Crim. Tips

Complex Crime vs.
Compound Crime (2004)

Distinguish clearly but briefly: Between compound and
complex crimes as concepts in the Penal Code.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
COMPOUD C!"M#$ result when the offender
committed only a single felonious act from which two or
Criminal Law Bar Examination Q & A (1994-2006)
more crimes resulted. %his is pro&ided for in modified
form in the first part of 'rticle ()* !e&ised Penal Code*
limiting the resulting crimes to only gra&e and+or less
gra&e felonies. ,ence* light felonies are excluded e&en
though resulting from the same single act.
COMP-#. C!"M#$ result when the offender has to
commit an offense as a necessary means for committing
another offense. Only one information shall be filed and
if pro&en* the penalty for the more serious crime shall be
imposed.
Complex Crime vs. Special Complex Crime vs. Delito
Continuado (2005)
Distinguish the following from each other:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
'n O!D"'!/ COMP-#. C!"M# is made up of two
or more crimes being punished in distinct pro&isions of
the !e&ised Penal Code but alleged in one information
either because they were brought about by a single
felonious act or because one offense is a necessary
means for committing the other offense or offenses.
%hey are alleged in one information so that only one
penalty shall be imposed. 's to penalties* ordinary
complex crime* the penalty for the most serious crime
shall be imposed and in its maximum period
' $P#C"'- COMP-#. C!"M#* on the other hand* is
made up of two or more crimes which are considered
only as components of a single indi&isible offense being
punished in one pro&ision of the !e&ised Penal Code. 's
to penalties* special complex crime* only one penalty is
specifically prescribed for all the component crimes
which are regarded as one indi&isible offense. %he
component crimes are not regarded as distinct crimes and
so the penalty for the most serious crime is not the
penalty to be imposed nor in its maximum period. "t is
the penalty specifically pro&ided for the special complex
crime that shall be applied according to the rules on
imposition of the penalty.
D#-"%O CO%"U'DO* or CO%"UOU$ C!"M#* is
a term used to denote as only one crime a series of
felonious acts arising from a single criminal resolution* not
susceptible of di&ision* which are carried out in the same
place and at about the same time* and &iolating one and the
same penal pro&ision. %he acts done must be impelled by
one criminal intent or purpose* such that each act merely
constitutes a partial execution of a particular crime*
&iolating one and the same penal pro&ision. "t in&ol&es a
concurrence of felonious acts &iolating a common right* a
common penal pro&ision* and "mpelled by a single
criminal impulse (People vs. Ledesma, 73 SCRA 77).
Complex Crime; Aberratio ictus vs. error in personae
(14)
Distinguish aberratio ictus from error in personae.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
28 of 86
'berratio ictus or mista0e in the blow occurs when a
felonious act missed the person against whom it was
directed and hit instead somebody who was not the
intended &ictim. #rror in personae* or mista0e in identity
occurs when the felonious act was directed at the person
intended* but who turned out to be somebody else.
'berratio ictus brings about at least two 123 felonious
conse4uence* ie. the attempted felony on the intended
&ictim who was not hit and the felony on the unintended
&ictim who was hit. ' complex crime of the first form
under 'rt. ()* !PC generally result. "n error in personae
only one crime is committed
Complex Crime; Aberratio !ctus" #rror !n $ersonae %
$raeter !ntentionem (1)
5hat do you understand by aberratio ictus: error in
personae6 and praeter intentionem7 Do they alter the
criminal liability of an accused7 #xplain. 1(83
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
'B#!!'%"O "C%U$ or mista0e in the blow occurs
when the offender deli&ered the blow at his intended
&ictim but missed* and instead such blow landed on an
unintended &ictim. %he situation generally brings about
complex crimes where from a single act* two or more
gra&e or less gra&e felonies resulted* namely the attempt
against the intended &ictim and the conse4uence on the
unintended &ictim. 's complex crimes* the penalty for
the more serious crime shall be the one imposed and in
the maximum period. "t is only when the resulting
felonies are only light that complex crimes do not result
and the penalties are to be imposed distinctly for each
resulting crime.
#!!O! " P#!$O'# or mista0e in identity occurs
when the offender actually hit the person to whom the
blow was directed but turned out to be different from
and not the &ictim intended. %he criminal liability of the
offender is not affected* unless the mista0e in identity
resulted to a crime different from what the offender
intended to commit* in which case the lesser penalty
between the crime intended and the crime committed
shall be imposed but in the maximum period (Art. 49,
RFC).
P!'#%#! "%#%"O#M or where the conse4uence
went beyond that intended or expected. %his is a
mitigating circumstance 1'rt. 9:. par. :* !PC3 when
there is a notorious disparity between the act or means
employed by the offender and the resulting felony* i*e.*
the resulting felony could not be reasonably anticipated
or foreseen by the of fender from the act or means
employed by him.
Complex Crime; Aberratio !ctus; Attempted &urder 'it(
)omicide (2000)
Despite the massi&e ad&ertising campaign in media
against firecrac0ers and gun;firing during the ew /ear<s
celebrations* =onas and =a>a bought ten boxes of super
lolo and pla;pla in Bocaue* Bulacan. Before midnight of
December :9* 9???* =onas and =a>a started their
celebration by ha&ing a drin0ing spree at =ona<s place by
exploding their high;powered firecrac0ers in their
neighborhood. "n the course of their con&ersation* =onas
confided to =a>a that he has been 0eeping a long;time
grudge against his neighbor =epoy in &iew of the latter<s
refusal to lend him some money. 5hile under the
influence of li4uor* =onas started throwing lighted super
lolos inside =epoy<s fence to irritate him and the same
exploded inside the latter<s yard. Upon 0nowing that the
throwing of the super lolo was deliberate* =epoy became
furious and sternly warned =onas to stop his malicious act
or he would get what he wanted. ' heated argument
between =onas and =epoy ensued but =a>a tried to calm
down his friend. 't midnight* =onas con&inced =a>a to
lend him his .(@ caliber pistol so that he could use it to
0noc0 down =epoy and to end his arrogance. =onas
thought that after all* explosions were e&erywhere and
nobody would 0now who shot =epoy. 'fter =a>a lent his
firearm to =onas* the latter again started throwing lighted
super lolos and pla;plas at =epoy<s yard in order to
pro&o0e him so that he would come out of his house.
5hen =epoy came out* =onas immediately shot him with
=a>a<s .(@ caliber gun but missed his target. "nstead* the
bullet hit =epoy<s fi&e year old son who was following
behind him* 0illing the boy instantaneously* a3 5hat
crime or crimes can =onas and =a>a be charged with7
#xplain. 1283
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
=onas and =a>a* can be charged with the complex crime
of attempted murder with homicide because a single act
caused a less gra&e and a gra&e felony 1'rt. (). !PC3.
'ttempted murder is a less gra&e felony* while
consummated homicide is a gra&e felony: both are
punishable by afflicti&e penalties.
Complex Crime; Doctrine o* Aberratio !ctus; +ot
Applicable (1,)
't the height of an altercation* Pedrito shot Paulo but
missed* hitting %iburcio instead* resulting in the death of
the latter. Pedrito* in&o0ing the doctrine of aberratio
ictus* claims exemption from criminal liability. "f you
were the >udge* how would you decide the case7
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
"f " were the =udge* " will con&ict Pedrito and find him
guilty of the complex crime of ,omicide with
'ttempted ,omicide. %he single act of firing at Paulo
resulted in the commission of two felonies* one gra&e
1homicide3 and the other less gra&e 1attempted
homicide3 thus falling s4uarely under 'rt. ()* !PC6
hence* the penalty would be for the more serious crime
1homicideA in its maximum period 19B years ( months
and 9 day to 2C years3.
'berratio ictus 1mista0e in the blow3 could not be used
as a defense as it is not an exempting circumstance.
Pedrito is liable under the principle of 'rt. (* !PC*
which ma0es a person criminally liable for all the natural
and logical conse4uences of his felonious act
29 of 86
Complex Crimes; Coup d-etat % rebellion % sedition
(200.)
93 Can there be a complex crime of coup d<etat with
rebellion7 28 23 Can there be a complex crime of coup
d<etat with sedition7 28
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
93 /es* if there was conspiracy between the
offender+ offenders committing the coup d<etat and the
offenders committing the rebellion. By conspiracy* the
crime of one would be the crime of the other and &ice
&ersa. %his is possible because the offender in coup
d<etat may be any person or persons belonging to the
military or the national police or a public officer*
whereas rebellion does not so re4uire. Moreo&er* the
crime of coup d<etat may be committed singly* whereas
rebellion re4uires a public uprising and ta0ing up arms to
o&erthrow the duly constituted go&ernment. $ince the
two crimes are essentially different and punished with
distinct penalties* there is no legal impediment to the
application of 'rt. () of the !e&ised Penal Code.
23 /es* coup d<etat can be complexed with sedition
because the two crimes are essentially different and
distinctly punished under the !e&ised Penal Code.
$edition may not be directed against the Do&ernment or
non;political in ob>ecti&e* whereas coup d<etat is always
political in ob>ecti&e as it is directed against the
Do&ernment and led by persons or public officer holding
public office belonging to the military or national police.
'rt. () of the Code may apply under the conditions
therein pro&ided.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
%he crime of coup d<etat cannot be complexed with the
crime of rebellion because both crimes are directed
against the Do&ernment or for political purposes*
although the principal offenders are different. %he
essence may be the same and thus constitute only one
crime. "n this situation* the two crimes are not distinct
and therefore* may not be proper to apply 'rticle () of
the Code.
Complex Crimes; Determination o* t(e Crime (1)
'* actuated by malice and with the use of a fully
automatic M;9( sub;machine gun* shot a group of persons
who were seated in a coc0pit with one burst of successi&e*
continuous* automatic fire. Eour 1(3 persons were 0illed
thereby* each ha&ing hit by different bullets coming from
the sub;machine gun of '. Eour 1(3 cases of murder were
filed against '. %he trial court ruled that there was only
one crime committed by ' for the reason that* since '
performed only one act* he ha&ing pressed the trigger of
his gun only once* the crime committed was murder.
Conse4uently* the trial >udge sentenced ' to >ust one
penalty of reclusion perpetua. 5as the decision of the trial
>udge correct7 #xplain. 1(83
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
%he decision of the trial >udge is not correct. 5hen the
offender made use of an automatic firearm* the acts
committed are determined by the number of bullets
discharged inasmuch as the firearm being automatic* the
offender need only press the trigger once and it would
fire continually. Eor each death caused by a distinct and
separate bullet* the accused incurs distinct criminal
liability. ,ence* it is not the act of pressing the trigger
which should be considered as producing the se&eral
felonies* but the number of bullets which actually
produced them.
Complex Crimes; +ature % $enalt/ !nvolved (1)
5hat constitutes a complex crime7 ,ow many crimes
maybe in&ol&ed in a complex crime7 5hat is the
penalty therefor7 1(83
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
' complex crime is constituted when a single act caused
two or more gra&e or less gra&e felonies or when an
offense is committed as a necessary means to commit
another offense 1'rt. ()* !PC3. 't least two 123 crimes
are in&ol&ed in a complex crime6 either two or more
gra&e or less gra&e felonies resulted from a single act* or
an offense is committed as a necessary means for
committing another. %he penalty for the more serious
crime shall be imposed and in its maximum period. 1'rt.
()* !PC3
Complex Crimes; 0rdinar/ Complex Crime vs. Special
Complex Crime (200.)
Distinguish between an ordinary complex crime and a
special complex crime as to their concepts and as to the
imposition of penalties. 28
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
IN CONCEPT -
'n O!D"'!/ COMP-#. C!"M# is made up of two
or more crimes being punished in distinct pro&isions of
the !e&ised Penal Code but alleged in one "nformation
either because they were brought about by a single
felonious act or because one offense is a necessary
means for committing the other offense or offenses.
%hey are alleged in one "nformation so that only one
penalty shall be imposed.
' $P#C"'- COMP-#. C!"M#* on the other hand* is
made up of two or more crimes which are considered
only as components of a single indi&isible offense being
punished in one pro&ision of the !e&ised Penal Code.
AS TO PENALTIES ;"n O!D"'!/ COMP-#.
C!"M#* the penalty for the most serious crime shall be
imposed and in its maximum period.
"n $P#C"'- COMP-#. C!"M#* only one penalty is
specifically prescribed for all the component crimes
which are regarded as one indi&isible offense. %he
component crimes are not regarded as distinct crimes and
so the penalty for the most serious crime is not the
penalty to be imposed nor in its maximum period. "t is
30 of 86
the penalty specifically pro&ided for the special complex
crime that shall be applied according to the rules on
imposition of the penalty.
Continuin1 0**ense vs. Delito Continuado (14)
Differentiate delito continuado from a continuing
offense.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
D#-"%O CO%"U'DO* or CO%"UOU$ C!"M#* is
a term used to denote as only one crime a series of
felonious acts arising from a single criminal resolution* not
susceptible of di&ision* which are carried out in the same
place and at about the same time* and &iolating one and the
same penal pro&ision. %he acts done must be impelled by
one criminal intent or purpose* such that each act merely
constitutes a partial execution of a particular crime*
&iolating one and the same penal pro&ision. "t in&ol&es a
concurrence of felonious acts &iolating a common right* a
common penal pro&ision* and impelled by a single
criminal impulse (People vs. Ledesma, 73 SCRA 77).
On the other hand* a CO%"U"D OEE#$# is one
whose essential ingredients too0 place in more than one
municipality or city* so much so that the criminal
prosecution may be instituted and the case tried in the
competent court of any one of such municipality or city.
%he term FCO%"U#D C!"M#F or delito continuado
mandates that only one information should be filed
against the offender although a series of felonious acts
were performed6 the term Fcontinuing crimeF is more
pertinently used with reference to the &enue where the
criminal action may be instituted.
Deat( $enalt/ (2004)
'. %he death penalty cannot be inflicted under which of
the following circumstances: 93 5hen the guilty person
is at least 9) years of age at
the time of the commission of the crime. 23 5hen the
guilty person is more than BC years of age. :3 5hen*
upon appeal to or automatic re&iew by the
$upreme Court* the re4uired ma>ority for the imposition
of the death penalty is not obtained. (3 5hen the person
is con&icted of a capital crime but before execution
becomes insane. @3 5hen the accused is a woman while
she is pregnant or within one year after deli&ery. #xplain
your answer or choice briefly. 1@83
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
'. Understanding the word FinflictedF to mean the
imposition of the death penalty* not its execution* the
circumstance in which the death penalty cannot be
inflicted is no. 2: Fwhen the guilty person is more than
BC years of ageF 1'rt. (B* !e&ised Penal Code3. "nstead*
the penalty shall be commuted to reclusion perpetua*
with the accessory penalties pro&ided in 'rticle (C* !EC.
"n circumstance no. 9 when the guilty person is at least
9) years of age at the time of the commission of the
crime* the death penalty can be imposed since the
offender is already of legal age when he committed the
crime.
Circumstance no. : no longer operates* considering the
decision of the Supreme Court in People vs. Eren
!ateo (".R. #47$7%&%7, 'ul( 7, )**4) pro&iding an
intermediate re&iew for such cases where the penalty
imposed is death* reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment before they are ele&ated to the $upreme
Court.
"n circumtances nos. ( G @* the death penalty can be
imposed if prescribed by the law &iolated although its
execution shall be suspended when the con&ict becomes
insane before it could be executed and while he is
insane.
-i0ewise* the death penalty can be imposed upon a
woman but its execution shall be suspended during her
pregnancy and for one year after her deli&ery.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
%he word F"E-"C%#DF is found only in 'rt. ): to the
effect that the death penalty may not be F"E-"C%#DF
upon a pregnant woman* such penalty is to be suspended.
"f F"E-"C%#DF is to be construed as F#.#CU%"OF*
then o. @ is the choice.
Deat( $enalt/; 2uali*ied 3ape; 3e4uisites (2004)
DH was con&icted of raping %C* his niece* and he was
sentenced to death. "t was alleged in the information that
the &ictim was a minor below se&en years old* and her
mother testified that she was only six years and ten
months old* which her aunt corroborated on the witness
stand. %he information also alleged that the accused was
the &ictim<s uncle* a fact pro&ed by the prosecution.
On automatic re&iew before the $upreme Court* accused;
appellant contends that capital punishment could not be
imposed on him because of the inade4uacy of the charges
and the insufficiency of the e&idence to pro&e all the
elements of the heinous crime of rape beyond reasonable
doubt. "s appellant<s contention correct7 !eason briefly.
1@83
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
/es* appellant<s contention is correct insofar as the age
of the &ictim is concerned. %he age of the &ictim raped
has not been pro&ed beyond reasonable doubt to
constitute the crime as 4ualified rape and deser&ing of
the death penalty. %he guidelines in appreciating age as
a 4ualifying circumstance in rape cases ha&e not been
met* to wit: 93 %he primary e&idence of the age of the
&ictim is her
birth certificate6 23 "n the absence of the birth certificate*
age of the
&ictim maybe pro&en by authentic document* such
as baptismal certificate and school records6 :3 "f the
aforesaid documents are shown to ha&e been
lost or destroyed or otherwise una&ailable* the
testimony* if clear and credible of the &ictim<s
mother or any member of the family* by
consanguinity or affinity* who is 4ualified to testify
on matters respecting pedigree such as the exact age
31 of 86
or date of birth of the offended party pursuant to
$ection (C* !ule 9:C of the !ules on #&idence shall
be sufficient but only under the following
circumstances: 1a3 "f the &ictim is alleged to be below
: years of age and what is sought to be pro&ed is that
she is less than B years old6 1b3 "f the &ictim is
alleged to be below B years of age and what is
sought to be pro&ed is that she is less than 92 years
old6 1c3 "f the &ictim is alleged to be below 92 years
of age and what is sought to be pro&ed is that she is
less than 9) years old.
4) "n the absence of a certificate of li&e birth*
authentic document* or the testimony of the &ictim<s
mother or relati&es concerning the &ictim<s age under the
circumstances abo&e;stated* complainant<s sole testimony
can suffice* pro&ided that it is expressly and clearly
admitted by the accused (People us. Pruna, 39* SCRA +77
,)**)-).
)abitual Delin4uenc/ % 3ecidivism (2001)
=uan de Castro already had three 1:3 pre&ious con&ictions
by final >udgment for theft when he was found guilty of
!obbery with ,omicide. "n the last case* the trial =udge
considered against the accused both recidi&ism and
habitual delin4uency. %he accused appealed and
contended that in his last con&iction* the trial court cannot
consider against him a finding of recidi&ism and* again*
of habitual delin4uency. "s the appeal meritorious7
#xplain. 1@83
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
o* the appeal is not meritorious. !ecidi&ism and
habitual delin4uency are correctly considered in this case
because the basis of recidi&ism is different from that of
habitual delin4uency. =uan is a recidi&ist ... ,abitual
delin4uency* which brings about an additional penalty
when an offender is con&icted a third time or more for
specified crimes* is correctly considered because =uan
had already three 1:3 pre&ious con&ictions by final
>udgment for theft and again con&icted for !obbery 5ith
,omicide. 'nd the crimes specified as basis for habitual
delin4uency includes* inter alia* theft and robbery.
!ndeterminate Sentence 5a' (14)
"tos was con&icted of an offense penaliIed by a special
law. %he penalty prescribed is not less than six years but
not more than twel&e years. o modifying circumstance
attended the commission of the crime. "f you were the
>udge* will you apply the "ndeterminate $entence -aw7
"f so* how will you apply it7
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
"f " were the >udge* " will apply the pro&isions of the
"ndeterminate $entence -aw* as the last sentence of
$ection 9 'ct (9C:* specifically pro&ides the application
thereof for &iolations of special laws.
Under the same pro&ision* the minimum must not be less
than the minimum pro&ided therein 1six years and one
day3 and the maximum shall not be more than the
maximum pro&ided therein* i.e. twel&e years. (People vs.
Rosalina Re(es, #%$ SCRA #%4)
'ndres is charged with an offense defined by a special
law. %he penalty prescribed for the offense is
imprisonment of not less than fi&e 1@3 years but not more
than ten J9C3 years. Upon arraignment* he entered a plea
of guilty. "n the imposition of the proper penalty* should
the "ndeterminate $entence -aw be applied7 "f you were
the =udge trying the case* what penalty would you impose
on 'ndres7 1(83
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
/es* the "ndeterminate $entence -aw should be applied
because the minimum imprisonment is more than one
193 year.
"f " were the =udge* " will impose an indeterminate
sentence* the maximum of which shall not exceed the
maximum fixed by law and the minimum shall not be
less than the minimum penalty prescribed by the same. "
ha&e the discretion to impose the penalty within the said
minimum and maximum.
' was con&icted of illegal possession of grease guns and
two %hompson sub;machine guns punishable under the
old law J!' o*(K with imprisonment of from fi&e 1@3 to
ten 19C3 years. %he trial court sentenced the accused to
suffer imprisonment of fi&e 1@3 years and one 193 day. "s
the penalty thus imposed correct7 #xplain. 1:83
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
"ndeterminate $entence -aw does not apply to: %he
penalty imposed* being only a straight penalty* is not
correct because it does not comply with the "ndeterminate
$entence -aw which applies to this case. $aid law
re4uires that if the offense is punished by any law other
than the !e&ised Penal Code* the court shall sentence the
accused to an indeterminate sentence* the maximum term
of which shall not exceed the maximum penalty fixed by
the law and the minimum shall not be less than the
minimum penalty prescribed by the same.
,ow are the maximum and the minimum terms of the
indeterminate sentence for offenses punishable under
the !e&ised Penal Code determined7 1:83
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Eor crimes punished under the !e&ised Penal Code* the
maximum term of the "ndeterminate sentence shall be the
penalty properly imposable under the same Code after
considering the attending mitigating and+or aggra&ating
circumstances according to 'rt* L( of said Code. %he
minimum term of the same sentence shall be fixed within
the range of the penalty next lower in degree to that
prescribed for the crime under the said Code.
Under the law, what is the purpose for fiin! the
"ai"u" and the "ini"u" ter"s of the
indeter"inate senten#e$ 1283
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
32 of 86
%he purpose of the law in fixing the minimum term of
the sentence is to set the grace period at which the
con&ict may be released on parole from imprisonment*
unless by his conduct he is not deser&ing of parole and
thus he shall continue ser&ing his prison term in =ail but
in no case to go beyond the maximum term fixed in the
sentence.
,arold was con&icted of a crime defined and penaliIed
by a special penal law where the imposable penalty is
from L months* as minimum* to : years* as maximum.
$tate with reasons whether the court may correctly
impose the following penalties:
a% a strai!ht penalt& of '( "onths)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
/es* because the penalty is less than one year* a straight
penalty may be imposed. (People v. Arellano, ".R. .o,
4$+*#, /0to1er +, #939)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Under the "ndeterminate $entence -aw* the minimum
imposable penalty shall be imposed but the maximum
shall not exceed the maximum imposable by law.
*% 6 "onths, as "ini"u", to '' "onths, as "ai"u")
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
o* because "ndeterminate $entence -aw does not apply
when the penalty imposed is less than one year 1$ec. 2*
'rt. (9C:* as amended3.
#% a strai!ht penalt& of + &ears, -./%
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
o* because the "ndeterminate $entence -aw will apply
when the minimum of the penalty exceeds one year.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER.
"f the imposition of straight penalty which consists of
the minimum period of the penalty prescribed by law*
then it may be allowed because it fa&ors the accused.
!ndeterminate Sentence 5a'; #xceptions (1)
Under what circumstances is the "ndeterminate
$entence -aw not applicable7 1283
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
93 Persons con&icted of offenses punished with death
penalty or life imprisonment6 23 %hose con&icted of
treason* conspiracy or proposal to commit treason6 :3
%hose con&icted of misprision of treason* rebellion*
sedition or espionage6 (3 %hose con&icted of piracy6 @3
%hose who are habitual delin4uents6 L3 %hose who shall
ha&e escaped from confinement or
e&aded sentence6 B3 %hose who &iolated the terms of
conditional pardon granted to them by the Chief
#xecuti&e6 )3 %hose whose maximum term of
imprisonment does not exceed one year6
?3 %hose who* upon the appro&al of the law
1December @* 9?::3. had been sentenced by final
=udgment6
9C3 %hose sentenced to the penalty of destierro or
suspension.
!ndeterminate Sentence 5a'; #xceptions (200.)
5hen would the "ndeterminate $entence -aw be
inapplicable7 (8
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
%he "ndeterminate $entence -aw is not applicable to:
93 those persons con&icted of offenses punished
with death penalty or life;imprisonment or reclusion
perpetua6
23 those con&icted of treason* conspiracy or proposal to
commit treason6 :3 those con&icted of misprision of
treason* rebellion*
sedition or espionage6 (3 those con&icted of piracy6 @3
those who are habitual delin4uents6 L3 those who shall
ha&e escaped from confinement or
e&aded sentence6
B3 those who ha&ing been granted conditional
pardon by the Chief #xecuti&e shall ha&e &iolated the
terms thereof6
)3 those whose maximum term of imprisonment does
not exceed one year6 ?3 those already sentenced by final
>udgment at the time of appro&al of this 'ct6 and 9C3
those whose sentence imposes penalties which do not
in&ol&e imprisonment* li0e destierro.
$enalties6 7ine or !mprisonment vs. Subsidiar/
!mprisonment (2005)
# and M are con&icted of a penal law that imposes a
penalty of fine or imprisonment or both fine and
imprisonment. %he >udge sentenced them to pay the fine*
>ointly and se&erally* with subsidiary imprisonment in
case of insol&ency. "s the penalty proper7 #xplain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
%he penalty is not proper. %he two accused must
separately pay the fine* which is their penalty. $olidary
liability applies only to ci&il liabilities.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
O* because in penal law when there are se&eral
offenders* the court in the exercise of its discretion shall
determine what shall be the share of each offender
depending upon the degree of participation M as principal*
accomplice or accessory. "f within each class of
offender* there are more of them* such as more than one
principal or more than one accomplice or accessory* the
liability in each class of offender shall be subsidiary.
'nyone of the may be re4uired to pay the ci&il liability
pertaining to such offender without pre>udice to reco&ery
from those whose share ha&e been paid by another.
0a& the 1ud!e i"pose an alternati2e penalt& of fine
or i"prison"ent$ Eplain, -3/%
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
33 of 86
o. ' fine* whether imposed as a single or as an
alternati&e penalty* should not and cannot be reduced or
con&erted into a prison term. %here is no rule for
transmutation of the amount of a fine into a term of
imprisonment. (People v. 2a0u(0u(, ".R. .o. L&4+#)7 !a(
+, #9%9)
$enalties6 $ecuniar/ $enalties vs. $ecuniar/ 5iabilities
(2005)
Distinguish pecuniary penalties from pecuniary
liabilities. 1283
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Pecuniary liabilities do not include restitution* but
include reparation of damages caused* the
indemnification for conse4uential damages* as well as
fines and cost of the proceedings.
Pecuniary penalties include fines and cost of the
proceedings.
$enalties; Complex Crime o* #sta*a (18)
' was con&icted of the complex crime of estafa through
falsification of public document. $ince the amount
"n&ol&ed did not exceed P2CC.CC* the penalty prescribed
by law for estafa is arresto mayor in its medium and
maximum periods. %he penalty prescribed by law for
falsification of public document is prision mayor plus
fine not to exceed P@*CCC.CC. "mpose the proper prison
penalty.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
%he proper penalty is '/ !'D# 5"%," prision
correccional 1six 1L3 months and one 193 day to six 1L3
years3 as M""MUM* to '/ !'D# within prision
mayor maximum 1ten 19C3 years and one 193 day to
twel&e 1923 years3 as M'."MUM. %his is in accordance
with People us* DonIales* B: Phil* @(?* where "t was
ruled that for the purpose of determining the penalty next
lower in degree* the penalty that should be considered as
a starting point is the whole of prision mayor* it being the
penalty prescribed by law* and not prision mayor in its
maximum period* which is only the penalty actually
applied because of 'rticle () of the !e&ised Penal Code.
%he penalty next lower in degree therefor is prision
correccional and it is within the range of this penalty that
the minimum should be ta0en.
$enalties; 7actors to Consider (11)
"magine that you are a =udge trying a case* and based on
the e&idence presented and the applicable law* you ha&e
decided on the guilt of two 123 accused. "ndicate the fi&e
1@3 steps you would follow to determine the exact
penalty to be imposed. $tated differently* what are the
factors you must consider to arri&e at the correct
penalty7
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
9 the crime committed6
2 $tage of execution and degree of participation6
: Determine the penalty6
( Consider the modifying circumstances6
@ Determine whether "ndeterminate $entence
-aw is applicable or not.
Criminal Law Bar Examination Q & A (1994-2006) 34 of 86
$enalties; )omicide '9 &odi*/in1 Circumstance (15)
,omer was con&icted of homicide. %he trial court
appreciated the following modifying circumstances: the
aggra&ating circumstance of nocturnity* and the
mitigating circumstances of passion and obfuscation* no
intent to commit so gra&e a wrong* illiteracy and
&oluntary surrender. %he imposable penalty for homicide
is reclusion temporal the range of which is twel&e 1923
years and one 193 day to twenty 12C3 years. %a0ing into
account the attendant aggra&ating and mitigating
circumstances* and applying the "ndeterminate $entence
-aw* determine the proper penalty to be imposed on the
accused.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
"t appears that there is one aggra&ating circumstance
1nocturnity3* and four mitigating circumstances 1passion
and obfuscation* no intent to commit so gra&e a wrong as
that committed and &oluntary surrender3. Par. (* 'rt. L(
should be applied. ,ence there will be off;setting of
modifying circumstances* which will now result in the
excess of three mitigating circumstances. %his will
therefore >ustify in reducing the penalty to the minimum
period.
%he existence of an aggra&ating circumstance* albeit
there are four aggra&ating* will not >ustify the lowering
of the penalty to the next lower degree under paragraph
@ of said 'rticle* as this is applicable only if %,#!# "$
O 'DD!'H'%"D C"!CUM$%'C# present.
$ince the crime committed is ,omicide and the penalty
therefor is reclusion temporal* the M'."MUM sentence
under the "ndeterminate $entence -aw should be the
minimum of the penalty* which is 92 years and 9 day to
9( years and ) months. %he M""MUM penalty will
thus be the penalty next lower in degree* which is
prision mayor in its full extent 1L years and 9 day to 92
years3. #rgo* the proper penalty would be L years and 9
day* as minimum* to 92 years and 9 day* as maximum. "
belie&e that because of the remaining mitigating
circumstances after the off;setting it would be &ery
logical to impose the minimum of the M""MUM
sentence under the "$- and the minimum of the
M'."MUM sentence.
$enalties; &iti1atin1 Circumstances '9out A11ravatin1
Circumstance (18)
'ssume in the preceding problem that there were two
mitigating circumstances and no aggra&ating circumstance.
"mpose the proper prison penalty.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
%here being two 123 mitigating circumstances without
any aggra&ating circumstance* the proper prison penalty
is arresto mayor 1in any of its periods* ie. ranging from
one 193 month and one 193 day to six 1L3 months3 as
M""MUM to prision correccional in its maximum
period four 1(3 years* two 123 months* and one 193 day to
six 1L3 years as M'."MUM. Under 'rt. L(* par. @ of the
!e&ised Penal Code* when a penalty contains three
periods* each one of which forms a period in accordance
with 'rticle BL and BB of the same Code* and there are
two or more mitigating circumstances and no aggra&ating
circumstances* the penalty next lower in degree should be
imposed. Eor purposes of the "ndeterminate $entence
-aw* the penalty next lower in degree should be
determined without regard as to whether the basic penalty
pro&ided by the !e&ised Penal Code should be applied in
its maximum or minimum period as circumstances
modifying liability may re4uire. %he penalty next lower
in degree to prision correccional. %herefore* as
pre&iously stated* the minimum should be within the
range of arresto mayor and the maximum is within the
range of prision correctional in its maximum period.
$enalties; $arricide '9 &iti1atin1 Circumstance (18)
' and B pleaded guilty to the crime of parricide. %he
court found three mitigating circumstances* namely* plea
of guilty* lac0 of "nstruction and lac0 of intent to commit
so gra&e a wrong as that committed. %he prescribed
penalty for parricide is reclusion perpetua to death.
"mpose the proper principal penalty.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
%he proper penalty is reclusion perpetua. #&en if there
are two or more mitigating circumstances* a court cannot
lower the penalty by one degree 1'rt. L:. par. :* !e&ised
Penal Code6 People &s. Eormigones* )B Phil. L)@3. "n
U.$. &s. !elador LC Phil. @?:* where the crime
committed was parricide with the two 123 mitigating
circumstances of illiteracy and lac0 of intention to
commit so gra&e a wrong* and with no aggra&ating
circumstance* the $upreme Court held that the proper*
penalty to be imposed is reclusion perpetua.
$enalties; $reventive !mprisonment (14)
93 5hen is there pre&enti&e imprisonment7 23 5hen is
the accused credited with the full time of his pre&enti&e
imprisonment* and when is he credited with (+@
thereof7
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
93 %here is pre&enti&e imprisonment when Ja3 an
offender is detained while the criminal case against him
is being heard* either because the crime committed is a
capital offense and not bailable* or e&en if the crime
committed was bailable* the offender could not post the
re4uired bail for his pro&isional liberty.
23 'n accused is credited with the full time of his
pre&enti&e imprisonment if he &oluntarily agreed in
writing to abide by the rules of the institution imposed
upon its prisoners* pro&ided that:
a3 the penalty imposed on him for the crime
committed consists of a depri&ation of liberty6
b3 he is not dis4ualified from such credit for being
a recidi&ist* or for ha&ing been pre&iously
con&icted for two or more times of any crime*
or for ha&ing failed to surrender &oluntarily for
the execution of the sentence upon being so
summoned 1'rt. 2?* !PC3.
5here the accused howe&er did not agree he would only
be credited with (+@ of the time he had undergone
pre&enti&e imprisonment.
$enalties; 3eclusion $erpetua (3A) +o. 85 (2005)
Under 'rticle 2B of the !e&ised Penal Code* as amended
by !epublic 'ct 1!'3 o. B?@?* reclusion perpetua shall
be from 2C years and 9 day to (C years. Does this mean
that reclusion perpetua is now a di&isible penalty7
#xplain. 1283
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
o* because the $upreme Court has repeatedly called the
attention of the Bench and the Bar to the fact that the
penalties of reclusion perpetua and life imprisonment are
not synonymous and should be applied correctly and as
may be specified by the applicable law. !eclusion
perpetua has a specific duration of 2C years and 9 day to
(C years 1'rt. 2B3 and accessory penalties 1'rt. (93*
while life imprisonment has no definite term or accessory
penalties. 'lso* life imprisonment is imposable on crimes
punished by special laws* and not on felonies in the Code
(People vs. 2e "u3man, ".R. .os. +#3%+&%$, 'an. )), #9934
People vs. Estrella, ".R. .os. 9)+*$&*7, April )%, #9934
People vs. Alvero,
".R. .o. 7)3#9, 'une 3*,#9934 People vs. Lapiroso, ".R. .o.
#))+*7, Fe1. )+, #999).,see Criminal La5 Conspe0tus, pa6e
#+$-
$enalties; 3eclusion $erpetua vs. 5i*e !mprisonment
(14)
Differentiate reclusion perpetua from life imprisonment.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
!#C-U$"O P#!P#%U' is that penalty pro&ided for
in the !e&ised Penal Code for crimes defined in and
penaliIed therein except for some crimes defined by
special laws which impose reclusion perpetua* such as
&iolations of !epublic 'ct L(2@* as amended by
!epublic 'ct BL@? or of PD 9)LC6 while -"E#
"MP!"$OM#% is a penalty usually pro&ided for in
special laws. !eclusion perpetua has a duration of
twenty 12C3 years and one 193 day to forty J(CK years
under !epublic 'ct BL@?* while life imprisonment has
no duration6 reclusion perpetua may be reduced by one
or two degrees6 reclusion perpetuates accessory penalties
while life imprisonment does not ha&e any accessory
penalties (People vs. 7a6uio, #9$ SCRA 4+9, People vs.
Panellos, )*+ SCRA +4$).
$enalties; 3eclusion $erpetua vs. 5i*e !mprisonment
(2001)
'fter trial* =udge =uan -aya of the Manila !%C found
Ben>amin Darcia guilty of Murder* the &ictim ha&ing
sustained se&eral bullet wounds in his body so that he
died despite medical assistance gi&en in the Ospital ng
Manila. Because the weapon used by Ben>amin was
unlicensed and the 4ualifying circumstance of treachery
was found to be present. =udge -aya rendered his
decision con&icting Ben>amin and sentencing him to
Freclusion perpetua or life imprisonmentF.
're Freclusion perpetuaF and life imprisonment the same
and can be imposed interchangeably as in the foregoing
sentence7 Or are they totally different7 $tate your
reasons. 1:83
35 of 86
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
%he penalty of reclusion perpetua and the penalty of life
"mprisonment are totally different from each other and
therefore* should not be used interchangeably.
!eclusion perpetua is a penalty prescribed by the
!e&ised Penal Code* with a fixed duration of
imprisonment from 2C years and 9 day to (C years* and
carries it with accessory penalties.
-ife imprisonment* on the other hand* is a penalty
prescribed by special laws* with no fixed duration of
imprisonment and without any accessory penalty.
$robation 5a'6 $roper $eriod (2005)
Maganda was charged with &iolation of the Bouncing
Chec0s -aw 1BP 223 punishable by imprisonment of not
less than :C days but not more than 9 year or a fine of not
less than but not more than double the amount of the
chec0* which fine shall not exceed P2CC*CCC.CC* or both.
%he court con&icted her of the crime and sentenced her to
pay a fine of P@C*CCC.CC with subsidiary imprisonment in
case of insol&ency* and to pay the pri&ate complainant
the amount of the chec0. Maganda was unable to pay the
fine but filed a petition for probation. %he court granted
the petition sub>ect to the condition* among others* that
she should not change her residence without the courtNs
prior appro&al.
a3 5hat is the proper period of probation7
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
%he period shall not be less than twice the total number
of days of subsidiary imprisonment. Under 'ct o.
9B:2* subsidiary imprisonment for &iolations of special
laws shall not exceed L months at the rate of one day of
imprisonment for e&ery E2.@C. ,ence* the proper period
of probation should not be less than 1L months nor more
than 92 months. $ince P@C*CCC.CC fine is more than the
maximum subsidiary imprisonment of L months at P2.@C
a day.
b3 $upposing before the Order of Discharge was issued
by the court but after the lapse of the period of probation*
Maganda transferred residence without prior appro&al of
the court. May the court re&o0e the Order of Probation
and order her to ser&e the subsidiary imprisonment7
#xplain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
/es. %he Court may re&o0e her probation. Probation is
not coterminous with its period. %here must first be
issued by the court an order of final discharge based on
the report and recommendation of the probation officer.
Only then can the case of the probationer be terminated.
(7ala v. !artine3, ".R. .o. $73*#, 'anuar( )9, #99*, 0itin6
Se0. #$ o P.2. .o. 9$%)
$robation 5a'; :arred b/ Appeal (14)
On Eebruary :* 9?)L* !oberto was con&icted of arson
through rec0less imprudence and sentenced to pay a fine
of P9@*CCC.CC* with subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insol&ency by the !egional %rial Court of OueIon City.
On Eebruary 9C* 9?)L* he appealed to the Court of
'ppeals. $e&eral months later* he filed a motion to
withdraw the appeal on the ground that he is applying for
probation. On May B* 9?)B* the Court of 'ppeals granted
the motion and considered the appeal withdrawn.
On =une 9C* 9?)B* the records of the case were remanded
to the trial court. !oberto filed a FMotion for ProbationF
praying that execution of his sentence be suspended* and
that a probation officer be ordered to conduct an
"n&estigation and to submit a report on his probation.
%he >udge denied the motion on the ground that pursuant
to Presidential Decree o. 9??C* which too0 effect on
=uly 9L*9?)L* no application for probation shall be
entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected an
appeal from the >udgment of con&iction. "s the denial of
!oberto<s motion correct7
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
/es. #&en if at the time of his con&iction !oberto was
4ualified for probation but that at the time of his
application for probation* he is no longer 4ualified* he is
not entitled to probation. %he 4ualification for probation
must be determined as of the time the application is filed
in Court (7ernardo vs. 'ud6e, etal. "R.o. L%$+$#,.ov, #*.
#99)4 Ed5in de la Cru3 vs. 'ud6e Calle8o. et al, SP&#9$++,
April #%, #99*, 0itin6 Llamado vs. CA, et al, "R .o. %4%+9,
'une )%, #9%94 7ernardo us. 'ud6e 7ala6ot, etal, "R %$+$#,
.ov. #*, #99)).
$robation 5a'; :arred b/ Appeal (2001)
'* a subdi&ision de&eloper* was con&icted by the !%C
of Ma0ati for failure to issue the subdi&ision title to a lot
buyer despite full payment of the lot* and sentenced to
suffer one year "mprisonment. ' appealed the decision
of the !%C to the Court of 'ppeals but his appeal was
dismissed. May ' still apply for probation7 #xplain.
1@83
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
o* ' is no longer 4ualified to apply for probation after
he appealed from the >udgment of con&iction by the
!%C. %he probation law 1PD ?L)* as amended by
PD9??C3 now pro&ides that no application for probation
shall be entertained or granted if the accused has
perfected an appeal from the >udgment of con&iction
1$ec. (* PD ?L)3.
$robation 5a'; &aximum ;erm vs. ;otal ;erm (18)
%he accused was found guilty of gra&e oral defamation
in sixteen 19L3 informations which were tried >ointly and
was sentenced in one decision to suffer in each case a
prison term of one 193 year and one 193 day to one 193
year and eight 1)3 months of prision correccional.
5ithin the period to appeal* he filed an application for
probation under the Probation -aw of 9?BL* as amended.
Could he possibly 4ualify for probation7
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
/es. "n Fran0is0o vs. Court o Appeals, )43 SCRA 3%4*
the $upreme Court held that in case of one decision
imposing multiple prison terms* the totality of the prison
terms should not be ta0en into account for the purposes
of determining the eligibility of the accused for the
36 of 86
probation. %he law uses the word Fmaximum termF* and
not total term. "t is enough that each of the prison terms
does not exceed six years. %he number of offenses is
immaterial for as long as the penalties imposed* when
ta0en indi&idually and separately* are within the
probationable period.
$robation 5a'; 0rder Den/in1 $robation; +ot
Appealable (2002)
' was charged with homicide. 'fter trial* he was found
guilty and sentenced to six 1L3 years and one 193 day in
prision mayor* as minimum* to twel&e 1923 years and
one 193 day of reclusion temporal* as maximum. Prior to his
con&iction* he had been found guilty of &agrancy and
imprisoned for ten 19C3 days of arresto manor and fined
fifty pesos 1P@C.CC3. "s he eligible for probation7 5hy7
1:83
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
o* he is not entitled to the benefits of the Probation
-aw 1PD ?L)* as amended3 does not extend to those
sentenced to ser&e a maximum term of imprisonment of
more than six years 1$ec. ?a3.
"t is of no moment that in his pre&ious con&iction ' was
gi&en a penalty of only ten 19C3 days of arresto mayor
and a fine of P@C.CC.
B. May a probationer appeal from the decision re&o0ing
the grant of probation or modifying the terms and
conditions thereof7 1283
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
o. Under $ection ( of the Probation -aw* as amended*
an order granting or denying probation is not
appealable.
$robation 5a'; $eriod Covered (2004)
P. was con&icted and sentenced to imprisonment of
thirty days and a fine of one hundred pesos. Pre&iously*
P. was con&icted of another crime for which the
penalty imposed on him was thirty days only. "s P.
entitled to probation7 #xplain briefly. 1@83
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
/es* P. may apply for probation. ,is pre&ious
con&iction for another crime with a penalty of thirty days
imprisonment or not exceeding one 193 month does not
dis4ualify him from applying for probation6 the penalty
for his present con&iction does not dis4ualify him either
from applying for probation* since the imprisonment does
not exceed six 1L3 years (Se0. 9, Pres. 2e0ree .o. 9$%).
$robation 5a'; 3i1(t; :arred b/ Appeal (15)
"n a case for &iolation of $ec. )* !' L(2@* otherwise
0nown as the Dangerous Drugs 'ct* accused Hincent was
gi&en the benefit of the mitigating circumstances of
&oluntary plea of guilt and drun0enness not otherwise
habitual. ,e was sentenced to suffer a penalty of six 1L3
years and one 193 day and to pay a fine of PL*CCC.CC with
the accessory penalties pro&ided by law* plus costs.
Hincent applied for probation. %he probation officer
fa&orably recommended his application.
9 "f you were the =udge* what action will you ta0e on the
application7 Discuss fully.
2 $uppose that Hincent was con&icted of a crime for
which he was sentenced to a maximum penalty of ten 19C3
years. Under the law* he is not eligible for probation. ,e
seasonably appealed his con&iction. 5hile affirming the
>udgment of con&iction* the appellate court reduced the penalty
to a maximum of four 1(3 years and four 1(3 months ta0ing into
consideration certain modifying circumstances. Hincent now
applies for probation. ,ow will you rule on his application7
Discuss fully.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
9. "f " were the >udge* " will deny the application for
probation. %he accused is not entitled to probation as
$ec. ? of the Probation -aw* PD O. ?L)* as amended*
specifically mentions that those who Fare sentenced to
ser&e a maximum term of imprisonment of more than
six yearsF are not entitled to the benefits of the law.
2. %he law and >urisprudence are to the effect that appeal
by the accused from a sentence of con&iction forfeits his
right to probation.(Se0. 4, P2 .o. 9$%. as amended 1( P2
#99*4 7ernardo us. 7ala6ot4 Fran0is0o vs. CA9 Llamado vs.
CA4 2e la Cru3 vs. 'ud6e Calle8o, CA 0ase).
:;is is t;e se0ond 0onse0utive (ear t;at t;is
<uestion 5as as=ed. >t is t;e sin0ere 1elie o
t;e Committee t;at t;ere is a need to re&
e?amine t;e do0trine. Firstl(, mu0; as t;e
a00used 5anted to appl( or pro1ation ;e is
pros0ri1ed rom doin6 so as t;e ma?imum
penalt( is ./: PR/7A:>/.A7LE. Se0ondl(,
5;en t;e ma?imum penalt( 5as redu0ed to one
5;i0; allo5s pro1ation it is 1ut air and 8ust to
6rant ;im t;at ri6;t 1e0ause it is apparent t;at
t;e trial 8ud6e 0ommitted an error and or
5;i0; t;e a00used s;ould not 1e made to suer.
'udi0ial tri1unals in t;is 8urisdi0tion are not
onl( 0ourts o la5 1ut also o e<uit(. :;irdl(,
t;e 8ud6ment o t;e appellate 0ourt s;ould 1e
0onsidered a ne5 de0ision as t;e trial 0ourt@s
de0ision 5as va0ated4 ;en0e, ;e 0ould ta=e
advanta6e o t;e la5 5;en t;e de0ision is
remanded to t;e trial 0ourt or e?e0ution
(Please see 2issentin6 opinion in Fran0is0o vs.
CA). >t is su66ested, t;ereore, t;at an
e?aminee ans5erin6 in t;is tenor s;ould 1e
0redited 5it; some points.
$robation 5a'; 3i1(t; :arred b/ Appeal (200.)
=uan was con&icted of the !egional %rial Court of a crime
and sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for a
minimum of eight years. ,e appealed both his con&iction
and the penalty imposed upon him to the Court of
'ppeals. %he appellate court ultimately sustained =uan<s
con&iction but reduced his sentence to a maximum of four
years and eight months imprisonment. Could =uan
forthwith file an application for probation7 #xplain. )8
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
o* =uan can no longer a&ail of the probation because he
appealed from the >udgment of con&iction of the trial
court* and therefore* cannot apply for probation anymore.
$ection ( of the Probation -aw* as amended*
37
of 86
mandates that no application for probation shall be
entertained or granted if the accused has perfected an
appeal from the >udgment of con&iction.
Suspension o* Sentence; Adults9&inors (200,)
%here are at least B instances or situations in criminal
cases wherein the accused* either as an adult or as a
minor* can apply for and+or be granted a suspended
sentence. #numerate at least @ of them. 1@83
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
9. $uspension of sentence of minor under P.D.
LC: as amended by !.'. ?:((.
2. $uspension of sentence of minor abo&e 9@ but
below 9) years of age at the time of trial under !.'.
?:((.
:. $uspension of sentence of minor abo&e 9@ but
below 9) years of age at the commission of the offense*
while acting with discernment.
(. $uspension of sentence by reason of insanity
1'rt. B?* !e&ised Penal Code3.
@. $uspension of sentence for first offense of a
minor &iolating !=H. ?9L@. 1$ec. :23
L. $uspension of sentence under the probation
law. 1P.D. ?L)3
B. $uspension of death sentence of a pregnant
woman. 1'rt. ):* !e&ised Penal Code3
(./:A 7E.E9 R.A. 9344 is outside t;e 0overa6e o t;e
e?amination)
Suspension o* Sentence; &inors (200.)
' was 2 months below 9) years of age when he
committed the crime. ,e was charged with the crime :
months later. ,e was 2: when he was finally con&icted
and sentenced. "nstead of preparing to ser&e a >ail term*
he sought a suspension of the sentence on the ground
that he was a >u&enile offender $hould he be entitled to
a suspension of sentence7 !easons. (8
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
o* ' is not entitled to a suspension of the sentence
because he is no longer a minor at the time of
promulgation of the sentence. Eor purposes of
suspension of sentence* the offender<s age at the time of
promulgation of the sentence is the one considered* not
his age when he committed the crime. $o although ' was
below 9) years old when he committed the crime* but he
was already 2: years old when sentenced* he is no longer
eligible for suspension of the sentence.
Can 1u2enile offenders, who are re#idi2ists, 2alidl&
as4 for suspension of senten#e$ Eplain, 3/
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
/es* so long as the offender is still a minor at the time of
the promulgation of the sentence. %he law establishing
Eamily Courts* !ep. 'ct ):L?* pro&ides to this effect:
that if the minor is found guilty* the court should
promulgate the sentence and ascertain any ci&il liability
which the accused may ha&e incurred. ,owe&er* the
sentence shall be suspended without the need of
application pursuant to PD LC:* otherwise 0nown as the
FChild and /outh 5elfare CodeF 1!' ):L?* $ec. @a3* "t
is under PD LC: that an application for suspension of the
sentence is re4uired and thereunder it is one of the
conditions for suspension of sentence that the offender
be a first time con&ict: this has been displaced by !'
):L?.
Suspension o* Sentence; <out(*ul 0**ender (15)
Hictor* !ic0y* !od and !onnie went to the store of Mang
Pandoy. Hictor and !ic0y entered the store while !od and
!onnie posted themsel&es at the door. 'fter ordering beer
!ic0y complained that he was shortchanged although
Mang Pandoy &ehemently denied it. $uddenly !ic0y
whipped out a 0nife as he announced F,old;up itoPF and
stabbed Mang Pandoy to death. !od boxed the store<s
salesgirl -ucy to pre&ent her from helping Mang Pandoy.
5hen -ucy ran out of the store to see0 help from people
next door she was chased by !onnie. 's soon as !ic0y
had stabbed Mang Pandoy* Hictor scooped up the money
from the cash box. %hen Hictor and !ic0y dashed to the
street and shouted* F%uma0bo na 0ayoPF !od was 9( and
!onnie was 9B. %he money and other articles looted from
the store of Mang Pandoy were later found in the houses
of Hictor and !ic0y.
9 Discuss fully the criminal liability of Hictor* !ic0y*
!od and !onnie.
2 're the minors !od and !onnie entitled to suspended
sentence under %he Child and /outh 5elfare Code7 #xplain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
9 . 'll are liable for the special complex crime of
robbery with homicide....
2. o* because the benefits of suspension of sentence is
not a&ailable where the youthful offender has been
con&icted of an offense punishable by life imprisonment
or death* pursuant to P.D. o. LC:* 'rt. 9?2* %he
complex crime of robbery with homicide is punishable
by reclusion perpetua to death under 'rt. 2?( 193* !EC
JPeople vs. "alit. )3* SCRA 4%$).
EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL
LIABILITY
Amnest/ vs. $D 11,0 (200,)
Can former D$5D $ecretary Din0y $oliman apply for
amnesty7 ,ow about columnist !andy Da&id7 1/ou are
supposed to 0now the crimes or offenses ascribed to
them as published in almost all newspapers for the past
se&eral months.3 12.@83
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Proclamation 99LC* which amended Proclamation B2(*
applies only to offenses committed prior to 9???. %hus*
their applications shall be ineffectual and useless.
Deneral -im and Deneral Ouerubin of the $cout
!angers and Philippine Marines* respecti&ely* were
changed with conduct unbecoming an officer and a
gentleman under the 'rticles of 5ar. Can they apply for
amnesty7 12.@83
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
38 of 86
Proclamation 99LC* which amended Proclamation B2(*
applies only to offenses committed prior to 9???. %hus*
their applications shall be ineffectual and useless.
Amnest/; Crimes Covered (200,)
Under Presidential Proclamation o. B2(* amending
Presidential Proclamation o. :(B* certain crimes are
co&ered by the grant of amnesty. ame at least @ of these
crimes. 12.@83
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Crimes co&ered under Presidential Proclamation o.
B2(:
9. Coup
d<etat* 2. !ebellion or
insurrection6 :. Disloyalty of public officers or
employees6 (. "nciting to rebellion or
insurrection6 @. Conspiracy to commit rebellion or
insurrection6 L. Proposal to commit rebellion or
insurrection6 B.
$edition6 ). Conspiracy to commit
sedition6 ?. "nciting to
sedition6 9C. "llegal
'ssembly6 99. "llegal 'ssociation6
92. Direct 'ssault6
9:. "ndirect 'ssault6
9(. !esistance and disobedience to a person in
authority6 9@. %umults and other disturbances6
9L. Unlawful use of means of publications and unlawful
utterrances6
9B. 'larm and scandal6
9). "llegal Possession of firearms.
#xtinction; Criminal % Civil 5iabilities; #**ects; Deat( o*
accused pendin1 appeal (2004)
'. was con&icted of rec0less imprudence resulting in
homicide. %he trial court sentenced him to a prison term
as well as to pay P9@C*CCC as ci&il indemnity and
damages. 5hile his appeal was pending* '. met a fatal
accident. ,e left a young widow* 2 children* and a
million;peso estate. 5hat is the effect* if any* of his
death on his criminal as well as ci&il liability7 #xplain
briefly. 1@83
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
%he death of '. while his appeal from the >udgment of
the trial court is pending* extinguishes his criminal
liability. %he ci&il liability insofar as it arises from the
crime and reco&erable under the !e&ised Penal Code is
also extinguished6 but indemnity and damages may be
reco&ered in a ci&il action if predicated on a source of
obligation under 'rt. 99@B* Ci&il Code* such as law*
contracts* 4uasi;contracts and 4uasi;delicts* but not on
the basis of delicts. (People v. 7a(otas, )3$ SCRA )39 ).
Ci&il indemnity and damages under the !e&ised Penal
Code are reco&erable only if the accused had been
con&icted with finality before he died.
#xtinction; Criminal % Civil 5iabilities; #**ects; Deat( o*
0**ended $art/ (2000)
Eor defrauding -orna* 'lma was charged before the
Municipal %rial Court of Malolos* Bulacan. 'fter a
protracted trial* 'lma was con&icted. 5hile the case was
pending appeal in the !egional %rial Court of the same
pro&ince* -orna who was then suffering from breast
cancer* died. 'lma manifested to the court that with
-orna<s death* her 1'lma<s3 criminal and ci&il liabilities
are now extinguished. "s 'lma<s contention correct7
5hat if it were 'lma who died* would it affect her
criminal and ci&il liabilities7 #xplain. 1:83
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
o. 'lma<s contention is not correct. %he death of the
offended party does not extinguish the criminal liability
of the offender* because the offense is committed against
the $tate ,People vs. !isola, %7 P;il. %3*, %33). ,ence*
it follows that the ci&il liability of 'lma based on the
offense committed by her is not extinguished. %he estate
of -orna can continue the case.
On the other hand* if it were 'lma who died pending
appeal of her con&iction* her criminal liability shall be
extinguished and therewith the ci&il liability under the
!e&ised Penal Code 1'rt. )?* par. 9* !PC3. ,owe&er*
the claim for ci&il indemnity may be instituted under the
Ci&il Code 1'rt. 99@B3 if predicated on a source of
obligation other than delict* such as law* contracts*
4uasi;contracts and 4uasi;delicts (People vs. 7a(otas )3$
SCRA )39, ".R. #+)**7, Septem1er ). #994)
$ardon vs. Amnest/ (200,)
#numerate the differences between pardon and
amnesty. 12.@83
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a3 P'!DO includes any crime and is exercised
indi&idually by the President* while 'M#$%/ applies
to classes of persons or communities who may be guilty
of political offenses.
b3 P'!DO is exercised when the person is
already con&icted* while 'M#$%/ may be exercised
e&en before trial or in&estigation.
c3 P'!DO loo0s forward and relie&es the
offender of the penalty of the offense for which he has
been con&icted6 it does not wor0 for the restoration of the
rights to hold public office* or the right of suffrage*
unless such rights are expressly restored by means of
pardon* while 'M#$%/ loo0s bac0ward and abolishes
the offense and its effects* as if the person had committed
no offense.
d3 P'!DO does not alter the fact that the
accused is criminally liable as it produces only the
extinction of the penalty* while 'M#$%/ remo&es the
criminal liability of the offender because it obliterates
e&ery &estige of the crime.
e3 P'!DO being a pri&ate act by the President*
must be pleaded and pro&ed by the person pardoned*
while 'M#$%/ which is a Proclamation of the Chief
#xecuti&e with the concurrence of Congress is a public act
of which the courts should ta0e >udicial notice.
39 of 86
$ardon; #**ect; Civil !nterdiction (2004)
%!/ was sentenced to death by final >udgment. But
subse4uently he was granted pardon by the President.
%he pardon was silent on the perpetual dis4ualification
of %!/ to hold any public office. 'fter his pardon* %!/
ran for office as Mayor of 'PP* his hometown. ,is
opponent sought to dis4ualify him. %!/ contended he is
not dis4ualified because he was already pardoned by the
President unconditionally. "s %!/<$ contention correct7
!eason briefly. 1@83
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
o* %!/<s contention is not correct. 'rticle (C of the
!e&ised Penal Code expressly pro&ides that when the
death penalty is not executed by reason of commutation
or pardon* the accessory penalties of perpetual absolute
dis4ualification and ci&il interdiction during thirty 1:C3
years from the date of the sentence shall remain as
effects thereof* unless such accessory penalties ha&e
been expressly remitted in the pardon. %his is because
pardon only excuses the con&ict from ser&ing the
sentence but does not relie&e him of the effects of the
con&iction unless expressly remitted in the pardon.
$ardon; #**ect; 3einstatement (14)
-inda was con&icted by the $andiganbayan of estafa*
through falsification of public document. $he was
sentenced accordingly and ordered to pay* among others*
P@*CCC.CC representing the balance of the amount
defrauded.
%he case reached the $upreme Court which affirmed the
>udgment of con&iction. During the pendency of -inda<s
motion for reconsideration in the said Court* the
President extended to her an absolute pardon which she
accepted.
By reason of such pardon* she wrote the Department of
Einance re4uesting that she be restored to her former post
as assistant treasurer* which is still &acant. %he
Department ruled that -inda may be reinstated to her
former position without the necessity of a new
appointment and directed the City %reasurer to see to it
that the sum of P@*CCC.CC be satisfied. Claiming that she
should not be made to pay P@*CCC.CC* -inda appealed to
the Office of the President.
%he Office of the President dismissed the appeal and
held that ac4uittal* not absolute pardon. "s the only
ground for reinstatement to one<s former position and
that the absolute pardon does not exempt the culprit
from payment of ci&il liability. "s -inda entitled to
reinstatement7
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
o* -inda is not entitled to reinstatement to her former
position inasmuch as her right thereto had been
relin4uished or forfeited by reason of her con&iction. %he
absolute pardon merely extinguished her criminal
liability* remo&ed her dis4ualification* and restored her
eligibility for appointment to that office. $he has to re;
apply for
such position and under the usual procedure re4uired for
a new appointment. Moreo&er* the pardon does not
extinguish the ci&il liability arising from the crime.
(!onsanto vs.Fa0toran, 'r., #7* SCRA #9#)4 see Art. 3$, RPC)
$rescription o* Crimes; :i1am/ (15)
=oe and Marcy were married in Batanes in 9?@@. 'fter
two years* =oe left Marcy and settled in Mindanao where
he later met and married -inda on 92 =une 9?LC. %he
second marriage was registered in the ci&il registry of
Da&ao City three days after its celebration. On 9C
October 9?B@ Marcy who remained in Batanes
disco&ered the marriage of =oe to -inda. On 9 March
9?BL Marcy filed a complaint for bigamy against =oe.
%he crime of bigamy prescribed in fifteen years
computed from the day the crime is disco&ered by the
offended party* the authorities or their agents. =oe raised
the defense of prescription of the crime* more than fifteen
years ha&ing elapsed from the celebration of the
bigamous marriage up to the filing of Marcy<s complaint.
,e contended that the registration of his second marriage
in the ci&il registry of Da&ao City was constructi&e notice
to the whole world of the celebration thereof thus binding
upon Marcy.
,as the crime of bigamy charged against =oe already
prescribed7 Discuss fully*
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
o. %he prescripti&e period for the crime of bigamy is
computed from the time the crime was disco&ered by the
offended party* the authorities or their agents. %he
principle of constructi&e notice which ordinarily applies
to land or property disputes should not be applied to the
crime of bigamy* as marriage is not property. %hus when
Marcy filed a complaint for bigamy on B March 9?BL* it
was well within the reglamentary period as it was barely
a few months from the time of disco&ery on 9C October
9?B@. (Sermonia vs. CA, )33 SCRA #++)
$rescription o* Crimes; Commencement (2000)
One fateful night in =anuary 9??C* while @;year old
'lbert was urinating at the bac0 of their house* he heard a
strange noise coming from the 0itchen of their neighbor
and playmate* 'ra. 5hen he peeped inside* he saw Mina*
'ra<s stepmother* &ery angry and strangling the @;year
old 'ra to death. 'lbert saw Mina carry the dead body of
'ra* place it inside the trun0 of her car and dri&e away.
%he dead body of 'ra was ne&er found. Mina spread the
news in the neighborhood that 'ra went to li&e with her
grandparents in Ormoc City. Eor fear of his life* 'lbert
did not tell anyone* e&en his parents and relati&es* about
what he witnessed. %wenty and a half 12C G 9+23 years
after the incident* and right after his graduation in
Criminology* 'lbert reported the crime to B"
authorities. %he crime of homicide prescribes in 2C years.
Can the state still prosecute Mina for the death of 'ra
despite the lapse of 2C G 9+2 years7 #xplain* 1@83
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
40 of 86
/es* the $tate can still prosecute Mina for the death of
'ra despite the lapse of 2C G 9+2 years. Under 'rticle ?9*
!PC* the period of prescription commences to run from
the day on which the crime is disco&ered by the offended
party* the authorities or their agents. "n the case at bar*
the commission of the crime was 0nown only to 'lbert*
who was not the offended party nor an authority or an
agent of an authority. "t was disco&ered by the B"
authorities only when 'lbert re&ealed to them the
commission of the crime. ,ence* the period of
prescription of 2C years for homicide commenced to run
only from the time 'lbert re&ealed the same to the B"
authorities.
$rescription o* Crimes; Commencement (2004)
O5 is a pri&ate person engaged in cattle ranching. One
night* he saw 'M stab CH treacherously* then throw the
dead man<s body into a ra&ine. Eor 2@ years* CHs body
was ne&er seen nor found6 and O5 told no one what he
had witnessed. /esterday after consulting the parish
priest* O5 decided to tell the authorities what he
witnessed* and re&ealed that 'M had 0illed CH 2@ years
ago. Can 'M be prosecuted for murder despite the lapse
of 2@ years7 !eason briefly. 1@83
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
/es* 'M can be prosecuted for murder despite the lapse
of 2@ years* because the crime has not yet prescribed
and legally* its prescripti&e period has not e&en
commenced to run.
%he period of prescription of a crime shall commence to
run only from the day on which the crime has been
disco&ered by the offended party* the authorities or their
agents 1'rt. ?9* !e&ised Penal Code3. O5* a pri&ate
person who saw the 0illing but ne&er disclosed it* is not
the offended party nor has the crime been disco&ered by
the authorities or their agents.
$rescription o* Crimes; Concubina1e (2001)
On =une 9* 9?))* a complaint for concubinage committed
in Eebruary 9?)B was filed against !oberto in the
Municipal %rial Court of %anIa* Ca&ite for purposes of
preliminary in&estigation. Eor &arious reasons* it was
only on =uly :* 9??) when the =udge of said court
decided the case by dismissing it for lac0 of >urisdiction
since the crime was committed in Manila. %he case was
subse4uently filed with the City Eiscal of Manila but it
was dismissed on the ground that the crime had already
prescribed. %he law pro&ides that the crime of
concubinage prescribes in ten 19C3 years. 5as the
dismissal by the fiscal correct7 #xplain* 1@83
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
o* the Eiscal<s dismissal of the case on alleged
prescription is not correct. %he filing of the complaint
with the Municipal %rial Court* although only for
preliminary in&estigation* interrupted and suspended the
period of prescription in as much as the >urisdiction of a
court in a criminal case is determined by the allegations
in the complaint or information* not by the result of
proof.
(People vs. "alano. 7+ SCRA #93)
Penalty prescribed to a crime is lowered by degrees in the following cases:
(1) When the crime is only attempted or frustrated.
If it is frustrated, penalty is one degree lower than that prescribed by law.
If it is attempted, penalty is two degrees lower than that prescribed by law.
His is so because the penalty prescribed by law for a crime refers to the consummated stage.
() When the offender is an accomplice or accessory only
Penalty is one degree lower in the case of an accomplice.
Penalty is two degrees lower in the case of an accessory.
!his is so because the penalty prescribed by law for a gi"en crime refers to the consummated stage.
(#) When there is a pri"ilege mitigating circumstance in fa"or of the offender, it will lower the penalty by
one or two degrees than that prescribed by law depending on what the particular pro"ision of the
$e"ised Penal %ode states.
(&) When the penalty prescribed for the crime committed is a di"isible penalty and there are two or more
ordinary mitigating circumstances and no aggra"ating circumstances whatsoe"er, the penalty ne't lower
in degree shall be the one imposed.
(() Whene"er the pro"ision of the $e"ised Penal %ode specifically lowers the penalty by one or two degrees
than what is ordinarily prescribed for the crime committed.
Penalty commonly imposed by the $e"ised Penal %ode may be by way of imprisonment or by way of fine or,
to a limited e'tent, by way) of destierro or dis*ualification, whether absolute or special.
In the matter of lowering the penalty by degree, the reference is +rticle ,1. It is necessary to -now the
chronology under +rticle ,1 by simply -nowing the scale. !a-e note that destierro comes after arresto
mayor so the penalty one degree lower than arresto mayor is not arresto menor, but destierro. .emori/e
the scale in +rticle ,1.
In +rticle #,, with respect to the range of each penalty, the range of arresto menor follows arresto mayor,
since arresto menor is one to #0 days or one month, while arresto mayor is one month and one day to si'
months. 1n the other hand, the duration of destierro is the same as prision correccional which is si' months
and one day to si' years. 2ut be this as it is, under +rticle ,1, in the scale of penalties graduated according
to degrees, arresto mayor is higher than diestierro.
In homicide under +rticle &3, the penalty is reclusion temporal. 1ne degree lower, if homicide is
frustrated, or there is an accomplice participating in homicide, is prision mayor, and two degrees lower is
prision correccional.
!his is true if the penalty prescribed by the $e"ised Penal %ode is a whole di"isible penalty 4 one degree or
degrees lower will also be punished as a whole. 2ut generally, the penalties prescribed by the $e"ised
Penal %ode are only in periods, li-e prision correccional minimum, or prision correccional minimum to
medium.
+lthough the penalty is prescribed by the $e"ised Penal %ode as a period, such penalty should be
understood as a degree in itself and the following rules shall go"ern:
(1) When the penalty prescribed by the $eised %ode is made up of a period, li-e prision
correccional medium, the penalty one degree lower is prision correccional minimum, and the penalty
two degrees lower is arresto mayor ma'imum. In other words, each degree will be made up of only one
period because the penalty prescribed is also made up only of one period.
() When the penalty prescribed by the %ode is made up of two periods of a gi"en penalty, e"ery
time such penalty is lowered by one degree you ha"e to go down also by two periods.
Illustration:
If the penalty prescribed for the crime is prision correccional medium to ma'imum, the penalty one
degree lower will be arresto mayor ma'imum to prision correccional minimum, and the penalty another
degree lower will be arresto mayor minimum to medium. 5"ery degree will be composed of two
periods.
(#) When the penalty prescribed by the $e"ised Penal %ode is made up fo three periods of different
penalties, e"ery time you go down one degree lower, you ha"e to go down by three periods.
Illustration:
!he penalty prescribed by the $e"ised Penal %ode is prision mayor ma'imum to reclusion temporal
medium, the penalty one degree lower is prision correccional ma'imum to prision mayor medium.
+nother degree lower will be arresto mayor ma'imum to prision correccional medium.
!hese rules ha"e nothing to do with mitigating or aggra"ating circumstances. !hese rules refer to the
lowering of penalty by one or two degrees. +s to how mitigating or aggra"ating circumstances may affect
the penalty, the rules are found in +rticles )# and )&. +rticle )# go"erns when the penalty prescribed by
the $e"ised Penal %ode is di"isible. When the penalty is indi"isible, no matter how many ordinary mitigating
circumstances there are, the prescribed penalty is ne"er lowered by degree. It ta-es a pri"ileged mitigating
circumstance to lower such penalty by degree. 1n the other hand, when the penalty prescribed by the
$e"ised Penal %ode is di"isible, such penalty shall be lowered by one degree only but imposed in the proper
period, when there are two or more ordinary mitigating circumstance and there is no aggra"ating
circumstance whatsoe"er.
Article 75 - Fines
With respect to the penalty of fine, if the fine
has to be lowered by degree either because the felony committed is only attempted or frustrated or
because there is an accomplice or an accessory participation, the fine is lowered by deducting 6 of the
ma'imum amount of the fine from such ma'imum without changing the minimum amount prescribed by
law.
Illustration:
If the penalty prescribed is a fine ranging from P00.00 to P(00.00, but the felony is frustrated so that the
penalty should be imposed one degree lower, 6 of P(00.00, shall be deducted therefrom. !his is done by
deducting P1(.00 from P(00.00, lea"ing a difference of P#,(.00. !he penalty one degree lower is P#,(.00.
!o go another degree lower, P1(.00 shall again be deducted from P#,(.00 and that would lea"e a
difference of P(0.00. Hence, the penalty another degree lower is a fine ranging from P00.00 to P(0.00.
If at all, the fine has to be lowered further, it cannot go lower than P00.00. 7o, the fine will be imposed at
P00.00. !his rule applies when the fine has to be lowered by degree.
Article 66
In so far as ordinary mitigating or aggra"ating circumstance would affect the penalty which is in the form of
a fine, +rticle )) of the $e"ised Penal %ode shall go"ern. 8nder this article, it is discretionary upon the
court to apply the fine ta-ing into consideration the financial means of the offender to pay the same. In
other words, it is not only the mitigating and9or aggra"ating circumstances that the court shall ta-e into
consideration, but primarily, the financial capability of the offender to pay the fine. :or the same crime, the
penalty upon an accused who I poor may be less than the penalty upon an accused committing the same
crime but who is wealthy.
:or instance, when there are two offenders who are co;conspirators to a crime, and their penalty consists of
a fine only, and one of them is wealthy while the other is a pauper, the court may impose a higher penalty
upon the wealthy person and a lower fine for the pauper.
Penalty for murder under the $e"ised Penal %ode is reclusion temporal ma'imum to death. 7o, the penalty
would be reclusion temporal ma'imum 4 reclusion perpetua 4 death. !his penalty made up of three periods.
The Three-Fold Rule
Under this rule, when a convict is to serve successive penalties, he will not actually serve the penalties
imposed 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 40 years.
!his rule is intended for the benefit of the con"ict and so, you will only apply this pro"ided the sum total of
all the penalties imposed would be greater than the product of the most se"ere penalty multiplied by three
but in no case will the penalties to be ser"ed by the con"ict be more than &0 years.
+lthough this rule is -nown as the !hree;:old $ule, you cannot actually apply this if the con"ict is to ser"e
only three successi"e penalties. !he !hree;:old $ule can only be applied if the con"ict I to ser"e four or
more sentences successi"ely. If the sentences would be ser"ed simultaneously, the !hree;:old $ule does
not go"ern.
!he chronology of the penalties as pro"ided in +rticle ,0 of the $e"ised Penal %ode shall be followed.
It is in the ser"ice of the penalty, not in the imposition of the penalty, that the !hree;:old $ule is to be
applied. !he !hree;:old $ule will apply whether the sentences are the product of one information in one
court, whether the sentences are promulgated in one day or whether the sentences are promulgated by
different courts on different days. What is material is that the con"ict shall ser"e more than three
successi"e sentences.
:or purposes of the !hree;fold $ule, e"en perpetual penalties are ta-en into account. 7o not only penalties
with fi'ed duration, e"en penalties without any fi'ed duration or indi"isible penalties are ta-en into account.
:or purposes of the !hree;:old $ule, indi"isible penalties are gi"en e*ui"alent of #0 years. If the penalty is
perpetual dis*ualification, it will be gi"en and e*ui"alent duration of #0 years, so that if he will ha"e to suffer
se"eral perpetual dis*ualification, under the !hree;:old $ule, you ta-e the most se"ere and multiply it by
three. !he !hree;:old $ule does not apply to the penalty prescribed but to the penalty imposed as
determined by the court.
Illustration:
Penalties imposed are 4
1ne prision correccional 4 minimum 4 years
and & months
1ne arresto mayor 4 1 month and 1 day to )
months
1ne prision mayor 4 ) years and 1 day to 1
years
<o not commit the mista-e of applying the !hree;:old $ule in this case. =e"er apply the !hree;:old $ule
when there are only three sentences. 5"en if you add the penalties, you can ne"er arri"e at a sum higher
than the product of the most se"ere multiplied by three.
!he common mista-e is, if gi"en a situation, whether the !hree;:old $ule could be applied. If as-ed, if you
were the >udge, what penalty would you impose, for purposes of imposing the penalty, the court is not at
liberty to apply the !hree;:old $ule, whate"er the sum total of penalty for each crime committed, e"en if it
would amount to 1,000 years or more. It is only when the con"ict is ser"ing sentence that the prison
authorities should determine how long he should stay in >ail.
Illustration:
+ distinct engineer was sentenced by the court to a term of 31& years in prison.
+ person was sentenced to three death sentences. 7ignificance: If e"er granted pardon for 1 crime, the
two remaining penalties must still be e'ecuted.
!his rule will apply only if sentences are to be ser"ed successi"ely.
ACT NO. 4013 (IN!T!R"INAT! #!NT!NC! $A%&' A# A"!N!
!hree things to -now about the Indeterminate 7entence ?aw:
(1) Its purpose@
() Instances when it does not apply@ and
(#) How it operates
Indeterminate 7entence ?aw go"erns whether the crime is punishable under the $e"ised Penal %ode or a
special ?aw. It is not limited to "iolations of the $e"ised Penal %ode.
It applies only when the penalty ser"ed is imprisonment. If not by imprisonment, then it does not apply.
(ur)ose
!he purpose of the Indeterminate 7entence
law is to a"oid prolonged imprisonment, because it is pro"en to be more destructi"e than constructi"e to the
offender. 7o, the purpose of the Indeterminate 7entence ?aw in shortening the possible detention of the
con"ict in >ail is to sa"e "aluable human resources. I other words, if the "aluable human resources were
allowed prolonged confinement in >ail, they would deteriorate. Purpose is to preser"e economic usefulness
for these people for ha"ing committed a crime 4 to reform them rather than to deteriorate them and, at the
same time, sa"ing the go"ernment e'penses of maintaining the con"icts on a prolonged confinement in >ail.
If the crime is a "iolation of the $e"ised Penal %ode, the court will impose a sentence that has a minimum
and ma'imum. !he ma'imum of the indeterminate sentence will be arri"ed at by ta-ing into account the
attendant mitigating and9or aggra"ating circumstances according to +rticle )& of the $e"ised penal %ode.
In arri"ing at the minimum of the indeterminate sentence, the court will ta-e into account the penalty
prescribed for the crime and go one degree lower. Within the range of one degree lower, the court will fi'
the minimum for the indeterminate sentence, and within the range of the penalty arri"ed at as the
ma'imum in the indeterminate sentence, the court will fi' the ma'imum of the sentence. If there is a
pri"ilege mitigating circumstance which has been ta-en in consideration in fi'ing the ma'imum of the
indeterminate sentence, the minimum shall be based on the penalty as reduced by the pri"ilege mitigating
circumstance within the range of the penalty ne't lower in degree.
If the crime is a "iolation of a special law, in fi'ing the ma'imum of the indeterminate sentence, the court
will impose the penalty within the range of the penalty prescribed by the special law, as long as it will not
e'ceed the limit of the penalty. In fi'ing the minimum, the court can fi' a penalty anywhere within the
range of penalty prescribed by the special law, as long as it will not be less than the minimum limit of the
penalty under said law. =o mitigating and aggra"ating circumstances are ta-en into account.
!he minimum and the ma'imum referred to in the Indeterminate 7entence ?aw are not periods. 7o, do not
say, ma'imum or minimum period. :or the purposes of the indeterminate 7entence ?aw, use the term
minimum to refer to the duration of the sentence which the con"ict shall ser"e as a minimum, and when we
say ma'imum, for purposes of I7?+W, we refer to the ma'imum limit of the duration that the con"ict may
be held in >ail. We are not referring to any period of the penalty as enumerated in +rticle ,1.
%ourts are re*uired to fi' a minimum and a ma'imum of the sentence that they are to impose upon an
offender when found guilty of the crime charged. 7o, whene"er the Indeterminate 7entence ?aw is
applicable, there is always a minimum and ma'imum of the sentence that the con"ict shall ser"e. If the
crime is punished by the $e"ised Penal %ode, the law pro"ides that the ma'imum shall be arri"ed at by
considering the mitigating and aggra"ating circumstances in the commission of the crime according to the
proper rules of the $e"ised Penal %ode. !o fi' the ma'imum, consider the mitigating and aggra"ating
circumstances according to the rules found in +rticle )&. !his means 4
(1) Penalties prescribed by the law for the crime committed shall be imposed in the medium period if no
mitigating or aggra"ating circumstance@
() If there is aggra"ating circumstance, no mitigating, penalty shall be imposed in the ma'imum@
(#) If there is mitigating circumstance, no aggra"ating, penalty shall be in the minimum@
(&) If there are se"eral mitigating and aggra"ating circumstances, they shall offset against each other.
Whate"er remains, apply the rules.
(() If there are two or more mitigating circumstance and no aggra"ating circumstance, penalty ne't lower
in degree shall be the one imposed.
$ule under +rt )& shall apply in determining the ma'imum but not in determining the minimum.
In determining the applicable penalty according to the Indeterminate 7entence ?aw, there is no need to
mention the number of years, months and days@ it is enough that the name of the penalty is mentioned
while the Indeterminate 7entence ?aw. !he attendant mitigating and9or aggra"ating circumstances in the
commission of the crime are ta-en into consideration only when the ma'imum of the penalty is to be fi'ed.
2ut in so far as the minimum is concerned, the basis of the penalty prescribed by the $e"ised Penal %ode,
and go one degree lower than that. 2ut penalty one degree lower shall be applied in the same manner that
the ma'imum is also fi'ed based only on ordinary mitigating circumstances. !his is true only if the
mitigating circumstance ta-en into account is only an ordinary mitigating circumstance. If the mitigating
circumstance is pri"ileged, you cannot follow the law in so far as fi'ing the minimum of the indeterminate
sentence is concerned@ otherwise, it may happen that the ma'imum of the indeterminate sentence is lower
than its minimum.
In one 7upreme %ourt ruling, it was held that for purposes of applying the Indeterminate 7entence ?aw, the
penalty prescribed by the $e"ised Penal %ode and not that which may be imposed by court. !his ruling,
howe"er, is ob"iously erroneous. !his is so because such an interpretation runs contrary to the rule of pro
reo, which pro"ides that the penal laws should always be construed an applied in a manner liberal or lenient
to the offender. !herefore, the rule is, in applying the Indeterminate 7entence ?aw, it is that penalty
arri"ed at by the court after applying the mitigating and aggra"ating circumstances that should be the basis.
%rimes punished under special law carry only one penalty@ there are no degree or periods. .oreo"er,
crimes under special law do not consider mitigating or aggra"ating circumstance present in the commission
of the crime. 7o in the case of statutory offense, no mitigating and no aggra"ating circumstances will be
ta-en into account. Aust the same, courts are re*uired in imposing the penalty upon the offender to fi' a
minimum that the con"ict should ser"e, and to set a ma'imum as the limit of that sentence. 8nder the law,
when the crime is punished under a special law, the court may fi' any penalty as the ma'imum without
e'ceeding the penalty prescribed by special law for the crime committed. In the same manner, courts are
gi"en discretion to fi' a minimum anywhere within the range of the penalty prescribed by special law, as
long as it will not be lower than the penalty prescribed.
<is*ualification may be di"ided into three, according to 4
(1) !he time committed@
() !he penalty imposed@ and
(#) !he offender in"ol"ed.
B: When would the Indeterminate 7entence ?aw be inapplicableC
+: !he Indeterminate 7entence ?aw is not inapplicable to:
(1) Persons con"icted of offense punishable with death penalty or life imprisonment@
() Persons con"icted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason@
(#) Persons con"icted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition, espionage@
Question n! Ans"e#
(&) Persons con"icted of piracy@
(() Persons who are habitual delin*uents@
()) Persons who shall ha"e escaped from confinement or e"aded sentence@
(,) !hose who ha"e been granted conditional pardon by the %hief 5'ecuti"e and shall ha"e "iolated the
term thereto@
(D) !hose whose ma'imum term of imprisonment does not e'ceed one year@
(3) !hose already sentenced by final >udgment at the time of the appro"al of Indeterminate 7entence ?aw@
(10) !hose whose sentence imposes penalties which do not in"ol"e imprisonment, li-e destierro@
$eclusion perpetua is e*uated to life imprisonment for purposes of the Indeterminate 7entence ?aw. !here
the said law will be inapplicable to persons con"icted of offenses punishable with the said penalty ((eo)le
*. !nri+ue,' -r.&.
+lthough the penalty prescribed for the felony committed is death or reclusion perpetua, if after considering
the attendant circumstances, the imposable penalty is reclusion temporal or less, the Indeterminate
7entence ?aw applies ((eo)le *. Ce.)ron' 1/7 #CRA 07/&.
(R!#I!NTIA$ !CR!! NO. 16/ ((RO2ATION $A%&
+mong the different grounds of partial e'tinction of criminal liability, the most important is probation.
Probation is a manner of disposing of an accused who ha"e been con"icted by a trial court by placing him
under super"ision of a probation officer, under such terms and conditions that the court may fi'. !his may
be a"ailed of before the con"ict begins ser"ing sentence by final >udgment and pro"ided that he did not
appeal anymore from con"iction.
Without regard to the nature of the crime, only those whose penalty does not e'ceed si' years of
imprisonment are those *ualified for probation. If the penalty is si' years plus one day, he is no longer
*ualified for probation.
If the offender was con"icted of se"eral offenses which were tried >ointly and one decision was rendered
where multiple sentences imposed se"eral prison terms as penalty, the basis for determining whether the
penalty dis*ualifies the offender from probation or not is the term of the indi"idual imprisonment and not
the totality of all the prison terms imposed in the decision. 7o e"en if the prison term would sum up to
more than si' years, if none of the indi"idual penalties e'ceeds si' years, the offender is not dis*ualified by
such penalty from applying for probation.
1n the other hand, without regard to the penalty, those who are con"icted of sub"ersion or any crime
against the public order are not *ualified for probation. 7o -now the crimes under !itle III, 2oo- of the
$e"ised Penal code. +mong these crimes is +larms and 7candals, the penalty of which is only arresto menor
or a fine. 8nder the amendment to the Probation ?aw, those con"icted of a crime against public order
regardless of the penalty are not *ualified for probation.
.ay a recidi"ist be gi"en the benefit of Probation ?awC
+s a general rule, no.
!3ce)tion4 If the earlier con"iction refers to a crime the penalty of which does not e'ceed #0 days
imprisonment or a fine of not more than P00.000, such con"ict is not dis*ualified of the benefit of
probation. 7o e"en if he would be con"icted subse*uently of a crime embraced in the same title of the
$e"ised Penal %ode as that of the earlier con"iction, he is not dis*ualified from probation pro"ided that the
penalty for the current crime committed does not go beyond si' years and the nature of the crime
committed by him is not against public order, national security or sub"ersion (#ec.1' (ro56tion $67).
+lthough a person may be eligible for probation, the moment he perfects an appeal from the >udgment of
con"iction, he cannot a"ail of probation anymore. 7o the benefit of probation must be in"o-ed at the
earliest instance after con"iction. He should not wait up to the time when he interposes an appeal or the
sentence has become final and e'ecutory. !he idea is that probation has to be in"o-ed at the earliest
opportunity.
+n application for probation is e'clusi"ely within the >urisdiction of the trial court that renders the >udgment.
:or the offender to apply in such court, he should not appeal such >udgment.
If the offender would appeal the con"iction of the trial court and the appellate court reduced the penalty to
say, less than si' years, that con"ict can still file an application for probation, because the earliest
opportunity for him to a"ail of probation came only after >udgment by the appellate court.
Whether a con"ict who is otherwise *ualified for probation may be gi"e the benefit of probation or not, the
courts are always re*uired to conduct a hearing. If the court denied the application for probation without
the benefit of the hearing, where as the applicant is not dis*ualified under the pro"ision of the Probation
?aw, but only based on the report of the probation officer, the denial is correctible by certiorari, because it is
an act of the court in e'cess of >urisdiction or without >urisdiction, the order denying the application
therefore is null and "oid.
Probation is intended to promote the correction and rehabilitation of an offender by pro"iding him with
indi"iduali/ed treatment@ to pro"ide an opportunity for the reformation of a penitent offender which might
be less probable if he were to ser"e a prison sentence@ to pre"ent the commission of offenses@ to decongest
our >ails@ and to sa"e the go"ernment much needed finance for maintaining con"icts in >ail.
Probation is only a pri"ilege. 7o e"en if the offender may not be dis*ualified of probation, yet the court
belie"es that because of the crime committed it was not ad"isable to gi"e probation because it would
depreciate the effect of the crime, the court may refuse or deny an application for probation.
.oreo"er, the <angerous <rugs +ct of 00 (7ection &) e'pressly pro"ides that E+ny person con"icted for
drug traffic-ing or pushing under the +ct, regardless of the penalty imposed by the %ourt, cannot a"ail of
the pri"ilege granted by the Probation ?aw.F

%onsider not only the probationable crime, but also the probationable penalty. If it were the non;
probationable crime, then regardless of the penalty, the con"ict cannot a"ail of probation. Generally, the
penalty which is not probationable is any penalty e'ceeding si' years of imprisonment. 1ffenses which are
not probationable are those against natural security, those against public order and those with reference to
sub"ersion.
Persons who have been granted of the benefit of probation cannot avail thereof for the second time.
Probation is only a"ailable once and this may be a"ailed only where the con"ict starts ser"ing sentence and
pro"ided he has not perfected an appeal. If the con"ict perfected an appeal, he forfeits his right to apply for
probation. +s far as offenders who are under pre"enti"e imprisonment, that because a crime committed is
not bailable or the crime committed, although bailable, they cannot afford to put up a bail, upon
promulgation of the sentence, naturally he goes bac- to detention, that does not mean that they already
start ser"ing the sentence e"en after promulgation of the sentence, sentence will only become final and
e'ecutory after the lapse of the 1(;day period, unless the con"ict has wai"ed e'pressly his right to appeal or
otherwise, he has partly started ser"ing sentence and in that case, the penalty will already be final and
e'ecutory, no right to probation can be applied for.
B: Auan was con"icted by the $!% of a crime and sentenced to suffer a penalty of imprisonment for a
minimum of eight years. He appealed both his con"iction and the penalty imposed upon him to the %+. %+
sustained his con"iction but reduced his sentence to a ma'. of & years and D months. %ould Auan forthwith
file an application for probationC 5'plain.
Question n! Ans"e#
+: =o. Auan can no longer apply for probation because he appealed from the >udgment of con"iction of the
trial court. 7ec. & of the Probation ?aw mandates that no application for probation shall be entertained or
granted if the accused has perfected an appeal from a >udgment of con"iction.
Probation shall be denied if the court finds:
(1) !hat the offender is in need of correctional treatment that can be pro"ided most effecti"ely by his
commitment to an institution@
() !hat there is undue ris- that during the period of probation the offender will commit another crime@
or
(#) Probation will depreciate the seriousness of the crime.
!he probation law imposes two -inds of conditions:
(1) .andatory conditions@ and
() <iscretionary conditions.
"6nd6tor8 conditions4
(1) !he con"ict must report to the Probation 1fficer (P1) designated in the court order appro"ing
his application for Probation within , hours from receipt of =otice of such order appro"ing his
application@ and
() !he con"ict, as a probationer, must report to the P1 at least once a month during the period of
probation unless sooner re*uired by the P1.
!hese conditions being mandatory, the moment any of these is "iolate, the probation is cancelled.
iscretion6r8 conditions4
!he trial court which appro"ed the application for probation may impose any condition which may be
constructi"e to the correction of the offender, pro"ided the same would not "iolate the constitutional rights
of the offender and sub>ect ot this two restrictions: (1) the conditions imposed should not be unduly
restricti"e of the probationer, and () such condition should not be incompatible with the freedom of
conscience of the probationer.
!9TINCTION OF CRI"INA$ $IA2I$IT:
+lways pro"ide two classifications when answering this *uestion.
%riminal liability is totally e'tinguished as follows:
(1) 2y the death of the con"ict as to personal penalties@ and as to pecuniary penalties, liability
therefore is e'tinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final >udgment.
() 2y ser"ice of sentence@
(#) 2y amnesty which completely e'tinguished the penalty and all its effects@
(&) 2y absolute pardon@
(() 2y prescription of the crime@
()) 2y prescription of the penalty@
(,) 2y the marriage of the offended women as in the crimes of rape, abduction, seduction and acts
of lasci"iousness.
%riminal liability is partially e'tinguished as follows:
(1) 2y conditional pardon@
() 2y commutation of sentence@
(#) :r good conduct, allowances which the culprit may earn while he is ser"ing sentence@
(&) Parole@ and
(() Probation.
Tot6l e3tinction o; cri.in6l li65ilit8
+mong the grounds for total e'tinction as well as those for partial e'tinction, you cannot find among them
the election to public office. In one case, a public official was charged before the 7andiganbayan for
"iolation of +nti;Graft and %orrupt Practices +ct. <uring the ensuing election, he was ne"ertheless re;
elected by the constituents, one of the defenses raised was that of condonation of the crime by his
constituents, that his constituents ha"e pardoned him. !he 7upreme %ourt ruled that the re;election to
public office is not one of the grounds by which criminal liability is e'tinguished. !his is only true to
administrati"e cases but not criminal cases.
e6th o; the o;;ender
Where the offender dies before final >udgment, his death e'tinguishes both his criminal and ci"il liabilities.
7o while a case is on appeal, the offender dies, the case on appeal will be dismissed. !he offended party
may file a separate ci"il action under the %i"il %ode if any other basis for reco"ery of ci"il liability e'ists as
pro"ided under +rt 11(, %i"il %ode. ((eo)le *. 268ot6s, decided on 7eptember , 133&)
A.nest8 6nd )6rdon
!he effects of amnesty as well as absolute pardon are not the same. +mnesty erases not only the
con"iction but also the crime itself. 7o that if an offender was con"icted for rebellion and he *ualified for
amnesty, and so he was gi"en an amnesty, then years later he rebelled again and con"icted, is he a
recidi"istC =o. 2ecause the amnesty granted to him erased not only the con"iction but also the effects of
the con"iction itself.
7upposed, instead of amnesty, what was gi"en was absolute pardon, then years later, the offended was
again captured and charged for rebellion, he was con"icted, is he a recidi"istC Hes. Pardon, although
absolute does not erase the effects of con"iction. Pardon only e'cuses the con"ict from ser"ing the
sentence. !here is an e'ception to this and that is when the pardon was granted when the con"ict had
already ser"ed the sentence such that there is no more ser"ice of sentence to be e'ecuted then the pardon
shall be understood as intended to erase the effects of the con"iction.
7o if the con"ict has already ser"ed the sentence and in spite of that he was gi"en a pardon that pardon will
co"er the effects of the crime and therefore, if he will be subse*uently con"icted for a felony embracing the
same title as that crime, he cannot be considered a recidi"ist, because the pardon wipes out the effects of
the crime.
2ut if he was ser"ing sentence when he was pardoned, that pardon will not wipe out the effects of the
crime, unless the language of the pardon absolutely relie"e the offender of all the effects thereof.
%onsidering that recidi"ism does not prescribe, no matter how long ago was the first con"iction, he shall still
be a recidi"ist.
Illustration:
When the crime carries with it moral turpitude, the offender e"en if granted pardon shall still remain
dis*ualified from those falling in cases where moral turpitude is a bar.
Pedro was prosecuted and con"icted of the crime of robbery and was sentenced to si' years imprisonment
or prision correccional. +fter ser"ing sentence for three years, he was granted absolute pardon. !en years
later, Pedro was again prosecuted and con"icted of the crime of theft, a crime embraced in the same title,
this time he shall be a recidi"ist. 1n the other hand, if he has ser"ed all si' years of the first sentence, and
his name was included in the list of all those granted absolute pardon, pardon shall relie"e him of the effects
of the crime, and therefore e"en if he commits theft again, he shall not be considered a recidi"ist.
In "ons6nto <. F6ctor6n' -r.' 170 #CRA 111' it was held that absolute pardon does not ipso facto entitle
the con"ict to reinstatement to the public office forfeited by reason of his con"iction. +lthough pardon
restores his eligibility for appointment to that office, the pardoned con"ict must reapply for the new
appointment.
Pardon becomes "alid only when there is a final >udgment. If gi"en before this, it is premature and hence
"oid. !here is no such thing as a premature amnesty, because it does not re*uire a final >udgment@ it may
be gi"en before final >udgment or after it.
!$H was sentenced to death by final >udgment.
2ut subse*uently he was granted pardon by the President. !he pardon was silent on the perpetual
dis*ualification of !$H to hold any public office.
+fter his pardon, !$H ran for office as .ayor of +PP, his hometown. His opponent sought to dis*ualify him.
!$H contended that he is not dis*ualified because he was already pardoned by the President unconditionally.
Is !$HIs contention correctC $eason briefly.
+: =o, !$HIs contention is not correct. +rticle &0 of the $e"ised Penal %ode e'pressly pro"ides that when the
death penalty is not e'ecuted by reason of commutation or pardon, the accessory penalties of perpetual
absolute dis*ualification and ci"il interdiction during thirty (#0) years from the date of the sentence shall
remain as the effects thereof, unless such accessory penalties ha"e been e'pressly remitted in the pardon.
!his is because pardon only e'cuses the con"ict from ser"ing the sentence but does not relie"e him of the
effects of the con"iction unless e'pressly remitted in the pardon.
(rescri)tion o; cri.e 6nd )rescri)tion o; the )en6lt8
Prescription of the crime begins, as a general 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 go"ernment learns of the commission of the crime.
1W is a pri"ate person engaged in cattle ranching. 1ne night, he saw +. stab %J treacherously, then throw
the manIs body into a ra"ine. :or ( years, %JIs body was ne"er seen nor found@ and 1W told no one what
he had witnessed.
Hesterday, after consulting the parish priest, 1W decided to tell the authorities what he witnessed, and
re"ealed that +. -illed %J ( years ago.
Question n! Ans"e#
Question n! Ans"e#
%an +. be prosecuted for murder despite the lapse of ( yearsC $eason briefly.
+: Hes, +. can be prosecuted for murder despite the lapse of ( years, because the crime has not yet
prescribed and legally, its prescripti"e period has not e"en commenced to run.
!he period of prescription of a crime shall commence to run only from the day on which the crime has been
disco"ered by the offended party, the authorities or their agents (+rticle 31, $P%). 1W, a pri"ate person who
saw the -illing but ne"er disclosed it, is not the offended party nor has the crime been disco"ered by the
authorities or their agents.
E%ommission of the crime is publicF 4 !his does not mean alone that the crime was within public -nowledge
or committed in public.
Illustration:
In the crime of falsification of a document that was registered in the proper registry of the go"ernment li-e
the $egistry of Property or the $egistry of <eeds of the %i"il registry, the falsification is deemed public from
the time the falsified document was registered or recorded in such public office so e"en though, the
offended party may not really -now of the falsification, the prescripti"e period of the crime shall already run
from the moment the falsified document was recorded in the public registry. 7o in the case where a deed of
sale of a parcel of land which was falsified was recorded in the corresponding $egistry of Property, the
owner of the land came to -now of the falsified transaction only after 10 years, so he brought the criminal
action only then. !he 7upreme %ourt ruled that the crime has already prescribed. :rom the moment the
falsified document is registered in the $egistry of Property, the prescripti"e period already commenced to
run.
When a crime prescribes, the 7tate loses the right to prosecute the offender, hence, e"en though the
offender may not ha"e filed a motion to *uash on this ground the trial court, but after con"iction and during
the appeal he learned that at the time the case was filed, the crime has already prescribed, such accused
can raise the *uestion of prescription e"en for the first time on appeal, and the appellate court shall ha"e no
>urisdiction to continue, if legally, the crime has indeed prescribed.
!he pre"ailing rule now is, prescription of the crime is not wai"able, the earlier >urisprudence to the contrary
had already been abrogated or o"erruled. .oreo"er, for purposes of prescription, the period for filing a
complaint or information may not be e'tended at all, e"en though the last day such prescripti"e period falls
on a holiday or a 7unday.
:or instance, light felony prescribes in )0 days or two months. If the )0
th
day falls on a 7unday, the filing of
the complaint on the succeeding .onday is already fatal to the prosecution of the crime because the crime
has already prescribed.
!he rules on %riminal Procedure for purposes of prescription is that the filing of the complaint e"en at the
public prosecutorIs office suspends the running of the prescripti"e period, but not the filing with the
barangays. 7o the earlier rulings to the contrary are already abrogated by e'press pro"ision of the $e"ised
$ules on %riminal Procedure.
!he prescription of the crime is interrupted or suspended 4
(1) When a complaint is filed in a proper barangay for conciliation or mediation as re*uired by
%hapter ,, ?ocal go"ernment %ode, but the suspension of the prescripti"e period is good only for )0
days. +fter which the prescription will resume to run, whether the conciliation or mediation is
terminated for not@
() When criminal case is filed in the prosecutorIs office, the prescription of the crime is suspended
until the accused is con"icted or the proceeding is terminated for a cause not attributable to the
accused.
2ut where the crime is sub>ect to 7ummary Procedure, the prescription of the crime will be suspended only
when the information is already filed with the trial court. It is not the filing of the complaint, but the filing of
the information in the trial which will suspend the prescription of the crime.
1n the prescription of the penalty, the period will only commence to run when the con"ict has begun to
ser"e the sentence. +ctually, the penalty will prescribe from the moment the con"ict e"ades the ser"ice of
the sentence. 7o if an accused was con"icted in the trial court, and the con"iction becomes final and
e'ecutory, so this fellow was arrested to ser"e the sentence, on the way to the penitentiary, the "ehicle
carrying him collided with another "ehicle and o"erturned, thus enabling the prisoner to escape, no matter
how long such con"ict has been a fugiti"e from >ustice, the penalty imposed by the trial court will ne"er
prescribe because he has not yet commenced the ser"ice of his sentence. :or the penalty to prescribe, he
must be brought to .untinlupa, boo-ed thee, placed inside the cell and thereafter he escapes.
Whether it is prescription of crime or prescription of penalty, if the sub>ect could lea"e the Philippines and go
to a country with whom the Philippines has no e'tradition treaty, the prescripti"e period of the crime or
penalty shall remain suspended whene"er he is out of the country.
When the offender lea"es for a country to which the Philippines has an e'tradition treaty, the running of the
prescripti"e period will go on e"en if the offender lea"es Philippine territory for that country. Presently the
Philippines has an e'tradition treaty with !aiwan, Indonesia, %anada, +ustralia, 87+ and 7wit/erland. 7o if
the offender goes to any of these countries, the prescripti"e period still continues to run.
In the case of the prescription of the penalty, the moment the con"ict commits another crime while he is
fugiti"e from >ustice, prescripti"e period of the penalty shall be suspended and shall not run in the
meantime. !he crime committed does not include the initial e"asion of ser"ice of sentence that the con"ict
must perform before the penalty shall begin to prescribe, so that the initial crime of e"asion of ser"ice of
sentence does not suspend the prescription of penalty, it is the commission of other crime, after the con"ict
has e"aded the ser"ice of penalty that will suspend such period.
"6rri6=e
In the case of marriage, 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 lasci"iousness. <o not say that it is applicable to
pri"ate crimes because the term includes adultery and concubinage. .arriages in these cases may e"en
compound the crime of adultery or concubinage. It is only in the crimes of rape, abduction, seduction and
acts of lasci"iousness that the marriage by the offender with the offended woman shall e'tinguish ci"il
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 themsel"es directly participate in the e'ecution of the crime but who only
cooperated, will also benefit from such marriage, but not when such co;principal himself too- direct part in
the e'ecution of the crime.
.arriage as a ground for e'tinguishing ci"il liability must ha"e been contracted in good faith. !he offender
who marries the offended woman must be sincere in the marriage and therefore must actually perform the
duties of a husband after the marriage, otherwise, notwithstanding such marriage, the offended woman,
although already his wife can still prosecute him again, although the marriage remains is a"oided or
annulled. !he marriage still subsists although the offended woman may re;file the complaint. !he 7upreme
%ourt ruled that marriage contemplated must be a real marriage and not one entered to and not >ust to
e"ade punishment for the crime committed because the offender will be compounding the wrong he has
committed.
(6rti6l e3tinction o; cri.in6l li65ilit8
>ood conduct 6llo76nce
!his includes the allowance for loyalty under +rticle 3D, in relation to +rticle 1(D. + con"ict who escapes the
place of confinement on the occasion of disorder resulting from a conflagration, earth*ua-e or similar
catastrophe or during a mutiny in which he has not participated and he returned within &D hours after the
proclamation that the calamity had already passed, such con"ict shall be gi"en credit of 19( of the original
sentence from that allowance for his loyalty of coming bac-. !hose who did not lea"e the penitentiary under
such circumstances do not get such allowance for loyalty. +rticle 1(D refers only to those who lea"e and
return.
(6role
!his correspondingly e'tinguishes ser"ice of sentence up to the ma'imum of the indeterminate sentence.
!his is the partial e'tinction referred to, so that if the con"ict was ne"er gi"en parole, no partial e'tinction.
CI<I$ $IA2I$IT: OF T?! OFF!N!R
%i"il liability of the offender falls under three categories:
Restitution or restor6tion
$estitution or restoration presupposes that the offended party was di"ested of property, and such property
must be returned. If the property is in the hands of a third party, the same shall ne"ertheless be ta-en
away from him and restored to the offended party, e"en though such third party may be a holder for "alue
and a buyer in good faith of the property, e'cept when such third party buys the property from a public sale
where the law protects the buyer.
:or e'ample, if a third party bought a property in a public auction conducted by the sheriff le"ied on the
property of a >udgment creditor for an obligation, the buyer of the property at such e'ecution sale is
protected by law. !he offended party cannot di"est him thereof. 7o the offended party may only resort to
reparation of the damage done from the offender.
7ome belie"ed that this ci"il liability is true only in crimes against property, this is not correct. $egardless of
the crime committed, if the property is illegally ta-en from the offended party during the commission of the
crime, the court may direct the offender to restore or restitute such property to the offended party. It can
only be done if the property is brought within the >urisdiction of that court.
:or e'ample, in a case where the offender committed rape, during the rape, the offender got on of the
earnings of the "ictim. When apprehended, the offender was prosecuted for rape and theft. When the
offender was as-ed why he got on of the earnings of the "ictim, the offender disclosed that he too- one of
the earnings in order to ha"e a sou"enir of the se'ual intercourse. 7upreme %ourt ruled that the crime
committed is not theft and rape but rape and un>ust "e'ation for the ta-ing of the earning. !he latter crime
is not a crime against property, this is a crime against personal security and liberty under !itle IK of 2oo- II
of the $P%. +nd yet, the offender was re*uired to restore or restitute the earning to the offended woman.
Property will ha"e to be restored to the offended party e"en this would re*uire the ta-ing of the property
was di"ested from the offended party pursuant to the commission of the crime, the one who too- the same
or accepted the same would be doing so without the benefit of the >ust title. 7o e"en if the property may
ha"e been bought by the third person, the same may be ta-en from him and restored to the offended party
without an obligation on the part of the offended party to pay him whate"er he paid.
!he right to reco"er what he has paid will be against the offender who sold it ot him. 1n the other hand, if
the crime was theft or robbery, the one who recei"ed the personal property becomes a fence, he is not only
re*uired to restitute the personal property but he incurs criminal liability in "iolation of the +nti;:encing ?aw.
If the property cannot be restituted anymore, then the damage must be repaired, re*uiring the offender to
pay the "alue thereof, as determined by the court. !hat "alue includes the sentimental "alue to the
offended party, not only the replacement cost. In most cases, the sentimental "alue is higher than the
replacement "alue. 2ut 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 e'pense of the offender. 7o
there will be a corresponding depreciation and the offended party may e"en be re*uired to pay something
>ust to co"er the difference of the "alue of what was restored to him.
!he obligation of the offender transcends to his heirs, e"en if the offender dies, pro"ided he died after
>udgment became final, the heirs shall assume the burden of the ci"il liability, but this is only to the e'tent
that they inherit property from the deceased, if they do not inherit, they cannot inherit the obligations.
!he right of the offended party transcends to heirs upon death. !he heirs of the offended party step into the
shoes of the latter to demand ci"il liability from the offender.
Re)6r6tion o; the d6.6=e c6used
In case of human life, reparation of the damage cause is basically P(0,000.00 "alue of human life, e'clusi"e
of other forms of damages. !his P(0,000.00 may also increase whether such life was lost through
intentional felony or criminal negligence, whether the result of dolo or culpa.
It was held in the case of !s)6@6 *. (eo)le (0005& that the award for ci"il indemnity e' delicto is
mandatory and is granted to the heirs of the "ictim without need of proof other than the commission of the
crime.
+lso in the crime of rape, the damages awarded to the offended woman is generally P#0,000.00 for the
damage to her honor. In earlier rulings, the amount "aried, whether the offended woman is younger or a
married woman. 7upreme %ourt ruled that e"en if the offended woman does not adduce e"idence or such
damage, court can ta-e >udicial notice of the fact that if a woman was raped, she ine"itably suffers
damages. 8nder the $e"ised $ules on %riminal Procedure, a pri"ate prosecutor can reco"er all -inds of
damages including attorneyIs fee. !he only limitation is that the amount and the nature of the damages
should be specified. !he present procedural law does not allow a blan-et reco"ery of damages. 5ach -ind
of damages must be specified and the amount duly pro"en.
Inde.ni;ic6tion o; conse+uenti6l d6.6=es
Indemnification of conse*uential damages refers to the loss of earnings, loss of profits. !his does not refer
only to conse*uential damages suffered by the offended party, this also includes conse*uential damages to
third party who also suffer because of the commission of the crime.
!he offender carnapped a bridal car while the newly;weds were inside the church. 7ince the car was only
rented, conse*uential damage 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 ci"illy liable under +rticles 10 and 10#. !his pertains to the
owner, proprietor of hotels, inns, ta"erns and similar establishments, an obligation to answer ci"illy for the
loss or property of their guests.
8nder +rticle 10, two conditions must be present before liability attaches to the inn-eepers, ta"ern -eepers
and proprietors:
(1) !he guest must ha"e informed the management in ad"ance of his ha"ing brought to the
premises certain "aluables aside from the usual personal belongings of the guest@ and
() !he guest must ha"e followed the rules and regulations prescribed by the management of such
inn, ta"ern, or similar establishment regarding the safe-eeping of said "aluables.
!he 7upreme %ourt ruled that e"en though the guest did not obey the rules and regulations prescribed by
the management for safe-eeping of the "aluables, this does not absol"e management from the subsidiary
ci"il liability. =on;compliance with such rules and regulations but the guests will only be regarded as
contributory negligence, but it wonIt absol"e the management from ci"il liability.
?iability specially attaches when the management is found to ha"e "iolated any law or ordinance, rule or
regulation go"erning such establishment.
5"en if the crime is robbery with "iolence against or intimidation of persons or committed by the inn-eeperIs
employees, management will be liable, otherwise, not liable because there is duress from the offender, liable
only for theft and force upon things.
8nder +rticle 10#, the subsidiary liability of an employer or master for the crime committed by his employee
or ser"ant may attach only when the following re*uisites concur.
(1) !he employer must be engaged in business or in trade or industry while the accused was his
employee
() +t the time the crime was committed, the employee;employer relationship must be e'isting
between the two@
(#) !he employee must ha"e been found guilty of the crime charged and accordingly held ci"illy
liable@
(&) !he writ of e'ecution for the satisfaction of the ci"il liability was returned unsatisfied because
the accused;employee does not ha"e enough property to pay the ci"il liability.
When these re*uisites concur, the employer will be subsidiarily, ci"illy liable for the full amount that his
employee was ad>udged ci"illy liable. It is already settled in >urisprudence that there is no need to file a ci"il
action against the employer in order to enforce the subsidiary ci"il liability for the crime committed by his
employee, it is enough that the writ of e'ecution is returned unsatisfied. !here is no denial 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 ha"e the property to pay his ci"il liability, since it is the law itself that, pro"ides that such
subsidiary liability e'ists and ignorance of the law is not an e'cuse.
%i"il liability of the offender is e'tinguished in the same manner as ci"il obligation is e'tinguished but this is
not absolutely true. 8nder ci"il law, a ci"il obligation is e'tinguished upon loss of the thing due when the
things in"ol"ed is specific. !his is not a ground applicable to e'tinction of ci"il liability in criminal case if the
thing due is lost, the offender shall repair the damages caused.
When there are se"eral offenders, the court in the e'ercise of its discretion shall determine what shall be the
share f each offender depending upon the degree of participation 4 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 them may be
re*uired to pay the ci"il liability pertaining to such offender without pre>udice to reco"ery from those whose
share ha"e been paid by another.
If all the principals are insol"ent, the obligation shall de"ol"e upon the accomplice(s) or accessory(s). 2ut
whoe"er pays shall ha"e the right of co"ering the share of the obligation from those who did not pay but are
ci"illy liable.
!o relate with +rticle #D, when there is an order or preference of pecuniary (monetary) liability, therefore,
restitution is not included here.
!o relate with +rticle #D, when there is an order or preference of pecuniary (monetary) liability, therefore,
restitution is not included here.
!here is not subsidiary penalty for non;payment of ci"il liability.
7ubsidiary ci"il liability is imposed in the following:
(1) In case of a felony committed under the compulsion of an irresistible force. !he person who
employed the irresistible force is subsidiarily liable@
() In case of a felony committed under an impulse of an e*ual or greater in>ury.
!he person who generated such an impulse is subsidiarily liable.
!he owners of ta"erns, inns, motels, hotels, where the crime is committed within their establishment due to
noncompliance with general police regulations, if the offender who is primarily liable cannot pay, the
proprietor, or owner is subsidiarily liable.
:elonies committed by employees, pupils, ser"ants in the course of their employment, schooling or
household chores. !he employer, master, teacher is subsidiarily liable ci"illy, while the offender is primarily
liable.
In case the accomplice and the principal cannot pay, the liability of those subsidiarily liable is absolute.
In (eo)le *s. Tu)6l' 0003, e'emplary damages were awarded when the offense was committed with at
least 1 aggra"ating circumstance.
CO"($!9 CRI"!
Philosophy behind plural crimes: !he treatment of plural crimes as one is to be lenient to the offender, who,
instead of being made to suffer distinct penalties for e"ery resulting crime is made to suffer one penalty
only, although it is the penalty for the most serious one and is in the ma'imum period. Purpose is in the
pursuance of the rule of pro reo.
If be comple'ing the crime, the penalty would turn out to be higher, do not comple' anymore.
!36.)le4 .urder and theft (-illed with treachery, then stole the right).
(en6lt84 If comple' 4 $eclusion temporal ma'imum to death.
If treated indi"idually 4 $eclusion temporal to $eclusion Perpetua
%omple';crime is not >ust a matter of penalty, but of substance under the $e"ised Penal %ode.
Plurality of crimes my be in the form of:
(1) %ompound %rime,
() %omple' crime@ and
(#) %omposite crime.
+ compound crime is one where a single act produces two or more crimes.
+ comple' crime strictly spea-ing 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 to commit the
other offense. E=ecessaryI should not be understood as indispensable, otherwise, it shall be considered
absorbed and not gi"ing rise to a comple' crime.
+ composite crime is one in which substance is made up of more than one crime, but which in the eyes of
the law is only a single indi"isible offense. !his is also -nown as special comple' crime. 5'amples are
robbery with homicide, robbery with rape, rape with homicide. !hese are crimes which in the eye of the law
are regarded only as a single indi"isible offense.
B: <istinguish between an ordinary comple' crime and a special comple' crime as to their concepts and as
to the imposition of penalties.
+: +n ordinary comple' crime is made up of or more crimes being punished in distinct pro"isions of the
$P% but alleged in one information, so that only 1 penalty will be imposed, because either they were
brought about by a single act or one offense was a necessary means to commit another. !he penalty for the
most serious crime shall be imposed in its ma'imum period.
1n the other hand, a special comple' crime is made up of or more crimes that are considered only as
components of a single indi"isible offense punished in one pro"ision of the $P%. !he component crimes are
not regarded as distinct crimes so only one penalty is specifically prescribed for all of them.
Co.)osite Cri.eA#)eci6l Co.)le3 Cri.e
!his is one which is substance is made up of more than one crime but which in the eyes of the law is only a
single indi"isible offense. !his is also -nown as a special comple' crime. 5'ample are robbery with
homicide, robbery with rape, and rape with homicide.
Question n! Ans"e#
!he compound crime and the comple' crime are treated in +rticle &D of the $e"ised Penal %ode. 2ut in such
article, a compound crime is also designated as a comple' crime, but Ecomple' crimesF are limited only to a
situation where the resulting felonies are gra"e and9or less gra"e.
Whereas in a compound crime, there is no limit as to the gra"ity of the resulting crimes as long as a single
act brings about two or more crimes. 7trictly spea-ing, compound crimes are not limited to gra"e less
gra"e felonies but co"ers all single act that results in two or more crimes.
Illustration:
+ person threw a hand grenade and the people started scampering. When the hand grenade e'ploded, no
on was seriously wounded all were mere wounded. It was held that this is a compound crime, although the
resulting felonies are only slight.
Illustration of a situation where the term EnecessaryF in comple' crime should not be understood as
indispensable:
+betting committed during the encounter between rebels and go"ernment troops such that the homicide
committed cannot be comple'ed with rebellion. !his is because they are indispensable part of rebellion.
(%a"eat: 1rtega says rebellion can be comple'ed with common crimes in discussion on $ebellion)
!he comple' crime lies actually in the first form under +rticle 1&D.
!he first form of the comple' crime is actually a compound crime, is one where a single act constitutes two
or more gra"e and9or less gra"e felonies. !he basis in comple'ing or compounding the crime is the act. 7o
that when an offender performed more than one act, although similar, if they result in separate crimes,
there is no comple' crime at all, instead, the offender shall be prosecuted for as many crimes as are
committed under separate information.
When the single act brings about two or more crimes, the offender is punished with only one penalty,
although in the ma'imum period, because he acted only with single criminal impulse. !he presumption is
that, since there is only one criminal impulse and correctly, only one penalty should be imposed.
%on"ersely, when there are se"eral acts performed, the assumption is that each act is impelled by a distinct
criminal impulse, a separate penalty. Howe"er, it may happen that the offender is impelled only by a single
criminal impulse in committing a series of acts that brought about more than one crime, considering that
%riminal ?aw, if there is only one criminal impulse which brought about the commission of the crime, the
offender should be penali/ed only once.
!here are in fact cases decided by the 7upreme %ourt where the offender has performed as series of acts
but the acts appeared to be impelled by one and the same impulse, the ruling is that a comple' crime is
committed. In this case it is not the singleness of the act but the singlessness of the impulse that has been
considered. !here are cases where the 7upreme %ourt held that the crime committed is comple' e"en
though the offender performed not a single act but a series of acts. !he only reason is that the series of
acts are impelled by a single criminal impulse.
B: + learned two days ago that 2 recei"ed dollar bills worth L10,000 from his daughter wor-ing in the 87.
With the intention of robbing 2, + entered 2Is house at midnight, armed with a -nife used to gain entry and
began *uietly searching the drawers and other li-ely receptacles for cash. While doing that, 2 awo-e, rushed
out of his room and grappled with + for the possession of the -nife. + stabbed 2 to death, found the latterIs
wallet beneath the pillow, which was bulging with the dollar bills he was loo-ing for. + too- the bills and left
the house. What crime9s was9were committedC
+: !he crime committed was robbery with homicide, a composite crime. +Is primordial criminal intent is to
commit a robbery and in the course of the robbery, 2 was -illed. 2oth robbery and the -illing were
Question n! Ans"e#
consummated, thus gi"ing rise to the special comple' crime of robbery with homicide. !he primary criminal
intent being to commit a robbery, any -illing on the EoccasionF of the robbery, though not by reason thereof,
is considered a component of the crime of robbery with homicide as a single indi"isible offense.
CONTINB! AN CONTINBIN> CRI"!#
In criminal law, when a series of acts are perpetrated in pursuance of a single criminal impulse, there is
what is called a continued crime. In criminal procedure for purposes of "enue, this is referred to as a
continuing crime.
!he term Econtinuing crimesF as sometimes used in lieu of the term Econtinued crimesF, howe"er, although
both terms are analogous, they are not really used with the same import. E%ontinuing crimeF is 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 originally committed or began, but also before the court of the place where
the crime was continued. Hence, the term Econtinuing crimeF is used in criminal procedure when any of the
material ingredients of the crime was committed in different places.
+ Econtinued crimeF is one where the offender performs a series of acts "iolating one and the same penal
pro"ision committed at the same place and about the same time for the same criminal purpose, regardless
of a series of acts done, it is regarded in law as one.
In (eo)le *. de $eon, where the accused too- fi"e roosters from one and the same chic-en coop, although
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 single criminal impulse only. Howe"er performing a series of acts but
this is one and the same intent 7upreme %ourt ruled that only one crime is committed under one
information.
In (eo)le *. $676s, the accused constabulary soldiers were ordered to march with se"eral muslims from
one barrio to another place. !hese soldiers feared that on the way some of the .uslims may escape. 7o
?awas ordered the men to tie the .uslims by the hand connecting one with the other, so on one would run
away. When the hands of the .uslims were tied, one of them protested, he did not want to be included
among those who were tied because he was a Ha>>ii, so the Ha>>i remonstrated and there was commotion. +t
the height of the commotion, ?awas ordered his men to fire, and the soldiers mechanically fired. 5le"en
were -illed and se"eral others were wounded. !he *uestion of whether the constabulary soldiers should be
prosecuted for the -illing of each under a separate information has reached the 7upreme %ourt. !he
7upreme %ourt ruled that the accused should be prosecuted only in one information, because a comple'
crime of multiple homicide was committed by them.
In another case, a band of robbers came across a compound where a sugar mill is located. !he wor-ers of
said mill ha"e their *uarters within the compound. !he band of robbers ransac-ed the different *uarters
therein. It was held that there is only one crime committed 4 multiple robbery, not because of +rticle &D
but because this is a continued crime. When the robbers entered the compound, they were mo"ed by a
single criminal intent. =ot because there were se"eral *uarter robbed. !his becomes a comple' crime.
!he definition in +rticle &D is not honored because the accused did not perform a single act. !here were a
series of acts, but the decision in the ?awas case is correct. !he confusion lies in this. While +rticle &D
spea-s of a comple' crime where a single act constitutes two or more gra"e or less gra"e offenses, e"ent
hose cases when the act is not a single but a series of acts resulting to two or more gra"e and less gra"e
felonies, the 7upreme %ourt considered this a comple' crime when the act is the product of one single
criminal impulse.
If confronted with a problem, use the standard or condition that it refers not only to the singleness of the act
which brought two or more gra"e and9less gra"e felonies. !he 7upreme %ourt has e'tended this class of
comple' crime to those cases when the offender performed not a single act but a series of acts as long as it
is the product of a single criminal impulse.
Hou cannot find an article in the $e"ised Penal %ode with respect to the continued crime or continuing crime.
!he nearest article is +rticle &D. 7uch situation is also brought under the operation of +rticle &D.
In People ". Garcia, the accused were con"icts who were members of a certain gang and they conspired to
-ill the other gang. 7ome of the accused -illed their "ictims in one place within the same penitentiary, some
-illed the others in another place within the same penitentiary. !he 7upreme %ourt ruled that all accused
should be punished under one information because they acted in conspiracy. !he act of one is the act of all.
2ecause there were se"eral "ictims -illed and some were mortally wounded, the accused should be held for
the comple' crime of multiple homicide with multiple frustrated homicide. !here is a comple' crime not only
when there is a single act but a series of acts. It is correct that when the offender acted in conspiracy, this
crime is considered as one and prosecuted under one information. +lthough in this case, the offenders did
not only -ills one person but -illed different persons, so it is clear that in -illing of one "ictim or the -illing of
another "ictim, another act out of this is done simultaneously. 7upreme %ourt considered this as comple'.
+lthough the -illings did not result from one single act.
In criminal procedure, it is prohibited to charge more than one offense in an information, e'cept when the
crimes is one information constitute a comple' crime or a special comple' crime.
7o whene"er the 7upreme %ourt concludes that the criminal should be punished only once, because they
acted in conspiracy or under the same criminal impulse, it is necessary to embody these crimes under one
single information. It is necessary to consider them as comple' crimes e"en if the essence of the crime
does not fit the definition of +rt &D, because there is no other pro"ision in the $P%.
<uplicity of offenses, in order not to "iolate this rule, it must be called a comple' crime.
In earlier rulings on abduction with rape, if se"eral offenders abducted the woman and abused her, there is
multiple rape. !he offenders are to be con"icted of one count of rape and separately charged of the other
rapes.
In (eo)le *. -ose, there were four participants here. !hey abducted the woman, after which, the four too-
turns in abusing 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. 5ach of the four offenders was con"icted of four rapes. In the eyes of
the law, each committed four crimes of rape. 1ne of the four rapes committed by one of them was
comple'ed with the crime of abduction. !he other three rapes are distinct counts or rape. !he three rapes
are not necessary to commit the other rapes. !herefore, separate complaints9information.
In (eo)le *. (656s6, the 7upreme %ourt through Ausitce +*uino ruled that there is only one count of
forcible abduction with rape committed by the offenders who abducted the two women and abused them
se"eral times. !his was only a dissenting opinion of Austice +*uino, that there could be only one comple'
crime of abduction with rape, regardless of the number of rapes committed because all the rapes are but
committed out of one and the same lewd design which impelled the offender to abduct the "ictim.
In (eo)le *. 2oC6s, the 7upreme %ourt followed the ruling in (eo)le *. -ose that the four men who
abducted and abused the offended women were held liable for one crime 4 one count or forcible abduction
with rape and distinct charges for rape for the other rapes committed by them.
In (eo)le *. 2ul6on=, the 7upreme %ourt adopted the dissenting opinion of Austice +*uino in People ".
Pabasa, that when se"eral persons abducted a woman and abused her, regardless of the number of rapes
committed, there should only be one comple' crime of forcible abduction with rape. !he rapes committed
were in the nature of a continued crime characteri/ed by the same lewd design which is an essential element
in the crime of forcible abduction.
!he abuse amounting to rape is comple'ed with forcible abduction because the abduction was already
consummated when the "ictim was raped. !he forcible abduction must be comple'ed therewith. 2ut the
multiple rapes should be considered only as one because they are in the nature of a continued crime.
=ote: !his is a dangerous "iew because the abductors will commit as much rape as they can, after all,
only one comple' crime of rape would arise.
In adultery, each intercourse constitutes one crime. +pparently, the singleness of the act is not considered
a single crime. 5ach intercourse bring with it the danger of bringing one stranger in the family of the
husband.
+rticle &D also applies in cases when out a single act of negligence or imprudence, two or more gra"e or less
gra"e felonies resulted, although only the first part thereof (compound crime). !he second part of +rticle &D
does not apply, referring to the comple' crime proper because this applies or refers only to a deliberate
commission of one offense to commit another offense.
Howe"er, a light felony may result from criminal negligence or imprudence, together with other gra"e or less
gra"e felonies resulting therefrom and the 7upreme %ourt held that all felonies resulting from criminal
negligence should be made sub>ect of one information only. !he reason being that, there is only one
information and prosecution only. 1therwise, it would be tantamount to splitting the criminal negligence
similar to splitting a cause of action which is prohibited in ci"il cases.
+lthough under +rticle &D, a light felony should not be included in a comple' crime, yet by "irtue of this
ruling of the 7upreme %ourt, the light felony shall be included in the same information charging the offender
with gra"e and9or less gra"e felonies resulting from the negligence of rec-less imprudence and this runs
counter to the pro"ision of +rticle &D. 7o while the 7upreme %ourt ruled that the light felony resulting from
the same criminal negligence should be comple'ed with the other felonies because that would be a blatant
"iolation of +rticle &D, instead the 7upreme %ourt stated that an additional penalty should be imposed for
the light felony. !his would mean two penalties to be imposed, one for the comple' crime and one for the
light felony. It cannot separate the light felony because it appears that the culpa is crime itself and you
cannot split the crime.
+pplying the concept of the Econtinued crimeF, the following cases ha"e been treated as constituting one
crime only:
(1) !he theft of 1# cows belonging to two different persons committed by the accused at the same
place and period of time ((eo)le *. Tu.los, ), Phil. #0)@
() !he theft of si' roosters belonging to two different owners from the same coop and at the same
period of time ((eo)le *. -6r6nill6)@
(#) !he illegal charging of fees for ser"ice rendered by a lawyer e"ery time he collected "eteranIs
benefits on behalf of a client who agreed that attorneyIs fees shall be paid out of such benefits ((eo)le
*. #655un, 10 7%$+ 1()). !he collections of legal fees were impelled by the same moti"e, that of
collecting fees for ser"ices rendered, and all acts of collection were made under the same criminal
impulse.
1n the other hand, the 7upreme %ourt declined to apply the concept in the following cases:
(1) !wo 5stafa cases, one which was committed during the period from Aanuary 13 to <ecember,
13(( and the other from Aanuary 13() to Auly 13() ((eo)le *. ichu)6, 1# Phil #0)). 7aid acts were
committed on two different occasions@
() 7e"eral mal"ersations committed in .ay, Aune and Auly 13#) and falsifications to conceal said
offenses committed in +ugust and 1ctober, 13#). !he mal"ersations and falsifications were not the
result of one resolution to embe//le and falsity ((eo)le *. CI<, )) Phil. #(1)@
(#) 7e"enty;fi"e estafa cases committed by the con"ersion by the agents of collections from the
customers of the employers made on different dates.
In the theft cases, the trend is to follow the single larceny doctrine, that is ta-ing of se"eral things, whether
belonging to the same or different owners, at the same time and place, constitutes one larceny only. .any
courts ha"e abandoned the separate larceny doctrine, under which there was distinct larceny as to the
property of each "ictim:
+lso abandoned is the doctrine that the go"ernment has the discretion to prosecute the accused for one
offense or for as many distinct offenses as there are "ictims (#6nti6=o *. -ustice >6rchitoren6, decided
on <ecember , 133#). Here, the accused was charged with performing a single act 4 that of appro"ing the
legali/ation of aliens not *ualified under the law. !he prosecution manifested that they would only file one
information. 7ubse*uently, # amended informations were filed. !he 7upreme %ourt directed the
prosecution to consolidate the cases into one offense because (1) they were in "iolation of the same law 4
5'ecuti"e 1rder =o. #&@ () caused in>ury to one party only 4 the go"ernment@ and (#) they were done in
the same day. !he concept of delito continuado has been applied to crimes under special laws since in
+rticle 10, the $e"ised Penal %ode shall be supplementary to special laws, unless the latter pro"ides the
contrary.

Crim. Tips

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Crim. Tips

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Complex Crime vs.

Compound Crime (2004)

You might also like