", it was held that for purposes of applyin" the Indeterminate )entence

8aw, the penalty prescribed by the Revised &enal 'ode and not that which may be imposed by court.This rulin", however, is obviously erroneous. This is so because such an interpretation runs contrary to

the rule of pro reo, which provides that the penal laws should always be construed an applied in a

manner liberal or lenient to the offender. Therefore, the rule is, in applyin" the Indetermiante )entence8aw, it is that penalty arrived at by the court after applyin" the miti"atin" and a""ravatin"

circumstances that should be the basis.

'rimes punished under special law carry only one penalty: there are no de"ree or periods. >oreover,

crimes under special law do not consider miti"atin" or a""ravatin" circumstance present in the

commission of the crime. )o in the case of statutory offense, no miti"atin" and no a""ravatin"circumstances will be ta$en into account. ?ust the same, courts are re*uired in imposin" the penaltyupon the offender to fix a minimum that the convict should serve, and to set a maximum as the limit of

that sentence. Under the law, when the crime is punished under a special law, the court may fix any

penalty as the maximum without exceedin" the penalty prescribed by special law for the crimecommitted. In the same manner, courts are "iven discretion to fix a minimum anywhere within the

ran"e of the penalty prescribed by special law, as lon" as it will not be lower than the penalty

prescribed.

2is*ualification may be divided into three, accordin" to

709 The time committed:

7/9 The penalty imposed: and

7+9 The offender involved.

The Indeterminate )entence 8aw shall not apply to

709 &ersons convicted of offense punishable with death penalty or life imprisonment:

7/9 &ersons convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason:

7+9 &ersons convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition, espiona"e:

79 &ersons convicted of piracy:

7<9 &ersons who are habitual delin*uents:

719 &ersons who shall have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence:



7%9 Those who have been "ranted conditional pardon by the 'hief 4xecutive and shall have violated

the term thereto:

7@9 Those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year, but not to those already

sentenced by final 5ud"ment at the time of the approval of Indeterminate )entence 8aw.

#lthou"h the penalty prescribed for the felony committed is death or reclusion perpetua, if afterconsiderin" the attendant circumstances, the imposable penalty is reclusion temporal or less, the

Indeterminate )entence 8aw applies 7&eople v. 'empron, 0@% )'R# /%@9.

&residential 2ecree 3o. 61@ 7&robation 8aw9

#mon" the different "rounds of partial extinction of criminal liability, the most important is probation.

&robation is a manner of disposin" of an accused who have been convicted by a trial court by placin"him under supervision of a probation officer, under such terms and conditions that the court may fix.

This may be availed of before the convict be"ins servin" sentence by final 5ud"ment and provided that

he did not appeal anymore from conviction.

(ithout re"ard to the nature of the crime, only those whose penalty does not exceed six years of

imprisonment are those *ualified for probation. If the penalty is six years plus one day, he is no lon"er

*ualified for probation.

If the offender was convicted of several offenses which were tried 5ointly and one decision was

rendered where multiple sentences imposed several prison terms as penalty, the basis for determinin"whether the penalty dis*ualifies the offender from probation or not is the term of the individual

imprisonment and not the totality of all the prison terms imposed in the decision. )o even if the prison

term would sum up to more than six years, if none of the individual penalties exceeds six years, the

offender is not dis*ualified by such penalty from applyin" for probation.

n the other hand, without re"ard to the penalty, those who are convicted of subversion or any crime

a"ainst the public order are not *ualified for probation. )o $now the crimes under Title III, =oo$ / ofthe Revised &enal 'ode. #mon" these crimes is #larms and )candals, the penalty of which is only

arresto menor or a fine. Under the amendment to the &robation 8aw, those convicted of a crime a"ainst

public order re"ardless of the penalty are not *ualified for probation.

>ay a recidivist be "iven the benefit of &robation 8awA

#s a "eneral rule, no.

4xception If the earlier conviction refers to a crime the penalty of which does not exceed +! days

imprisonment or a fine of not more than &/!!.!!, such convict is not dis*ualified of the benefit of probation. )o even if he would be convicted subse*uently of a crime embraced in the same title of the

Revised &enal 'ode as that of the earlier conviction, he is not dis*ualified from probation provided

that the penalty of the current crime committed does not "o beyond six years and the nature of thecrime committed by him is not a"ainst public order, national security or subversion.

#lthou"h a person may be eli"ible for probation, the moment he perfects an appeal from the 5ud"mentof conviction, he cannot avail of probation anymore. )o the benefit of probation must be invo$ed at the

<



earliest instance after conviction. He should not wait up to the time when he interposes an appeal or the

sentence has become final and executory. The idea is that probation has to be invo$ed at the earliestopportunity.

#n application for probation is exclusively within the 5urisdiction of the trial court that renders the 5ud"ment. For the offender to apply in such court, he should not appeal such 5ud"ment.

nce he appeals, re"ardless of the purpose of the appeal, he will be dis*ualified from applyin" for

&robation, even thou"h he may thereafter withdraw his appeal.

If the offender would appeal the conviction of the trial court and the appellate court reduced the

penalty to say, less than six years, that convict can still file an application for probation, because theearliest opportunity for him to avail of probation came only after 5ud"ment by the appellate court.

(hether a convict who is otherwise *ualified for probation may be "ive the benefit of probation or not,the courts are always re*uired to conduct a hearin". If the court denied the application for probation

without the benefit of the hearin", where as the applicant is not dis*ualified under the provision of the

&robation 8aw, but only based on the report of the probation officer, the denial is correctible bycertiorari, because it is an act of the court in excess of 5urisdiction or without 5urisdiction, the orderdenyin" the application therefore is null and void.

&robation is intended to promote the correction and rehabilitation of an offender by providin" him withindividualiBed treatment: to provide an opportunity for the reformation of a penitent offender which

mi"ht be less probable if he were to serve a prison sentence: to prevent the commission of offenses: to

decon"est our 5ails: and to save the "overnment much needed finance for maintainin" convicts in 5ail

&robation is only a privile"e. )o even if the offender may not be dis*ualified of probation, yet the court

believes that because of the crime committed it was not advisable to "ive probation because it would

depreciate the effect of the crime, the court may refuse or deny an application for probation.

Cenerally, the courts do not "rant an application for probation for violation of the 2an"erous 2ru"s

8aw, because of the prevalence of the crime. )o it is not alon" the purpose of probation to "rant theconvict the benefit thereof, 5ust the individual rehabilitation of the offender but also the best interest of

the society and the community where the convict would be stayin", if he would be released on

probation. To allow him loose may brin" about a lac$ of respect of the members of the community tothe enforcement of penal law. In such a case, the court even if the crime is probationable may still deny

the benefit of probation.

'onsider not only the probationable crime, but also the probationable penalty. If it were the non-

probationable crime, then re"ardless of the penalty, the convict cannot avail of probation. Cenerally,the penalty which is not probationable is any penalty exceedin" six years of imprisonment. ffenses

which are not probationable are those a"ainst natural security, those a"ainst public order and those withreference to subversion.

&ersons who have been "ranted of the benefit of probation cannot avail thereof for the second time.&robation is only available once and this may be availed only where the convict starts servin" sentence

and provided he has not perfected an appeal. If the convict perfected an appeal, he forfeits his ri"ht to

apply for probation. #s far as offenders who are under preventive imprisonment, that because a crimecommitted is not bailable or the crime committed, althou"h bailable, they cannot afford to put up a

1



bail, upon promul"ation of the sentence, naturally he "oes bac$ to detention, that does not mean that

they already start servin" the sentence even after promul"ation of the sentence, sentence will only become final and executory after the lapse of the 0<-day period, unless the convict has waived

expressly his ri"ht to appeal or otherwise, he has partly started servin" sentence and in that case, the

penalty will already be final and exeuctory, no ri"ht to probation can be applied for.

&robation shall be denied if the court finds

709 That the offender is in need of correctional treatment that can be provided most effectively by hiscommitment to an institution:

7/9 That there is undue ris$ that durin" the period of probation the offender will commit another crime:or

7+9 &robation will depreciate the seriousness of the crime.

The probation law imposes two $inds of conditions

709 >andatory conditions: and

7/9 2iscretionary conditions.

>andatory conditions

709 The convict must report to the &robation fficer 7&9 desi"nated in the court order approvin" his

application for &robation within %/ hours from receipt of 3otice of such order approvin" his

application: and

7/9 The convict, as a probationer, must report to the & at least once a month durin" the period of

probation unless sooner re*uired by the &.

These conditions bein" mandatory, the moment any of these is violated, the probation is cancelled.

2iscretionary conditions

The trial court which approved the application for probation may impose any condition which may beconstructive to the correction of the offender, provided the same would not violate the constitutional

ri"hts of the offender and sub5ect to this two restrictions 709 the conditions imposed should not beunduly restrictive of the probationer: and 7/9 such condition should not be incompatible with the

freedom of conscience of the probationer.

4DTI3'TI3 F 'RI>I3#8 8I#=I8ITE

#lways provide two classifications when answerin" this *uestion.

'riminal liability is totally extin"uished as follows

%



709 =y the death of the convict as to personal penalties: and as to pecuniary penalties, liability thereforeis extin"uished only when the death of the offender occurs before final 5ud"ment

7/9 =y service of sentence:

7+9 =y amnesty which completely extin"uished the penalty and all its effects:

79 =y absolute pardon:

7<9 =y prescription of the crime:

719 =y prescription of the penalty:

7%9 =y the marria"e of the offended women as in the crimes of rape, abduction, seduction and acts oflasciviousness.

'riminal liability is partially extin"uished as follows

709 =y conditional pardon:

7/9 =y commutation of sentence:

7+9 For "ood conduct, allowances which the culprit may earn while he is servin" sentence:

79 &arole: and

7<9 &robation.

Total extinction of criminal liability

#mon" the "rounds for total extinction as well as those for partial extinction, you cannot find amon"

them the election to public office. In one case, a public official was char"ed before the )andi"anbayan

for violation of #nti-Craft and 'orrupt &ractices #ct. 2urin" the ensuin" election, he was neverthelessre-elected by the constituents, one of the defenses raised was that of condonation of the crime by his

constituents, that his constituents have pardoned him. The )upreme 'ourt ruled that the re-election to

public office is not one of the "rounds by which criminal liability is extin"uished. This is only true toadministrative cases but not criminal cases.

2eath of the offender

(here the offender dies before final 5ud"ment, his death extin"uishes both his criminal and civil

liabilities. )o while a case is on appeal, the offender dies, the case on appeal will be dismissed. Theoffended party may file a separate civil action under the 'ivil 'ode if any other basis for recovery of

civil liability exists as provided under #rt 00<% 'ivil 'ode. 7&eople v. =ayotas, decided on )eptember

/, 0669

@



#mnesty and pardon

The effects of amnesty as well as absolute pardon are not the same. #mnesty erases not only the

conviction but also the crime itself. )o that if an offender was convicted for rebellion and he *ualifiedfor amnesty, and so he was "iven an amnesty, then years later he rebelled a"ain and convicted, is he a

recidivistA 3o. =ecause the amnesty "ranted to him erased not only the conviction but also the effectsof the conviction itself.

)uppose, instead of amnesty, what was "iven was absolute pardon, then years later, the offended was

a"ain captured and char"ed for rebellion, he was convicted, is he a recidivistA

Ees. &ardon, althou"h absolute does not erase the effects of conviction. &ardon only excuses theconvict from servin" the sentence. There is an exception to this and that is when the pardon was

"ranted when the convict had already served the sentence such that there is no more service of sentence

to be executed then the pardon shall be understood as intended to erase the effects of the conviction.

)o if the convict has already served the sentence and in spite of that he was "iven a pardon that pardon

will cover the effects of the crime and therefore, if he will be subse*uently convicted for a felonyembracin" the same title as that crime, he cannot be considered a recidivist, because the pardon wipesout the effects of the crime.

=ut if he was servin" sentence when he was pardoned, that pardon will not wipe out the effects of thecrime, unless the lan"ua"e of the pardon absolutely relieve the offender of all the effects thereof.

'onsiderin" that recidivism does not prescribe, no matter how lon" a"o was the first conviction, he

shall still be a recidivist.

Illustrations

(hen the crime carries with it moral turpitude, the offender even if "ranted pardon shall still remaindis*ualified from those fallin" in cases where moral turpitude is a bar.

&edro was prosecuted and convicted of the crime of robbery and was sentenced to six yearsimprisonment or prision correccional. #fter servin" sentence for three years, he was "ranted absolute

pardon. Ten years later, &edro was a"ain prosecuted and convicted of the crime of theft, a crime

embraced in the same title, this time he shall be a recidivist. n the other hand, if he has served all sixyears of the first sentence, and his name was included in the list of all those "ranted absolute pardon,

pardon shall relieve him of the effects of the crime, and therefore even if he commits theft a"ain, he

shall not be considered a recidivist.

In >onsanto v. Factoran, ?r., 0%! )'R# 060, it was held that absolute pardon does not ipso factoentitle the convict to reinstatement to the public office forfeited by reason of his conviction. #lthou"h

pardon restores his eli"ibility for appointment to that office, the pardoned convict must reapply for thenew appointment

.

&ardon becomes valid only when there is a final 5ud"ment. If "iven before this, it is premature andhence void. There is no such thin" as a premature amnesty, because it does not re*uire a final

5ud"ment: it may be "iven before final 5ud"ment or after it.

6



&rescription of crime and prescription of the penalty

&rescription of the crime be"ins, as a "eneral rule on the day the crime was committed, unless the

crime was concealed, not public, in which case, the prescription thereof would only commence from

the time the offended party or the "overnment learns of the commission of the crime.

'ommission of the crime is publicG -- This does not mean alone that the crime was within public$nowled"e or committed in public.

Illustration

In the crime of falsification of a document that was re"istered in the proper re"istry of the "overnmentli$e the Re"istry of &roperty or the Re"istry of 2eeds of the 'ivil re"istry, the falsification is deemed

public from the time the falsified document was re"istered or recorded in such public office so even

thou"h, the offended party may not really $now of the falsification, the prescriptive period of the crimeshall already run from the moment the falsified document was recorded in the public re"istry. )o in the

case where a deed of sale of a parcel of land which was falsified was recorded in the correspondin"

Re"istry of &roperty, the owner of the land came to $now of the falsified transaction only after 0!years, so he brou"ht the criminal action only then. The )upreme 'ourt ruled that the crime has already prescribed. From the moment the falsified document is re"istered in the Re"istry of &roperty, the

prescriptive period already commenced to run.

(hen a crime prescribes, the )tate loses the ri"ht to prosecute the offender, hence, even thou"h the

offender may not have filed a motion to *uash on this "round the trial court, but after conviction and

durin" the appeal he learned that at the time the case was filed, the crime has already prescribed, suchaccused can raise the *uestion of prescription even for the first time on appeal, and the appellate court

shall have no 5urisdiction to continue, if le"ally, the crime has indeed prescribed.

The prevailin" rule now is, prescription of the crime is not waivable, the earlier 5urisprudence to thecontrary had already been abro"ated or overruled. >oreover, for purposes of prescription, the period

for filin" a complaint or information may not be extended at all, even thou"h the last day such

prescriptive period falls on a holiday or a )unday.

For instance, li"ht felony prescribes in 1! days or two months. If the 1!th day falls on a )unday, the

filin" of the complaint on the succeedin" >onday is already fatal to the prosecution of the crime because the crime has already prescribed.

The rules on 'riminal &rocedure for purposes of prescription is that the filin" of the complaint even atthe public prosecutors office suspends the runnin" of the prescriptive period, but not the filin" with

the baran"ay. )o the earlier rulin"s to the contrary are already abro"ated by express provision of theRevised Rules on 'riminal &rocedure.

The prescription of the crime is interrupted or suspended

709 (hen a complaint is filed in a proper baran"ay for conciliation or mediation as re*uired by 'hapter %, 8ocal Covernment 'ode, but the suspension of the prescriptive period is "ood only for 1! days.

#fter which the prescription will resume to run, whether the conciliation or mediation is terminated for

not:

0!



7/9 (hen criminal case is filed in the prosecutors office, the prescription of the crime is suspended

until the accused is convicted or the proceedin" is terminated for a cause not attributable to theaccused.

=ut where the crime is sub5ect to )ummary &rocedure, the prescription of the crime will be suspendedonly when the information is already filed with the trial court. It is not the filin" of the complaint, but

the filin" of the information in the trial which will suspend the prescription of the crime.

n the prescription of the penalty, the period will only commence to run when the convict has be"un toserve the sentence. #ctually, the penalty will prescribe from the moment the convict evades the service

of the sentence. )o if an accused was convicted in the trial court, and the conviction becomes final and

executory, so this fellow was arrested to serve the sentence, on the way to the penitentiary, the vehiclecarryin" him collided with another vehicle and overturned, thus enablin" the prisoner to escape, no

matter how lon" such convict has been a fu"itive from 5ustice, the penalty imposed by the trial court

will never prescribe because he has not yet commenced the service of his sentence. For the penalty to prescribe, he must be brou"ht to >untinlupa, boo$ed there, placed inside the cell and thereafter he

escapes.

(hether it is prescription of crime or prescription of penalty, if the sub5ect could leave the &hilippinesand "o to a country with whom the &hilippines has no extradition treaty, the prescriptive period of the

crime or penalty shall remain suspended whenever he is out of the country.

(hen the offender leaves for a country to which the &hilippines has an extradition treaty, the runnin"

of the prescriptive period will "o on even if the offender leaves &hilippine territory for that country.

&resently the &hilippines has an extradition treaty with Taiwan, Indonesia, 'anada, #ustralia, U)# and)witBerland. )o if the offender "oes to any of these countries, the prescriptive period still continues to

run.

In the case of the prescription of the penalty, the moment the convict commits another crime while heis fu"itive from 5ustice, prescriptive period of the penalty shall be suspended and shall not run in the

meantime. The crime committed does not include the initial evasion of service of sentence that the

convict must perform before the penalty shall be"in to prescribe, so that the initial crime of evasion ofservice of sentence does not suspend the prescription of penalty, it is the commission of other crime,

after the convict has evaded the service of penalty that will suspend such period.

>arria"e

In the case of marria"e, do not say that it is applicable for the crimes under #rticle +. It is only true

in the crimes of rape, abduction, seduction and acts of lasciviousness. 2o not say that it is applicable to private crimes because the term includes adultery and concubina"e. >arria"es in these cases may even

compound the crime of adultery or concubina"e. It is only in the crimes of rape, abduction, seductionand acts of lasciviousness that the marria"e by the offender with the offended woman shall extin"uish

civil liability, not only criminal liability of the principal who marries the offended woman, but also that

of the accomplice and accessory, if there are any.

'o-principals who did not themselves directly participate in the execution of the crime but who only

cooperated, will also benefit from such marria"e, but not when such co-principal himself too$ direct part in the execution of the crime.

00



>arria"e as a "round for extin"uishin" civil liability must have been contracted in "ood faith. Theoffender who marries the offended woman must be sincere in the marria"e and therefore must actually

perform the duties of a husband after the marria"e, otherwise, notwithstandin" such marria"e, the

offended woman, althou"h already his wife can still prosecute him a"ain, althou"h the marria"eremains a valid marria"e. 2o not thin$ that the marria"e is avoided or annulled. The marria"e still

subsists althou"h the offended woman may re-file the complaint. The )upreme 'ourt ruled thatmarria"e contemplated must be a real marria"e and not one entered to and not 5ust to evade

punishment for the crime committed because the offender will be compoundin" the wron" he hascommitted.

&artial extinction of criminal liability

Cood conduct allowance

This includes the allowance for loyalty under #rticle 6@, in relation to #rticle 0<@. # convict whoescapes the place of confinement on the occasion of disorder resultin" from a confla"ration, earth*ua$eor similar catastrophe or durin" a mutiny in which he has not participated and he returned within @

hours after the proclamation that the calamity had already passed, such convict shall be "iven credit of

0;< of the ori"inal sentence from that allowance for his loyalty of comin" bac$. Those who did notleave the penitentiary under such circumstances do not "et such allowance for loyalty. #rticle 0<@

refers only to those who leave and return.

&arole

This correspondin"ly extin"uishes service of sentence up to the maximum of the indeterminatesentence. This is the partial extinction referred to, so that if the convict was never "iven parole, no

partial extinction.

'II8 8I#=I8ITE F TH4 FF4324R

'ivil liability of the offender falls under three cate"ories

709 Restitution and restoration:

7/9 Reparation of the dama"e caused: and

7+9 Indemnification of conse*uential dama"es.

Restitution or restoration

Restitution or restoration presupposes that the offended party was divested of property, and such property must be returned. If the property is in the hands of a third party, the same shall nevertheless be

0/



ta$en away from him and restored to the offended party, even thou"h such third party may be a holder

for value and a buyer in "ood faith of the property, except when such third party buys the propertyfrom a public sale where the law protects the buyer.

For example, if a third party bou"ht a property in a public auction conducted by the sheriff levied onthe property of a 5ud"ment creditor for an obli"ation, the buyer of the property at such execution sale is

protected by law. The offended party cannot divest him thereof. )o the offended party may only resortto reparation of the dama"e done from the offender.

)ome believed that this civil liability is true only in crimes a"ainst property, this is not correct.

Re"ardless of the crime committed, if the property is ille"ally ta$en from the offended party durin" the

commission of the crime, the court may direct the offender to restore or restitute such property to theoffended party. It can only be done if the property is brou"ht within the 5urisdiction of that court.

For example, in a case where the offender committed rape, durin" the rape, the offender "ot on of theearrin"s of the victim. (hen apprehended, the offender was prosecuted for rape and theft. (hen the

offender was as$ed why he "ot on of the earrin"s of the victim, the offender disclosed that he too$ one

of the earrin"s in order to have a souvenir of the sexual intercourse. )upreme 'ourt ruled that thecrime committed is not theft and rape but rape and un5ust vexation for the ta$in" of the earrin". Thelatter crime is not a crime a"ainst property, this is a crime a"ainst personal security and liberty under

Title ID of =oo$ II of the R&'. #nd yet, the offender was re*uired to restore or restitute the earrin" to

the offended woman.

&roperty will have to be restored to the offended party even this would re*uire the ta$in" of the

property from a third person. (here personal property was divested from the offended party pursuantto the commission of the crime, the one who too$ the same or accepted the same would be doin" so

without the benefit of the 5ust title. )o even if the property may have been bou"ht by the third person,

the same may be ta$en from him and restored to the offended party without an obli"ation on the part of

the offended party to pay him whatever he paid.

The ri"ht to recover what he has paid will be a"ainst the offender who sold it to him. n the other

hand, if the crime was theft or robbery, the one who received the personal property becomes a fence, heis not only re*uired to restitute the personal property but he incurs criminal liability in violation of the

#nti-Fencin" 8aw.

If the property cannot be restituted anymore, then the dama"e must be repaired, re*uirin" the offender

to pay the value thereof, as determined by the court. That value includes the sentimental value to the

offended party, not only the replacement cost. In most cases, the sentimental value is hi"her than thereplacement value. =ut if what would be restored is brand new, then there will be an allowance for

depreciation, otherwise, the offended party is allowed to enrich himself at the expense of the offender.)o there will be a correspondin" depreciation and the offended party may even be re*uired to pay

somethin" 5ust to cover the difference of the value of what was restored to him.

The obli"ation of the offender transcends to his heirs, even if the offender dies, provided he died after

5ud"ment became final, the heirs shall assume the burden of the civil liability, but this is only to theextent that they inherit property from the deceased, if they do not inherit, they cannot inherit the

obli"ations.

The ri"ht of the offended party transcends to heirs upon death. The heirs of the offended party step into

0+



the shoes of the latter to demand civil liability from the offender.

Reparation of the dama"e caused

In case of human life, reparation of the dama"e cause is basically &<!,!!!.!! value of human life,

exclusive of other forms of dama"es. This &<!,!!!.!! may also increase whether such life was lostthrou"h intentional felony or criminal ne"li"ence, whether the result of dolo or culpa. #lso in the crime

of rape, the dama"es awarded to the offended woman is "enerally &+!,!!!.!! for the dama"e to herhonor. In earlier rulin"s, the amount varied, whether the offended woman is youn"er or a married

woman. )upreme 'ourt ruled that even if the offended woman does not adduce evidence or such

dama"e, court can ta$e 5udicial notice of the fact that if a woman was raped, she inevitably suffersdama"es. Under the Revised Rules on 'riminal &rocedure, a private prosecutor can recover all $inds

of dama"es includin" attorneys fee. The only limitation is that the amount and the nature of the

dama"es should be specified. The present procedural law does not allow a blan$et recovery ofdama"es. 4ach $ind of dama"es must be specified and the amount duly proven.

Indemnification of conse*uential dama"es

Indemnification of conse*uential dama"es refers to the loss of earnin"s, loss of profits. This does not

refer only to conse*uential dama"es suffered by the offended party: this also includes conse*uentialdama"es to third party who also suffer because of the commission of the crime.

The offender carnapped a bridal car while the newly-weds were inside the church. )ince the car wasonly rented, conse*uential dama"e not only to the newly-weds but also to the entity which rented the

car to them.

>ost importantly, refer to the persons who are civilly liable under #rticles 0!/ and 0!+. This pertainsto the owner, proprietor of hotels, inns, taverns and similar establishments, an obli"ation to answer

civilly for the loss or property of their "uests.

Under #rticloe 0!/, two conditions must be present before liability attaches to the in$eepers,

tavern$eepers and proprietors

709 The "uest must have informed the mana"ement in advance of his havin" brou"ht to the premises

certain valuables aside from the usual personal belon"in"s of the "uest: and

7/9 The "uest must have followed the rules and re"ulations prescribed by the mana"ement of such inn,

tavern, or similar establishment re"ardin" the safe$eepin" of said valuables.

The )upreme 'ourt ruled that even thou"h the "uest did not obey the rules and re"ulations prescribed by the mana"ement for safe$eepin" of the valuables, this does not absolve mana"ement from the

subsidiary civil liability. 3on-compliance with such rules and re"ulations but the "uests will only be

re"arded as contributory ne"li"ence, but it wont absolve the mana"ement from civil liability.

8iability specially attaches when the mana"ement is found to have violated any law or ordinance, rule

or re"ulation "overnin" such establishment.

0



4ven if the crime is robbery with violence a"ainst or intimidation of persons or committed by the

in$eepers employees, mana"ement will be liable, otherwise, not liable because there is duress fromthe offender, liable only for theft and force upon thin"s.

Under #rticle 0!+, the subsidiary liability of an employer or master for the crime committed by hisemployee or servant may attach only when the followin" re*uisites concur

709 The employer must be en"a"ed in business or in trade or industry while the accused was his

employee:

7/9 #t the time the crime was committed, the employee-employerr relationship must be existin"

between the two:

7+9 The employee must have been found "uilty of the crime char"ed and accordin"ly held civilly liable:

79 The writ of execution for the satisfaction of the civil liability was returned unsatisfied because the

accused-employee does not have enou"h property to pay the civil liability.

(hen these re*uisites concur, the employer will be subsidiarily civilly liable for the full amount thathis employee was ad5ud"ed civilly liable. It is already settled in 5urisprudence that there is no need to

file a civil action a"ainst the employer in order to enforce the subsidiary civil liability for the crime

committed by his employee, it is enou"h that the writ of execution is returned unsatisfied. There is nodenial of due process of law because the liability of the employer is subsidiary and not primary. He will

only be liable if his employee does not have the property to pay his civil liability, since it is the law

itself that provides that such subsidiary liability exists and i"norance of the law is not an excuse.

'ivil liability of the offender is extin"uished in the same manner as civil obli"ation is extin"uished but

this is not absolutely true. Under civil law, a civil obli"ation is extin"uished upon loss of the thin" due

when the thin" involved is specific. This is not a "round applicable to extinction of civil liability incriminal case if the thin" due is lost, the offender shall repair the dama"es caused.

(hen there are several offenders, the court in the exercise of its discretion shall determine what shall be the share of each offender dependin" upon the de"ree of participation as principal, accomplice or

accessory. If within each class of offender, there are more of them, such as more than one principal or

more than one accomplice or accessory, the liability in each class of offender shall be subsidiary.#nyone of the may be re*uired to pay the civil liability pertainin" to such offender without pre5udice to

recovery from those whose share have been paid by another.

If all the principals are insolvent, the obli"ation shall devolve upon the accomplice7s9 or accessory7s9.

=ut whoever pays shall have the ri"ht of coverin" the share of the obli"ation from those who did not pay but are civilly liable.

To relate with #rticle +@, when there is an order or preference of pecuniary 7monetary9 liability,

therefore, restitution is not included here.

There is not subsidiary penalty for non-payment of civil liability.

)ubsidiary civil liability is imposed in the followin"

0<



709 In case of a felony committed under the compulsion of an irresistible force. The person who

employed the irresistible force is subsidiarily liable:

7/9 In case of a felony committed under an impulse of an e*ual or "reater in5ury. The person who

"enerated such an impulse is subsidiarily liable.

The owners of taverns, inns, motels, hotels, where the crime is committed within their establishmentdue to noncompliance with "eneral police re"ulations, if the offender who is primarily liable cannot

pay, the proprietor, or owner is subsidiarily liable.

Felonies committed by employees, pupils, servants in the course of their employment, schoolin" or

household chores. The employer, master, teacher is subsidiarily liable civilly, while the offender is primarily liable.

In case the accomplice and the principal cannot pay, the liability of those subsidiarily liable is absolute.

'>&84D 'RI>4

&hilosophy behind plural crimes The treatment of plural crimes as one is to be lenient to the offender,

who, instead of bein" made to suffer distinct penalties for every resultin" crime is made to suffer one

penalty only, althou"h it is the penalty for the most serious one and is in the maximum period. &urposeis in the pursuance of the rule of pro reo.

If be complexin" the crime, the penalty would turn out to be hi"her, do not complex anymore.

4xample >urder and theft 7$illed with treachery, then stole the ri"ht9.

&enalty If complex Reclusion temporal maximum to death.

If treated individually Reclusion temporal to Reclusion &erpetua.

'omplex crime is not 5ust a matter of penalty, but of substance under the Revised &enal 'ode.

&lurality of crimes may be in the form of

709 'ompound crime:

7/9 'omplex crime: and

7+9 'omposite crime.

# compound crime is one where a sin"le act produces two or more crimes.

# complex crime strictly spea$in" is one where the offender has to commit an offense as a means for

the commission of another offense. It is said that the offense is committed as a necessary means tocommit the other offense. 3ecessaryG should not be understood as indispensable, otherwise, it shall be

considered absorbed and not "ivin" rise to a complex crime.

# composite crime is one in which substance is made up of more than one crime, but which in the eyes

01



of the law is only a sin"le indivisible offense. This is also $nown as special complex crime. 4xamples

are robbery with homicide, robbery with rape, rape with homicide. These are crimes which in the eyesof the law are re"arded only as a sin"le indivisible offense.

'omposite 'rime;)pecial 'omplex 'rime

This is one which in substance is made up of more than one crime but which in the eyes of the law is

only a sin"le indivisible offense. This is also $nown as a special complex crime. 4xamples are robberywith homicide, robbery with rape, and rape with homicide.

The compound crime and the complex crime are treated in #rticle @ of the Revised &enal 'ode. =utin such article, a compound crime is also desi"nated as a complex crime, but complex crimesG are

limited only to a situation where the resultin" felonies are "rave and;or less "rave.

(hereas in a compound crime, there is no limit as to the "ravity of the resultin" crimes as lon" as a

sin"le act brin"s about two or more crimes. )trictly spea$in", compound crimes are not limited to

"rave or less "rave felonies but covers all sin"le act that results in two or more crimes.

Illustration

# person threw a hand "renade and the people started scamperin". (hen the hand "renade exploded,no on was seriously wounded all were mere wounded. It was held that this is a compound crime,

althou"h the resultin" felonies are only sli"ht.

Illustration of a situation where the term necessaryG in complex crime should not be understood as

indispensable

#bettin" committed durin" the encounter between rebels and "overnment troops such that thehomicide committed cannot be complexed with rebellion. This is because they are indispensable part

of rebellion. 7'aveat rte"a says rebellion can be complexed with common crimes in discussion on

Rebellion9

The complex crime lies actually in the first form under #rticle 0@.

The first form of the complex crime is actually a compound crime, is one where a sin"le act constitutes

two or more "rave and;or less "rave felonies. The basis in complexin" or compoundin" the crime is the

act. )o that when an offender performed more than one act, althou"h similar, if they result in separatecrimes, there is no complex crime at all, instead, the offender shall be prosecuted for as many crimes as

are committed under separate information.

(hen the sin"le act brin"s about two or more crimes, the offender is punished with only one penalty,althou"h in the maximum period, because he acted only with sin"le criminal impulse. The presumption

is that, since there is only one act formed, it follows that there is only one criminal impulse and

correctly, only one penalty should be imposed.

'onversely, when there are several acts performed, the assumption is that each act is impelled by a

distinct criminal impulse and for ever criminal impulse, a separate penalty. However, it may happenthat the offender is impelled only by a sin"le criminal impulse in committin" a series of acts that

0%



brou"ht about more than one crime, considerin" that 'riminal 8aw, if there is only one criminal

impulse which brou"ht about the commission of the crime, the offender should be penaliBed only once.

There are in fact cases decided by the )upreme 'ourt where the offender has performed a series of acts

but the acts appeared to be impelled by one and the same impulse, the rulin" is that a complex crime iscommitted. In this case it is not the sin"leness of the act but the sin"leness of the impulse that has been

considered. There are cases where the )upreme 'ourt held that the crime committed is complex eventhou"h the offender performed not a sin"le act but a series of acts. The only reason is that the series of

acts are impelled by a sin"le criminal impulse.

'3TI3U42 #32 '3TI3UI3C 'RI>4)

In criminal law, when a series of acts are perpetrated in pursuance of a sin"le criminal impulse, there is

what is called a continued crime. In criminal procedure for purposes of venue, this is referred to as acontinuin" crime.

The term continuin" crimesG as sometimes used in lieu of the term continued crimesG, however,althou"h both terms are analo"ous, they are not really used with the same import. 'ontinuin" crimeGis the term used in criminal procedure to denote that a certain crime may be prosecuted and tried not

only before the court of the place where it was ori"inally committed or be"an, but also before the court

of the place where the crime was continued. Hence, the term continuin" crimeG is used in criminal procedure when any of the material in"redients of the crime was committed in different places.

# continued crimeG is one where the offender performs a series of acts violatin" one and the same penal provision committed at the same place and about the same time for the same criminal purpose,

re"ardless of a series of acts done, it is re"arded in law as one.

In &eople v. de 8eon, where the accused too$ five roosters from one and the same chic$en coop,althou"h, the roosters were owned by different persons, it was held that there is only one crime of theft

committed, because the accused acted out of a sin"le criminal impulse only. However performin" a

series of acts but this is one and the same intent )upreme 'ourt ruled that only one crime is committedunder one information.

In &eople v. 8awas, the accused constabulary soldiers were ordered to march with several muslimsfrom one barrio to another place. These soldiers feared that on the way, some of the >uslims may

escape. )o 8awas ordered the men to tie the >uslims by the hand connectin" one with the other, so no

one would run away. (hen the hands of the >uslims were tied, one of them protested, he did not wantto be included amon" those who were tied becase he was a Ha55i, so the Ha55i remonstrated and there

was commotion. #t the hei"ht of the commotion, 8awas ordered his men to fire, and the soldiersmechanically fired. 4leven were $illed and several others were wounded. The *uestion of whether the

constabulary soldiers should be prosecuted for the $illin" of each under a separate information hasreached the )upreme 'ourt. The )upreme 'ourt ruled that the accused should be prosecuted only in

one information, because a complex crime of multiple homicide was committed by them.

In another case, a band of robbers came across a compound where a su"ar mill is located. The wor$ers

of said mill have their *uarters within the compound. The band of robbers ransac$ed the different

*uarters therein. It was held that there is only one crime committed multiple robbery, not because of#rticle @ but because this is a continued crime. (hen the robbers entered the compound, they were

0@



moved by a sin"le criminal intent. 3ot because there were several *uarters robbed. This becomes a

complex crime.

The definition in #rticle @ is not honored because the accused did not perform a sin"le act. There

were a series of acts, but the decision in the 8awas case is correct. The confusion lies in this. (hile#rticle @ spea$s of a complex crime where a sin"le act constitutes two or more "rave or less "rave

offenses, even those cases when the act is not a sin"le but a series of acts resultin" to two or more"rave and less "rave felonies, the )upreme 'ourt considered this as a complex crime when the act is

the product of one sin"le criminal impulse.

If confronted with a problem, use the standard or condition that it refers not only to the sin"leness of

the act which brou"ht two or more "rave and;less "rave felonies. The )upreme 'ourt has extended thisclass of complex crime to those cases when the offender performed not a sin"le act but a series of acts

as lon" as it is the product of a sin"le criminal impulse.

Eou cannot find an article in the Revised &enal 'ode with respect to the continued crime or continuin"

crime. The nearest article is #rticle @. )uch situation is also brou"ht under the operation of #rticle @.

In &eople v. Carcia, the accused were convicts who were members of a certain "an" and they conspiredto $ill the other "an". )ome of the accused $illed their victims in one place within the same

penitentiary, some $illed the others in another place within the same penitentiary. The )upreme 'ourt

ruled that all accused should be punished under one information because they acted in conspiracy. Theact of one is the act of all. =ecause there were several victims $illed and some were mortally wounded,

the accused should be held for the complex crime of multiple homicide with multiple frustrated

homicide. There is a complex crime not only when there is a sin"le act but a series of acts. It is correctthat when the offender acted in conspiracy, this crime is considered as one and prosecuted under one

information. #lthou"h in this case, the offenders did not only $ill one person but $illed different

persons, so it is clear that in $illin" of one victim or the $illin" of another victim, another act out of this

is done simultaneously. )upreme 'ourt considered this as complex. #lthou"h the $illin"s did not resultfrom one sin"le act.

In criminal procedure, it is prohibited to char"e more than one offense in an information, except whenthe crimes in one information constitute a complex crime or a special complex crime.

)o whenever the )upreme 'ourt concludes that the criminal should be punished only once, becausethey acted in conspiracy or under the same criminal impulse, it is necessary to embody these crimes

under one sin"le information. It is necessary to consider them as complex crimes even if the essence of

the crime does not fit the definition of #rt @, because there is no other provision in the R&'.

2uplicity of offenses, in order not to violate this rule, it must be called a complex crime.

In earlier rulin"s on abduction with rape, if several offenders abducted the woman and abused her,there is multiple rape. The offenders are to be convicted of one count of rape and separately char"ed of

the other rapes.

In &eople v. ?ose, there were four participants here. They abducted the woman, after which, the four

too$ turns in abusin" her. It was held that each one of the four became liable not only for his own rape

but also for those committed by the others. 4ach of the four offenders was convicted of four rapes. Inthe eyes of the law, each committed four crimes of rape. ne of the four rapes committed by one of

06



them was complexed with the crime of abduction. The other three rapes are distinct counts of rape. The

three rapes are not necessary to commit the other rapes. Therefore, separate complaints;information.

In &eople v. &abasa, the )upreme 'ourt throu"h ?ustice #*uino ruled that there is only one count of

forcible abduction with rape committed by the offenders who abducted the two women and abusedthem several times. This was only a dissentin" opinion of ?ustice #*uino, that there could be only one

complex crimeof abduction with rape, re"ardless of the number of rapes committed because all therapes are but committed out of one and the same lewd desi"n which impelled the offender to abduct

the victim.

In &eople v. =o5as, the )upreme 'ourt followed the rulin" in &eople v. ?ose that the four men who

abducted and abused the offended women were held liable for one crime one count or forcibleabudction with rape and distinct char"es for rape for the other rapes committed by them.

In &eople v. =ulaon", the )upreme 'ourt adopted the dissentin" opinion of ?ustice #*uino in &eople v.&abasa, that when several persons abducted a woman and abused her, re"ardless of the number of rapes

committed, there should only be one complex crime of forcible abduction with rape. The rapes

committed were in the nature of a continued crime characteriBed by the same lewd desi"n which is anessential element in the crime of forcible abduction.

The abuse amountin" to rape is complexed with forcible abduction because the abduction was already

consummated when the victim was raped. The forcible abduction must be complexed therewith. =utthe multiple rapes should be considered only as one because they are in the nature of a continued

crime.

3ote This is a dan"erous view because the abductors will commit as much rape as they can, after all,

only one complex crime of rape would arise.

In adultery, each intercourse constitutes one crime. #pparently, the sin"leness of the act is notconsidered a sin"le crime. 4ach intercourse brin"s with it the dan"er of brin"in" one stran"er in the

family of the husband.

#rticle @ also applies in cases when out of a sin"le act of ne"li"ence or imprudence, two or more

"rave or less "rave felonies resulted, althou"h only the first part thereof 7compound crime9. The second

part of #rticle @ does not apply, referrin" to the complex crime proper because this applies or refersonly to a deliberate commission of one offense to commit another offense.

However, a li"ht felony may result from criminal ne"li"ence or imprudence, to"ether with other "raveor less "rave felonies resultin" therefrom and the )upreme 'ourt held that all felonies resultin" from

criminal ne"li"ence should be made sub5ect of one information only. The reason bein" that, there isonly one information and prosecution only. therwise, it would be tantamount to splittin" the criminal

ne"li"ence similar to splittin" a cause of action which is prohibited in civil cases.

#lthou"h under #rticle @, a li"ht felony should not be included in a complex crime, yet by virtue of

this rulin" of the )upreme 'ourt, the li"ht felony shall be included in the same information char"in"the offender with "rave and;or less "rave felonies resultin" from the ne"li"ence of rec$less imprudence

and this runs counter to the provision of #rticle @. )o while the )upreme 'ourt ruled that the li"ht

felony resultin" from the same criminal ne"li"ence should be complexed with the other felonies because that would be a blatant violation of #rticle @, instead the )upreme 'ourt stated that an

/!



additional penalty should be imposed for the li"ht felony. This would mean two penalties to be

imposed, one for the complex crime and one for the li"ht felony. It cannot separate the li"ht felony because it appears that the culpa is crime itself and you cannot split the crime.

#pplyin" the concept of the continued crimeG, the followin" cases have been treated as constitutin"one crime only

709 The theft of 0+ cows belon"in" to two different persons committed by the accused at the same

place and period of time 7&eople v. Tumlos, 1% &hil. +/!9:

709 The theft of six roosters belon"in" to two different owners from the same coop and at the same

period of time 7&eople v. ?aranillo9:

7+9 The ille"al char"in" of fees for service rendered by a lawyer every time he collects veterans

benefits on behalf of a client who a"reed that attorneys fees shall be paid out of such benefits 7&eoplev. )abbun, 0! )'#R 0<19. The collections of le"al fees were impelled by the same motive, that of

collectin" fees for services rendered, and all acts of collection were made under the same criminal

impulse.

n the other hand, the )upreme 'ourt declined to apply the concept in the followin" cases

709 Two 4stafa cases, one which was committed durin" the period from ?anuary 06 to 2ecember, 06<<and the other from ?anuary 06<1 to ?uly 06<1 7&eople v. 2ichupa, 0+ &hil +!19. )aid acts were

committed on two different occasions:

7/9 )everal malversations committed in >ay, ?une and ?uly 06+1 and falsifications to conceal said

offenses committed in #u"ust and ctober, 06+1. The malversations and falsifications were not the

result of one resolution to embeBBle and falsify 7&eople v. 'I, 11 &hil. +<09:

7+9 )eventy-five estafa cases committed by the conversion by the a"ents of collections from the

customers of the employer made on different dates.

In the theft cases, the trend is to follow the sin"le larceny doctrine, that is ta$in" of several thin"s,

whether belon"in" to the same or different owners, at the same time and place, constitutes one larceny

only. >any courts have abandoned the separate larceny doctrine, under which there was distinctlarceny as to the property of each victim.

#lso abandoned is the doctrine that the "overnment has the discretion to prosecute the accused for oneoffense or for as many distinct offenses as there are victims 7)antia"o v. ?ustice Carchitorena, decided

on 2ecember /, 066+9. Here, the accused was char"ed with performin" a sin"le act that of approvin"the le"aliBation of aliens not *ualified under the law. The prosecution manifested that they would only

file one information. )ubse*uently, +/ amended informations were filed. The )upreme 'ourt directedthe prosecution to consolidate the cases into one offense because 709 they were in violation of the same

law 4xecutive rder 3o. +/: 7/9 caused in5ury to one party only the "overnment: and 7+9 they

were done in the same day. The concept of delito continuado has been applied to crimes under speciallaws since in #rticle 0!, the Revised &enal 'ode shall be supplementary to special laws, unless the

latter provides the contrary.

&osted by 4lmer =rabante at 0/<1 #> ! comments 8in$s to this post

/0

http://elmerrandom.blogspot.com/2008/06/criminal-law-10.html

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3490533786910594568&postID=2014752572949081014

http://elmerrandom.blogspot.com/2008/06/criminal-law-10.html#links

http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=3490533786910594568&postID=2014752572949081014

http://www.blogger.com/email-post.g?blogID=3490533786910594568&postID=2014752572949081014


https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3490533786910594568&postID=2014752572949081014

http://elmerrandom.blogspot.com/2008/06/criminal-law-10.html#links



Criminal Law (9)

2uration of penalties

Reclusion perpetua

(hat is the duration of reclusion perpetuaA

2o not answer #rticle /% to this *uestion. The proper answer would be that reclusion perpetua has no

duration because this is an indivisible penalty and indivisible penalties have no durations.

Under #rticle /%, those sentenced to reclusion perpetua shall be pardoned after under"oin" the penalty

for +! years, unless such person, by reason of his conduct or some other serious cause, shall be

considered by the 'hief 4xecutive as unworthy of pardon.

Under #rticle %!, which is the Three-Fold Rule, the maximum period shall in no case exceed ! years.

If a convict who is to serve several sentences could only be made to serve ! years, with more reason,one who is sentenced to a sin"ly penalty of reclusion perpetua should not be held for more than !years.

The duration of ! years is not a matter of provision of law: this is only by analo"y. There is no provision of the Revised &enal 'ode that one sentenced to reclusion perpetua cannot be held in 5ail for

! years and neither is there a decision to this effect.

2estierro

(hat is the duration of destierroA

The duration of destierro is from six months and one day, to six year, which is the same as that of prision correcional and suspension. 2estierro is a principal penalty. It is a punishment whereby a

convict is vanished to a certan place and is prohibited form enterin" or comin" near that place

desi"nated in the sentence, not less than /< Jms.. However, the court cannot extend beyond /<! Jms.If the convict should enter the prohibited places, he commits the crime of evasion of service of

sentence under #rticle 0<%. =ut if the convict himself would "o further from which he is vanished by

the court, there is no evasion of sentence because the /!-Jm. limit is upon the authority of the courtin vanishin" the convict.

Under the Revised &enal 'ode, destierro is the penalty imposed in the followin" situations

709 (hen a le"ally married person who had surprised his or her spouse in the act of sexual intercourse

with another and while in that act or immediately thereafter should $ill or inflict serious physical

in5uries upon the other spouse, and;or the paramour or mistress. This is found in #rticle /%.

709 In the crime of "rave threat or li"ht threat, when the offender is re*uired to put up a bond for "ood

behavior but failed or refused to do so under #rticle /@, such convict shall be sentenced to destierroso that he would not be able to carry out his threat.

//





7+9 In the crime of concubina"e, the penalty prescribed for the concubine is destierro under #rticle ++.

79 (here the penalty prescribed by law is arresto mayor, but the offender is entitled privile"ed

miti"atin" circumstance and lowerin" the prescribed penalty by one de"ree, the penalty one de"reelower is destierro. Thus, it shall be the one imposed.

'ivil Interdiction

'ivil interdiction is an accessory penalty. 'ivil interdiction shall deprive the offender durin" the time

of his sentence

709 The ri"hts of parental authority, or "uardianship either as to the person or property of any ward:

7/9 >arital authority:

7+9 The ri"ht to mana"e his property: and

79 The ri"ht to dispose of such property by any act or any conveyance inter vivos.

'an a convict execute a last will and testamentA Ees.

&rimary classification of penalties

&rincipal penalties and accessory penalties

The penalties which are both principal and accessory penalties are the followin"

709 &erpetual or temporary absolute dis*ualification:

7/9 &erpetual or temporary special dis*ualification.

Kuestions L #nswers

0. If the penalty of suspension is imposed as an accessory, what is the durationA

Its duration shall be that of the principal penalty.

/. If the penalty of temporary dis*ualification is imposed as principal penalty, what is the durationA

The duration is six years and one day to 0/ years.

+. (hat do we refer to if it is perpetual or temporary dis*ualificationA

(e refer to the duration of the dis*ualification.

/+



. (hat do we refer to if it is special or absolute dis*ualificationA

(e refer to the nature of the dis*ualification.

The classification of principal and accessory is found in #rticle /<.

In classifyin" the penalties as principal and accessory, what is meant by this is that those penaltiesclassified as accessory penalties need not be stated in the sentence. The accessory penalties follow the

principal penalty imposed for the crime as a matter of course. )o in the imposition of the sentence, the

court will specify only the principal penalty but that is not the only penalty which the offender willsuffer. &enalties which the law considers as accessory to the prescribed penalty are automatically

imposed even thou"h they are not stated in the 5ud"ment. #s to the particular penalties that follow a

particular principal penalty, #rticles ! to < of the Revised &enal 'ode shall "overn.

If as$ed what are the accessory penalties, do not 5ust state the accessory penalties. )tate the principal

penalty and the correspondin" accessory penalties.

&enalties in which other accessory penalties are inherent

709 #rticle !. 2eath - perpetual absolute dis*ualification, and civil interdiction durin" +! yearsfollowin" date of sentence:

7/9 #rticle 0. Reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal - civil interdiction for life or durin" the period of the sentence as the case may be, and perpetual absolute dis*ualification:

7+9 #rticle /. &rision mayor - temporary absolute dis*ualification perpetual special dis*ualification

from the ri"ht of suffra"e:

79 #rticle +. &rision correccional - suspension from public office, from the ri"ht to follow a

profession or callin", and perpetual special dis*ualification from the ri"hts of suffra"e if the durationof said imprisonment shall exceed 0@ months.

7<9 #rticle . #rresto - suspension of the ri"ht to hold office and the ri"ht of suffra"e durin" the termof the sentence.

There are accessory penalties which are true to other principal penalties. #n example is the penalty ofcivil interdiction. This is an accessory penalty and, as provided in #rticle +, a convict sentenced to

civil interdiction suffers certain dis*ualification durin" the term of the sentence. ne of thedis*ualifications is that of ma$in" a conveyance of his property inter vivos.

Illustration

# has been convicted and is servin" the penalty of prision mayor. (hile servin" sentence, he executeda deed of sale over his only parcel of land. # creditor moved to annul the sale on the "round that the

convict is not *ualified to execute a deed of conveyance inter vivos. If you were the 5ud"e, how would

you resolve the move of the creditor to annul the saleA

/



'ivil interdiction is not an accessory penalty in prision mayor. The convict can convey his property.

Kuestions L #nswers

(hat accessory penalty is common to all principal penaltiesA

'onfiscation or forfeiture on the instruments or proceeds of the crime.

=ond to $eep the peace

ne of the principal penalties common to the others is bond to $eep the peace. There is no crime under

the Revised &enal 'ode which carries this penalty.

=ond for "ood behavior

=ond for "ood behavior is prescribed by the Revised &enal 'ode for the crimes of "rave threats andli"ht threats under #rticle /+. Eou cannot find this penalty in #rticle /< because #rticle /< only

provides for bond to $eep the peace. Remember that no felony shall be punished by any penalty not

prescribed by law prior to its commission pursuant to #rticle /0.

Kuestions L #nswers

0. If bond to $eep the peace is not the same as bond for "ood behavior, are they one and the same bond

that differ only in nameA

3o. The le"al effect of each is entirely different. The le"al effect of a failure to post a bond to $eep the

peace is imprisonment either for six months or +! days, dependin" on whether the felony committed is

"rave or less "rave on one hand, or it is li"ht only on the other hand. The le"al effect of failure to post a bond for "ood behavior is not imprisonment but destierro under #rticle /@. Thus, it is clear that the

two bonds are not the same considerin" that the le"al effect or the failure to put up the bond is not the

same.2ivisible and indivisible penalties

(hen we tal$ of period, it is implyin" that the penalty is divisible.

If, after bein" "iven a problem, you were as$ed to state the period in which the penalty of reclusion perpetua is to be imposed, remember that when the penalty is indivisible, there is no period. 2o not

tal$ of period, because when you tal$ of period, you are implyin" that the penalty is divisible becausethe period referred to is the minimum, the medium, and the maximum. If it is indivisible, there is no

such thin" as minimum, medium and maximum.

The capital punishment

Eou were as$ed to state whether you are in favor or a"ainst capital punishment. Understand that you

/<



are not ta$in" the examination in Theolo"y. 4xplain the issue on the basis of social utility of the

penalty. Is it beneficial in deterrin" crimes or notA This should be the premise of your reasonin".

2esi"nation of penalty

)ince the principal penalties carry with them certain accessory penalties, the courts are not at liberty touse any desi"nation of the principal penalty. )o it was held that when the penalty should be reclusion

perpetua, it is error for the court to use the term life imprisonmentG. In other words, the courts are notcorrect when they deviate from the technical desi"nation of the principal penalty, because the moment

they deviate from this desi"nation, there will be no correspondin" accessory penalties that will "o with

them.

Illustration

(hen the 5ud"e sentenced the accused to the penalty of reclusion perpetua, but instead of sayin"

reclusion perpetua, it sentenced the accused to life imprisonment, the desi"nation is wron".

Reclusion perpetua as modified

=efore the enactment of Republic #ct 3o. %1<6, which made amendments to the Revised &enal 'ode,the penalty of reclusion perpetua had no fixed duration. The Revised &enal 'ode provides in #rticle /%

that the convict shall be pardoned after under"oin" the penalty for thirty years, unless by reason of his

conduct or some other serious cause, he is not deservin" of pardon. #s amended by )ection /0 ofRepublic #ct 3o. %1<6, the same article now provides that the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be

from /! years to ! years. =ecause of this, speculations arose as to whether it made reclusion perpetua

a divisible penalty.

#s we $now, when a penalty has a fixed duration, it is said to be divisible and, in accordance with the

provisions of #rticles 1< and %1, should be divided into three e*ual portions to form one period of each

of the three portions. therwise, if the penalty has no fixed duration, it is an indivisible penalty. Thenature of the penalty as divisible or indivisible is decisive of the proper penalty to be imposed under

the Revised &enal 'ode inasmuch as it determines whether the rules in #rticle 1+ or the rules in #rticle

1 should be observed in fixin" the penalty.

Thus, consistent with the rule mentioned, the )upreme 'ourt, by its First 2ivision, applied #rticle 1<

of the 'ode in imposin" the penalty for rape in &eople v. 'onrado 8ucas, CR 3o. 0!@0%/-%+, >ay /<,066. It divided the time included in the penalty of reclusion perpetua into three e*ual portions, with

each portion composin" a period as follows

>inimum - /! years and one day, to /1 years and ei"ht months:

>edium - /1 years, ei"ht months and one day, to ++ years and four months:

>aximum - + years, four months and one day, to ! years.

'onsiderin" the a""ravatin" circumstance of relationship, the 'ourt sentenced the accused toimprisonment of + years, four months and one day of reclusion perpetua, instead of the strai"ht

/1



penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the trial court. The appellee seasonably filed a motion for

clarification to correct the duration of the sentence, because instead of be"innin" with ++ years, fourmonths and one day, it was stated as + years, four months and one day. The issue of whether the

amendment of #rticle /% made reclusion perpetua a divisible penalty was raised, and because the issue

is one of first impression and momentous importance, the First 2ivision referred the motion to the'ourt en banc.

In a resolution promul"ated on ?anuary 6, 066<, the )upreme 'ourt en banc held that reclusion

perpetua shall remain as an indivisible penalty. To this end, the resolution states

#fter deliberatin" on the motion and re-examinin" the le"islation history of R# %1<6, the 'ourt

concludes that althou"h )ection 0% of R# %1<6 has fixed the duration of Reclusion &erpetua fromtwenty years 7/!9 and one 709 to forty ! years, there was no clear le"islative intent to alter its ori"inal

classification as an indivisible penalty. It shall then remain as an indivisible penalty.

erily, if reclusion perpetua was classified as a divisible penalty, then #rticle 1+ of the Revised &enal

'ode would lose its reason and basis for existence. To illustrate, the first para"raph of )ection /! of the

amended R# 3o. 1/< provides for the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death whenever the dan"erousdru"s involved are of any of the *uantities stated herein. If #rticle 1+ of the 'ode were no lon"erapplicable because reclusion perpetua is supposed to be a divisible penalty, then there would be no

statutory rules for determinin" when either reclusion perpetua or death should be the imposable

penalty. In fine, there would be no occasion for imposin" reclusion perpetua as the penalty in dru"cases, re"ardless of the attendant modifyin" circumstances.

3ow then, if 'on"ress had intended to reclassify reclusion perpetua as divisible penalty, then it shouldhave amended #rticle 1+ and #rticle %1 of the Revised &enal 'ode. The latter is the law on what are

considered divisible penalties under the 'ode and what should be the duration of the periods thereof.

There are, as well, other provisions of the Revised &enal 'ode involvin" reclusion perpetua, such as

#rticle 0 on the accessory penalties thereof and para"raphs / and + of #rticle 10, which have not beentouched by a correspondin" amendment.

Ultimately, the *uestion arises (hat then may be the reason for the amendment fixin" the duration of reclusion perpetuaAG This *uestion was answered in the same case of &eople v. 8ucas by *uotin"

pertinent portion of the decision in &eople v. Reyes, /0/ )'R# !/, thus

The imputed duration of thirty 7+!9 years for reclusion perpetua, thereof, is only to serve as the basis

for determinin" the convicts eli"ibility for pardon or for the application of the three-fold rule in the

service of penalties. )ince, however, in all the "raduated scales of penalties in the 'ode, as set out in#rticle /<, %! and /0, reclusion perpetua is the penalty immediately next hi"her to reclusion temporal,

it follows by necessary implication that the minimum of reclusion perpetua is twenty 7/!9 years andone 709 day with a maximum duration thereafter to last for the rest of the convicts natural life,

althou"h, pursuant to #rticle %!, it appears that the maximum period for the service of penalties shallnot exceed forty 7!9 years. It would be le"ally absurd and violative of the scales of penalties in the

'ode to rec$on the minimum of Reclusion &erpetua at thirty 7+!9 years since there would thereby be a

resultant lacuna whenever the penalty exceeds the maximum twenty 7/!9 years of Reclusion Temporal but is less than thirty 7+!9 years.

Innovations on the imposition of the death penalty

/%



#side form restorin" the death penalty for certain heinous crimes, Republic #ct 3o. %1<6 madeinnovations on the provisions of the Revised &enal 'ode re"ardin" the imposition of the death penalty

709 #rticle % has been reworded to expressly include amon" the instances where the death penaltyshall not be imposed, the case of an offender who is below 0@ years old at the time of the commission

of the offense. =ut even without this amendment, the death penalty may not be meted out on anoffender who was below 0@ years of a"e at the time of the commission of the crime because #rticle 1@

the lowers the imposable penalty upon such offenders by at least one de"ree than that prescribed forthe crime.

7/9 In the matter of executin" the death penalty, #rticle @0 has been amended and, thus, directs that themanner of puttin" the convict to death by electrocution shall be chan"ed to "as poisonin" as soon as

the facilities are provided, and the sentence shall be carried out not later that one year after the finality

of 5ud"ment.

7+9 The ori"inal provision of #rticle @+, anent the suspension of the execution of the death penalty for

three years if the convict was a woman, has been deleted and instead, limits such suspension to lastwhile the woman was pre"nant and within one year after delivery.

)ubsidiary penalty

Is subsidiary penalty an accessory penaltyA 3o.

If the convict does not want to pay fine and has so many friends and wants to prolon" his stay in 5ail,can he stay there and not pay fineA 3o.

#fter under"oin" subsidiary penalty and the convict is already released from 5ail and his financial

circumstances improve, can he be made to payA Ees, for the full amount with deduction.

#rticle +6 deals with subsidiary penalty. There are two situations there

709 (hen there is a principal penalty of imprisonment or any other principal penalty and it carries with

it a fine: and

7/9 (hen penalty is only a fine.

Therefore, there shall be no subsidiary penalty for the non-payment of dama"es to the offended party.

This subsidiary penalty is one of important matter under the title of penalty. # subsidiary penalty is notan accessory penalty. )ince it is not an accessory penalty, it must be expressly stated in the sentence,

but the sentence does not specify the period of subsidiary penalty because it will only be $nown if theconvict cannot pay the fine. The sentence will merely provide that in case of non-payment of the fine,

the convict shall be re*uired to save subsidiary penalty. It will then be the prison authority who will

compute this.

)o even if subsidiary penalty is proper in a case, if the 5ud"e failed to state in the sentence that the

convict shall be re*uired to suffer subsidiary penalty in case of insolvency to pay the fine, that convictcannot be re*uired to suffer the accessory penalty. This particular le"al point is a bar problem.

/@



Therefore, the 5ud"ment of the court must state this. If the 5ud"ment is silent, he cannot suffer any

subsidiary penalty.

The subsidiary penalty is not an accessory penalty that follows the principal penalty as a matter of

course. It is not within the control of the convict to pay the fine or not and once the sentence becomesfinal and executory and a writ of execution is issued to collect the fine, if convict has property to levy

upon, the same shall answer for the fine, whether he li$es it or not. It must be that the convict isinsolvent to pay the fine. That means that the writ of execution issued a"ainst the property of the

convict, if any, is returned unsatisfied.

In &eople v. )ubido, it was held that the convict cannot choose not to serve, or not to pay the fine and

instead serve the subsidiary penalty. # subsidiary penalty will only be served if the sheriff shouldreturn the execution for the fine on the property of the convict and he does not have the properties to

satisfy the writ.

Kuestions L #nswers

The penalty imposed by the 5ud"e is fine only. The sheriff then tried to levy the property of thedefendant after it has become final and executory, but it was returned unsatisfied. The court then issued

an order for said convict to suffer subsidiary penalty. The convict was detained, for which reason he

filed a petition for habeas corpus contendin" that his detention is ille"al. (ill the petition prosperA

Ees. The 5ud"ment became final without statement as to subsidiary penalty, so that even if the convict

has no money or property to satisfy the fine, he cannot suffer subsidiary penalty because the latter isnot an accessory and so it must be expressly stated. If the court overloo$ed to provide for subsidiary

penalty in the sentence and its attention was later called to that effect, thereafter, it tried to modify the

sentence to include subsidiary penalty after period to appeal had already elapsed, the addition of

subsidiary penalty will be null and void. This is tantamount to double 5eopardy.

If the fine is prescribed with the penalty of imprisonment or any deprivation of liberty, such

imprisonment should not be hi"her than six years or prision correccional. therwise, there is nosubsidiary penalty.

(hen is subsidiary penalty applied

709 If the subsidiary penalty prescribed for the non-payment of fine which "oes with the principal penalty, the maximum duration of the subsidiary penalty is one year, so there is no subsidiary penalty

that "oes beyond one year. =ut this will only be true if the one year period is hi"her than 0;+ of the principal penalty, the convict cannot be made to under"o subsidiary penalty more than 0;+ of the

duration of the principal penalty and in no case will it be more than 0 year - "et 0;+ of the principal penalty - whichever is lower.

7/9 If the subsidiary penalty is to be imposed for non payment of fine and the principal penaltyimposed be fine only, which is a sin"le penalty, that means it does not "o with another principal

penalty, the most that the convict will be re*uired to under"o subsidiary imprisonment is six months, if

the felony committed is "rave or less "rave, otherwise, if the felony committed is sli"ht, the maximumduration of the subsidiary penalty is only 0< days.

/6



There are some who use the term subsidiary imprisonment. The term is wron" because the penalty isnot only served by imprisonment. The subsidiary penalty follows the nature of the principal penalty. If

the principal penalty is destierro, this bein" a divisible penalty, and a penalty with a fixed duration, the

non-payment of the fine will brin" about subsidiary penalty. This bein" a restriction of liberty with afixed duration under #rticle +6 for the nonpayment of fine that "oes with the destierro, the convict will

be re*uired to under"o subsidiary penalty and it will also be in the form of destierro.

Illustration

# convict was sentenced to suspension and fine. This is a penalty where a public officer anticipates

public duties, he entered into the performance of public office even before he has complied with there*uired formalities. )uppose the convict cannot pay the fine, may he be re*uired to under"o

subsidiary penaltyA

Ees, because the penalty of suspension has a fixed duration. Under #rticle /%, suspension and destierro

have the same duration as prision correccional. )o the duration does not exceed six years. )ince it is a

penalty with a fixed duration under #rticle +6, when there is a subsidiary penalty, such shall be 0;+ ofthe period of suspension which in no case beyond one year. =ut the subsidiary penalty will be servednot by imprisonment but by continued suspension.

If the penalty is public censure and fine even if the public censure is a li"ht penalty, the convict cannot be re*uired to pay the fine for subsidiary penalty for the non-payment of the fine because public

censure is a penalty that has no fixed duration.

2o not consider the totality of the imprisonment the convict is sentenced to but consider the totality or

the duration of the imprisonment that the convict will be re*uired to serve under the Three-Fold Rule.

If the totality of the imprisonment under this rule does not exceed six years, then, even if the totality of

all the sentences without applyin" the Three-Fold Rule will "o beyond six years, the convict shall bere*uired to under"o subsidiary penalty if he could not pay the fine.

Illustration

# collector of 3#(#)# collected from <! houses within a certain locality. (hen he was collectin"

3#(#)# bills, the char"es of all these consumers was a minimum of 0!. The collector appropriatedthe amount collected and so was char"ed with estafa. He was convicted. &enalty imposed was arresto

mayor and a fine of &/!!.!! in each count. If you were the 5ud"e, what penalty would you imposeA

>ay the convict be re*uired to under"o subsidiary penalty in case he is insolvent to pay the fineA

The Three-Fold Rule should not applied by the court. In this case of <! counts of estafa, the penaltyimposed was arresto mayor and a fine of &/!!.!!. #rresto mayor M &/!!.!! x <!. #rresto >ayor is six

months x <! N /< years. &/!!.!! x <! N &0!,!!!.!!. Thus, I would impose a penalty of arresto mayorand a fine of &/!!.!! multiplied by <! counts and state further that as a 5ud"e, I am not in the position

to apply the Three-Fold Rule because the Three-Fold Rule is to be "iven effect when the convict is

already servin" sentence in the penitentiiary. It is the prison authority who will apply the Three-FoldRule. #s far as the court is concerned, that will be the penalty to be imposed.G

For the purposes of subsidiary penalty, apply the Three-Fold Rule if the penalty is arresto mayor and afine of &/!!.!! multiplied by +. This means one year and six months only. )o, applyin" the Three-

+!



Fold Rule, the penalty does not "o beyond six years. Hence, for the non- payment of the fine of

&0!,!!!.!!, the convict shall be re*uired to under"o subsidiary penalty. This is because theimprisonment that will be served will not "o beyond six years. It will only be one year and six months,

since in the service of the sentence, the Three-Fold Rule will apply.

It is clearly provided under #rticle +6 that if the means of the convict should improve, even if he has

already served subsidiary penalty, he shall still be re*uired to pay the fine and there is no deduction forthat amount which the convict has already served by way of subsidiary penalty.

#rticles 1+ and 1

If crime committed is parricide, penalty is reclusion perpetua. The accused, after committin" parricide,

voluntarily surrendered and pleaded "uilty of the crime char"ed upon arrai"nment. It was also

established that he was intoxicated, and no a""ravatin" circumstances were present. (hat penaltywould you imposeA

Reclusion perpetua, because it is an indivisible penalty.

(hen there are two or more miti"atin" circumstances and there is no a""ravatin" circumstance,

penalty to be imposed shall be one de"ree lower to be imposed in the proper period. 2o not apply this

when there is one a""ravatin" circumstance.

Illustration

There are about four miti"atin" circumstances and one a""ravatin" circumstance. 'ourt offsets the

a""ravatin" circumstance a"ainst the miti"atin" circumstance and there still remains three miti"atin"

circumstances. =ecause of that, the 5ud"e lowered the penalty by one de"ree. Is the 5ud"e correctA

3o. In such a case when there are a""ravatin" circumstances, no matter how many miti"atin"

circumstances there are, after offsettin", do not "o down any de"ree lower. The penalty prescribed by

law will be the penalty to be imposed, but in the minimum period. 'annot "o below the minimum period when there is an a""ravatin" circumstance.

Co into the lowerin" of the penalty by one de"ree if the penalty is divisible. )o do not apply the rule in para"raph < of #rticle 1 to a case where the penalty is divisible.

#rticle 11

(hen there are miti"atin" circumstance and a""ravatin" circumstance and the penalty is only fine,

when it is only ordinary miti"atin" circumstance and a""ravatin" circumstance, apply #rticle 11.=ecause you determine the imposable fine on the basis of the financial resources or means of the

offender. =ut if the penalty would be lowered by de"ree, there is a privile"ed miti"atin" circumstance

or the felony committed is attempted or frustrated, provided it is not a li"ht felony a"ainst persons or property, because if it is a li"ht felony and punishable by fine, it is not a crime at all unless it is

consummated. )o, if it is attempted or frustrated, do not "o one de"ree lower because it is not

punishable unless it is a li"ht felony a"ainst person or property where the imposable penalty will belowered by one de"ree or two de"rees.

+0



&enalty prescribed to a crime is lowered by de"rees in the followin" cases

709 (hen the crime is only attempted or frustrated

If it is frustrated, penalty is one de"ree lower than that prescribed by law.

If it is attempted, penalty is two de"rees lower than that prescribed by law.

This is so because the penalty prescribed by law for a crime refers to the consummated sta"e.

7/9 (hen the offender is an accomplice or accessory only

&enalty is one de"ree lower in the case of an accomplice.

&enalty is two de"rees lower in the case of an accessory.

This is so because the penalty prescribed by law for a "iven crime refers to the consummated sta"e.

7+9 (hen there is a privile"e miti"atin" circumstance in favor of the offender, it will lower the penalty

by one or two de"rees than that prescribed by law dependin" on what the particular provision of the

Revised &enal 'ode states.

79 (hen the penalty prescribed for the crime committed is a divisible penalty and there are two or

more ordinary miti"atin" circumstances and no a""ravatin" circumstances whatsoever, the penaltynext lower in de"ree shall be the one imposed.

7<9 (henever the provision of the Revised &enal 'ode specifically lowers the penalty by one or two

de"rees than what is ordinarily prescribed for the crime committed.

&enalty commonly imposed by the Revised &enal 'ode may be by way of imprisonment or by way of

fine or, to a limited extent, by way of destierro or dis*ualification, whether absolute or special.

In the matter of lowerin" the penalty by de"ree, the reference is #rticle %0. It is necessary to $now the

chronolo"y under #rticle %0 by simply $nowin" the scale. Ta$e note that destierro comes after arrestomayor so the penalty one de"ree lower than arresto mayor is not arresto menor, but destierro.

>emoriBe the scale in #rticle %0.

In #rticle /%, with respect to the ran"e of each penalty, the ran"e of arresto menor follows arresto

mayor, since arresto menor is one to +! days or one month, while arresto mayor is one month and oneday to six months. n the other hand, the duration of destierro is the same as prision correccional

which is six months and one day to six years. =ut be this as it is, under #rticle %0, in the scale of penalties "raduated accordin" to de"rees, arresto mayor is hi"her than destierro.

In homicide under #rticle /6, the penalty is reclusion temporal. ne de"ree lower, if homicide isfrustrated, or there is an accomplice participatin" in homicide, is prision mayor, and two de"rees lower

is prision correccional.

This is true if the penalty prescribed by the Revised &enal 'ode is a whole divisible penalty -- one

+/



de"ree or / de"rees lower will also be punished as a whole. =ut "enerally, the penalties prescribed by

the Revised &enal 'ode are only in periods, li$e prision correcional minimum, or prision correcionalminimum to medium.

#lthou"h the penalty is prescribed by the Revised &enal 'ode as a period, such penalty should beunderstood as a de"ree in itself and the followin" rules shall "overn

709 (hen the penalty prescribed by the Revised 'ode is made up of a period, li$e prision correccional

medium, the penalty one de"ree lower is prision correccional minimum, and the penalty two de"reeslower is arresto mayor maximum. In other words, each de"ree will be made up of only one period

because the penalty prescribed is also made up only of one period.

7/9 (hen the penalty prescribed by the 'ode is made up of two periods of a "iven penalty, every timesuch penalty is lowered by one de"ree you have to "o down also by two periods.

Illustration

If the penalty prescribed for the crime is prision correccional medium to maximum, the penalty one

de"ree lower will be arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional minimum, and the penaltyanother de"ree lower will be arresto mayor minimum to medium. 4very de"ree will be composed oftwo periods.

7+9 (hen the penalty prescribed by the Revised &enal 'ode is made up of three periods of different penalties, every time you "o down one de"ree lower, you have to "o down by three periods.

Illustration

The penalty prescribed by the Revised &enal 'ode is prision mayor maximum to reclusion temporal

medium, the penalty one de"ree lower is prision correccional maximum to prision mayor medium.

#nother de"ree lower will be arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional medium.

These rules have nothin" to do with miti"atin" or a""ravatin" circumstances. These rules refer to the

lowerin" of penalty by one or two de"rees. #s to how miti"atin" or a""ravatin" circumstances mayaffect the penalty, the rules are found in #rticles 1+ and 1. #rticle 1+ "overns when the penalty

prescribed by the Revised &enal 'ode is indivisible. #rticle 1 "overns when the penalty prescribed by

the Revised &enal 'ode is divisible. (hen the penalty is indivisible, no matter how many ordinarymiti"atin" circumstances there are, the prescribed penalty is never lowered by de"ree. It ta$es a

privile"ed miti"atin" circumstance to lower such penalty by de"ree. n the other hand, when the

penalty prescribed by the Revised &enal 'ode is divisible, such penalty shall be lowered by one de"reeonly but imposed in the proper period, when there are two or more ordinary miti"atin" circumstance

and there is no a""ravatin" circumstance whatsoever.

#rticle %< Fines

(ith respect to the penalty of fine, if the fine has to be lowered by de"ree either because the felonycommitted is only attempted or frustrated or because there is an accomplice or an accessory

participation, the fine is lowered by deductin" 0; of the maximum amount of the fine from such

maximum without chan"in" the minimum amount prescribed by law.

++



Illustration

If the penalty prescribed is a fine ran"in" from &/!!.!! to &<!!.!!, but the felony is frustrated so that

the penalty should be imposed one de"ree lower, 0; of &<!!.!! shall be deducted therefrom. This is

done by deductin" &0/<.!! from &<!!.!!, leavin" a difference of &+%<.!!. The penalty one de"reelower is &+%<.!!. To "o another de"ree lower, &0/<.!! shall a"ain be deducted from &+%<.!! and that

would leave a difference of &/<!.!!. Hence, the penalty another de"ree lower is a fine ran"in" from&/!!.!! to &/<!.!!. If at all, the fine has to be lowered further, it cannot "o lower than &/!!.!!. )o,

the fine will be imposed at &/!!.!!. This rule applies when the fine has to be lowered by de"ree.

#rticle 11

In so far as ordinary miti"atin" or a""ravatin" circumstance would affect the penalty which is in the

form of a fine, #rticle 11 of the Revised &enal 'ode shall "overn. Under this article, it is discretionaryupon the court to apply the fine ta$in" into consideration the financial means of the offender to pay the

same. In other words, it is not only the miti"atin" and;or a""ravatin" circumstances that the court shall

ta$e into consideration, but primarily, the financial capability of the offender to pay the fine. For thesame crime, the penalty upon an accused who is poor may be less than the penalty upon an accusedcommittin" the same crime but who is wealthy

.

For instance, when there are two offenders who are co-conspirators to a crime, and their penaltyconsists of a fine only, and one of them is wealthy while the other is a pauper, the court may impose a

hi"her penalty upon the wealthy person and a lower fine for the pauper.

&enalty for murder under the Revised &enal 'ode is reclusion temporal maximum to death. )o, the

penalty would be reclusion temporal maximum reclusion perpetua death. This penalty made up of

three periods.

+

the three fold rule.doc

Documents