Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Pointers in Criminal Law PDF
Pointers in Criminal Law PDF
Introduction…………………………………………………………….. 1
Book One
Title One
1. Classification of Felonies…………………………………. 12
2. Incurrence of Criminal Liability ……………………………14
3. Duty of Court When Penalty is Excessive………………. 20
4. Stages of Execution……………………………………… ..21
5. Light Felonies………………………………………………. 24
6. Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit Felony……………. 25
7. Offenses not Subject to the Code…………………………26
1. Justifying Circumstances……...………………………….…27
2. Exempting Circumstances…………………………………. 32
3. Mitigating Circumstances……..…………………………… 37
4. Aggravating Circumstances….…………………………….. 43
5. Alternative Circumstances…….……………………………. 62
Title Two
Title Three
PENALTIES
1. Penalties In General……………………………………...73
2. Classification of Penalties……………………………… .73
3. Duration of Penalties………………….………………….75
4. Preventive and Subsidiary Imprisonment………………76
5. Application of Mitigating and Aggravating………………77
6. Other Effects of Penalty…………………………………..80
7. Complex Crimes and Their Penalties………..………….81
8. Continuing Crime………………………………..…………82
9. Indeteminate Sentence Law………………………………83
10. Probation Law………………………………………………86
11. Conditions of Probation……………………………………88
12. Other Instances When Probation Not Applicable……….88
Title Four
CIVIL LIABILITY
CRIMINAL LAW
Definition
1. The Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815) which took effect
on January 1, 1932, and its amendments;
A. Constitutional Rights
B. Statutory Rights
9. To have the right to appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner
prescribed by law. (Sec. 115, Rules of Court)
1. General
- meaning that Philippine criminal laws are binding on all persons who
live or sojourn in the Philippines. Whoever you are, whatever be your creed,
religion, sex or nationality, as long as you reside in the Philippine territory,
penal laws of the Philippines shall apply on you. Thus, the contention of the
accused that being an American citizen he can not be prosecuted for, much less
convicted of, Illegal Possession of Firearm because it is a constitutional right
of the citizen of the U.S.A. “to keep and bear arms” without need of securing
government license therefore is untenable since the Philippines, as a sovereign
state, has a right to uphold its law and maintain order within its domain, and
with the general jurisdiction to punish person for offenses committed within its
territory. (People vs. Galacgac, C.A. 54 O.G. 1027)
2. Territorial
There are exceptions however. Under Art. 2 of the Revised Penal Code,
there are five (5) instances where the provisions shall be enforced outside of
the jurisdiction of our country against those who:
A. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship.
3. Prospective
- meaning that a penal law can not make an act punishable when it was not
punishable when committed. In other words, crimes are punished under the
laws in force at the time the same were perpetrated. It is consonance with
the constitutional prohibition against Ex Post Facto Law. It reflects the
maxim: mullum crimen sine poena; nulla poena sine lege - that is, there is
no crime without a penalty and there is no penalty without law.
The retroactive effect shall benefit the accused even if at the time of the
publication of the law, a final judgement has been pronounced and the convict
is serving sentence.
Even if the law uses the words “felony” and “habitual criminal as this
term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62,” this is applicable to special laws which
provide more favorable conditions to the accused. (People vs. Soliman, 36
Phil. 5; People vs. Simon, 234 SCRA 555; People vs. De Lara, 236 SCRA 291)
Although R.A. No.8294, took effect on 6 July 1997, or after the crimes
involved in the case at bar were committed in 1994, it is advantageous to the
accused, hence it should be given retrospective application in so far as it spares
the accused from a separate conviction to the crime of Illegal Possession of
Firearm. (People vs. Candido, 383 SCRA 296)
Judicial decisions which are favorable to the accused who is not a
habitual delinquent shall also be accorded retroactive effect.
If the new law fails to penalize the act, then the Court loses jurisdiction,
as in effect, there is no crime existing.
Where doubt exists, the penal law must be interpreted liberally in favor
of the accused and strictly against the state. Thus a boy who killed his
classmate on his ninth (9th) birthday and acting with discernment is not
criminally liable since there is a doubt in the provision of the law. Article 12,
par. 2 provides that a person under (9) years of age is exempt from criminal
liability (even if he acted with discernment) while a person over nine(9) and
under fifteen (15) years old is not exempt if he acted with discernment. So if
the boy will kill his classmate when he was exactly nine(9) years old because it
was his birthday, doubt would exist as to his criminal responsibility. He will be
considered exempt as penal laws are to be interpreted liberally in favor of the
accused. This is the Pro reo doctrine.
Under R.A. No. 9344, a child exactly fifteen years of age or below is
exempt from criminal responsibility, if he is more than fifteen but below
eighteen, he is exempt unless he acted with discernment.
The Supreme Court has always ruled that agrarian laws must be
interpreted in favor of the grantees in order to give full force and effect to the
clear intent of such law. (Estolas vs. Mabalot 381 SCRA 702)
However, when the law speaks in clear and categorical language, there
is no room for interpretation, vacillation or equivocation – there is only room
for application. (Cooperative Development Authority vs. Dolefil Agrarian
Reform Beneficiaries Cooperative, Inc., 382 SCRA 552)
BOOK ONE
CHAPTER ONE
FELONIES
Felonies are acts and omissions punishable by law. (Art. 3, par. 1) The
word “felony” has been understood to mean an act or omission punished by the
Code; it does not cover a crime punished by a special law. (Filipinas Life
Assurance Co. vs. Tolentino, SP-5858, October 1, 1976)
They are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) – that is, when
the act is performed with deliberate intent, but also by means of fault (culpa)
meaning, when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of
foresight, or lack of skill. (Art. 3, pars. 2 and 3)
CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES
xxx
B. According to stage of execution (Art.6)
2. Less Grave felonies – those which the law punishes with penalties
which in their maximum period are correctional.
Mala in se are crimes which are wrong from their nature, such as
murder, theft, rape, etc., while those that are mala prohibita are wrong, merely
because they are prohibited by statute, like Illegal Posession of Firearm or
violation of the Ombus Election Law.
Thus, election inspectors and poll clerks who were tasked to transfer
the names of excess voters in one precinct to a newly created precinct and
because of pressures of work and fatigue, omitted some names of person, who
then were not allowed to vote, when charged with violation of the Election
Code, relied on good faith as a defense.
The CFI, reasoning that the offense is malum prohibitum and good
faith is not a defense, convicted them. On appeal, the Court of Appeals in
acquitting the accused ruled that the failure or omission to include a voter’s
name in the registry list of voters is not only wrong because it is prohibited, it
is wrong per se because it disenfranchises a voter and violated his
constitutional right. To be held liable, the election inspectors and poll clerks,
must act willfully and maliciously. (People vs. Sunico, et. al., C.A. 50 O.G.
5880)
(1)By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done
be different from that which he intended, and
(2)By any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons
or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or
on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means. (Art. 4)
This article does not mean to exclude offenders who are liable even if
they do not fall under any of the situations spoken of in the said article. Thus, a
person who committed a crime which he really intended is no doubt liable for
that offense like, if A, intending to kill his father, shot him, he is liable for the
death of his father. The opening sentence of Article 4 should have been:
“Criminal liability shall also be incurred by.”
In U.S. vs. Marasigan, 27 Phil. 504, where the accused attacked the
offended party with a knife, and in the process of warding off the same, his
left hand was injured, severing the extensor tendon in one of the fingers, the
Supreme Court held that the accused is criminally liable. The fact that the
original condition of the finger could be restored by a surgical operation is
immaterial and the victim is not obliged to submit to a surgical operation to
relieve the accused of the natural and ordinary results of his crime.
The wrong done, however, must be the direct and natural consequence
of the felonies act. Stated otherwise, the felony committed must be the
proximate cause of the resulting injury. Proximate cause has been defined as
“that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any
efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result
would not have occurred.” (Vda. De Batacan, et. al. vs. Medina, 102 Phil. 181,
citing Vol. 38 of Am. Jur.)
In Bringas vs. People, et. al., 125 SCRA 687, where the conductor
shouted “Lusacan, Lusacan” knowing that the train would reach the Lucasan
Station full three (3) minutes more and deceased Martina Bool, a passenger,
walked towards the left front door facing the direction of Tiaong, Quezon
carrying a child with one hand and holding her baggage with another, and
when the train that slowed down suddenly picked up speed causing Martina
Bool and the three (3)-year-old child she was carrying to fall from the door
causing their deaths, the Supreme Court said:
Impossible Crime
X stole the ring which Y inadvertently left on his desk. It turned out
that the said ring was the one X lost two(2) days ago.
Physical Impossibility
A saw a beautiful lady lying down already dead, but thinking that she
was only sleeping, undressed and had sex with her. This is an Impossible
Crime to Commit Rape considering that under R.A. No. 8353, the crime rape
has been reclassified as an offense against persons, no longer a crime against
chastity.
In case of inadequate means, the intended victim should not suffer any
injury, otherwise the crime could be attempted or frustrated homicide or
murder as the case maybe.
No, as the par. 1 of Art. 5, RPC provides that whenever a court has
knowledge of any act which it may deem proper to repress and which is not
punishable by law, it shall render the proper decision, that is, dismiss the case,
and shall report to the Chief Executive through the Department of Justice, the
reasons which induced the court to believe that said act should be made the
subject of penal legislation.
The elements of the offense under B.P. Blg. 22 are (a) the making,
drawing and issuance of any check to apply to account or for value; (b) the
maker, drawer and issuer knows at the time of issue that he does not have
sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such
check in full upon its presentment; and (c) the check is subsequently
dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or would
have been dishonored for the same reason, had not the drawer without any
valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment. (Bautista vs. Court of Appeals,
et. al., 360 SCRA 618)
DUTY OF COURT WHEN PENALTY IS EXCESSIVE
The court shall submit to the Chief Executive, through the Department
of Justice, such statement as may be deemed proper, without suspending the
execution of the sentence, when a strict enforcement of the provisions of this
Code would result in the imposition of a clearly excessive penalty, taking into
consideration the degree of malice and the injury caused by the offense. (Art.
5, par. 2, RPC)
A daughter who killed her father while he was sleeping because the
latter had raped her, resulting in her pregnancy, should be punished with death
by the court since Parricide is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death, and
there is an aggravating circumstance of treachery. The ordinary mitigating
circumstance of vindication of a grave offense, or passion or obfuscation will
not affect the imposable penalty as the same is in indivisible penalty. (Art. 63)
However, the Judge may write the President of the Philippines for the granting
of Executive Clemency to the poor daughter on account of the circumstances
of the case.
STAGES OF EXECUTION
In Robbery with force Upon Things (Arts. 299 or 302), where the
accused had entered the building or house, and had removed the property he
intended to steal but was apprehended before he could get out, the crime is
Frustrated Robbery. (People vs. Jose Del Rosario, C.A. 46 O.G. 332) If he was
caught in the act of removing the property, the crime would be Attempted
Robbery. If he was able to bring the property out of the house or building, he
would be guilty of Consummated Robbery.
Anent the manner of committing crime, there are offenses which are
consummated in one instant and the act cannot be split into parts to be
categorized as attempted or frustrated like Slander or Libel. They are called
Formal Crimes.
In material crimes like Homicide, Rape, Murder, etc., there are three
(3) stages of execution. Thus, if A would stab or shoot B, missing him or
injuring him only superficially, the crime is Attempted Homicide or Murder;
but if he hit B and inflicted injuries which otherwise would have been fatal
were it not for timely medical attention, it is Frustrated; if B dies, the case is
Consummated Homicide or Murder.
Note: (If the effort to have sex is not clear, the crime is only Acts of
Lasciviousness)
On the other hand, entry on the labia or lips of the female organ by the
penis, even without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina,
consummates the crime. (People vs. Tayabas,62 Phil. 559; People vs.
Royeras, 56 SCRA 666; People vs. Amores, 58 SCRA 505)
Clearly, in the crime of rape, from the moment the offender has carnal
knowledge of his victim, he actually attains his purpose and, from that moment
all the essential elements of the offense have been accomplished xxx the felony
is consummated. xxx Any penetration of the female organ by the male organ is
sufficient. xxx Necessarily, rape is attempted if there is no penetration of the
female organ because not all acts of execution was performed. The offender
merely commended the commission of a felony directly by overt acts. Taking
into account the nature, elements and manner of execution of the crime of rape
and jurisprudence on the matter, it is hardly conceivable how the frustrated
stage in rape can ever be committed.
The court continued that the case of People vs. Erina,50 Phil. 998,
where the accused was found guilty of Frustrated Rape, appears to be a “stray”
decision in as much as it has not been reiterated in their subsequent decisions,
and that the particular provision on Frustrated Rape in Art. 335 as amended by
R.A. No.2632 and R.A. No. 4111 is a dead provision prompted probably by
the Erina case. (NOTE: R.A. No.7659, Sec. 11 also contains the provision that
when the Rape is attempted or frustrated and a Homicide is committed by
reason or on the occasion thereof, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to
death). In People vs. Aca-ac,357 SCRA, it was the ruling of the Supreme Court
that there is no such crime as Frustrated Rape.
LIGHT FELONIES
Light felonies are punishable only when they have been consummated,
with the exception of those committed against person or property. Thus, a
person who, within any town or public place, attempts to fire or to discharge
his gun is not criminally liable even if his acts would fall under Art. 155
punishing Alarms and Scandals in its attempted stage as this light felony is a
crime against public order.
Likewise, in light felonies, only the principals and accomplices are
liable (Art. 16) so that a policeman who assists in the escape of a person who
slightly injured another (Slight Physical Injuries) is not liable. (NOTE: See
P.D. No. 1829 however)
There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony
proposes its execution to some other person or persons. (par. 3, Ibid.) To
constitute proposal, in law, the proponent himself must be determined to
commit the crime so that if he only aired his grievances against the government
and made suggestions on how to fight the authorities, he can not be considered
liable for Proposal to Commit Rebellion.
Special Laws
Thus, in case of conflict between the provisions of the special laws and
those of the Revised Penal Code, the former shall prevail. The provisions of
the latter however shall be supplementary to special laws whenever applicable.
In People vs. Simon,234 SCRA 555, citing People vs. Macatanda,109 SCRA
35, it was held:
“While these are special laws, the fact that the penalties thereunder are
those provided for in the Revised Penal Code lucidly reveals the statutory
intent to give the related provisions on penalties for felonies under the Code
the corresponding application to said special laws, in the absence of any
express, or implicit proscription in these special laws.”
CHAPTER TWO
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
1. Self-Defense
No. 1 in justifying circumstances is SELF-DEFENSE. Thus, anyone
who acts in defense of his person or rights incurs no criminal liability provided
that the following circumstances concur:
Unlawful aggression on the part of the injured or the victim is the first
element of self-defense. This is and indispensable requisite even in incomplete
self-defense. (People vs. Deopante,G.R. No. 102772, October 30, 1996)
Without this requisite, we can not speak of complete self-defense as a
justifying circumstance, or incomplete self-defense as a mitigating
circumstance. (Art. 13, par. 1)
When the deceased laid down his gun, unlawful aggression had already
ceased and it was no longer necessary for accused-appellant to have fired
successfully the way he did at the victim. (People vs. Rabanal, 387 SCRA 685)
2. Defense of Relatives
3. Defense of Stranger
Outside of himself, and those relatives mentioned in Art. 11, par. 2, any
person who acts in defense of the person or rights of another can legitimately
claim the defense of stranger. The first two (2) requisites however, that is,
unlawful aggression, and reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it, must be present. The law adds another requisite, which is,
that the person is defending be not induced by revenge, resentment or other
evil motive.
But we must that there are two (2) requisites for this justifying
circumstance: (a) that the offender acted in the performance of a duty or in
lawful exercise of a right, and (b) that the injury or offense committed be the
necessary consequence of the due performance of such right or office.
(People vs.Belbes, 334 SCRA 161)
So also, if A hit B with his fist inside a running passenger jeep because
B was snatching his (A’s) watch, and as a consequence B fell from the jeep,
hi head hitting the hard pavement causing his death, A acted in the lawful
exercise of right. And the executioner of convicts sentenced to die, who
would make the lethal injection in the Bureau of Corrections on the day and
time scheduled by the Court, does so in the lawful exercise of an office.
The order however of guerilla officer for the killing of a civilian is not lawful.
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
In People vs. Dungo, 199 SCRA 860, it was held that one who suffers
from insanity at the time of the commission of the offense can not in a legal
sense entertain a criminal intent and cannot be held criminally responsible
for his acts. In People vs. Formigones, 87 Phil 658, the ruling was that, in
order that a person could be regarded as an imbecile within the meaning of
Art. 12 of the RPC so as to be exempt from criminal liability, he must be
deprived completely of reason or discernment and freedom of the will at
the time of committing the crime.
3. A Person Over Fifteen (15) above and under eighteen (18) Unless He
Has Acted with Discernment (R.A. No. 9344)
It is clear therefore that even if a person has acted with discernment, if
he is under fifteen (15) years of age, he is free from penal responsibility. On
the other hand, if he is over fifteen (15) years of age but under eighteen
(18), he will be held criminally liable if he acted with discernment.
An accused who knows the morality of his acts, or can fully appreciate
the consequences of his actuation has acted with discernment which can be
shown by the manner the crime was committed or his conduct after its
commission.
4. Any Person Who, While Performing a Lawful Act With Due Care,
Causes an Injury by Mere Accident Without Fault or Intention of
Causing It.
So, one driving car duly licensed to do so, in the proper lane and within the
limits prescribed by law, who hits a boy who suddenly darted into the street
is exempted from criminal liability due to accident.
Problem:
Thus, a person who was compelled to bury the body of one who
was murdered by the killers, striking him with the butts of their guns,
threatening to kill him too, is not criminally liable as an accessory.
A policeman who arrested a man who had just killed another in his
(policeman’s) presence, at 6:00 p.m. of a Saturday in a small town in the
province, is not liable under Article 125 of the RPC when he filed the
criminal complaint only in the morning of the following Monday [more
than thirty-six (36) hours as required by the said Article] since there was
no court where to file the complaint. He was prevented by a lawful or
insuperable cause to comply with the requirement of the law.
Absolutory Causes
Absolutory causes are those where the actors are granted freedom from
charge or immunity from burden for reasons of public policy and sentiment
even if their acts constitute a crime.
They are:
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Mitigating circumstances are those which do not entirely free the actor
from penal responsibility but serve only to lessen or reduce the penalty
imposable. They are two (2) classes – Ordinary Mitigating which can be
offset by aggravating circumstances, and which if present tends to reduce
the penalty by periods, and Privileged Mitigating which can not be offset by
any aggravating circumstance, and which if present tends to reduce the
penalty by degrees.
The following are mitigating circumstances:
2. When the offender is under eighteen (18) years or over seventy (70)
years of age.
3. over nine (9) and below fifteen (15) acting with discernment –
mitigated liability at least by two (2) degrees lower. (Art. 68,
par.1)
A husband who slaps his wife who fell down her head hitting a hard
pavement and died as a result can avail of this mitigating circumstance.
It would seem that the rule is that, the court must consider the
lasting effect and influence of the grave offense to the offender when
he resorted to commit the crime to vindicate such grave offense.
6. Passion or Obfuscation
Accused who went into hiding for two and a half (2 ½) years after killing
the victim cannot claim this mitigating circumstance for in order that
voluntary surrender may be appreciated, it is necessary that the same be
spontaneous in such manner that it shows the intent to surrender
unconditionally to the authorities, either because he acknowledges his
guilt or because he wisher to save them the trouble and expense
necessarily incurred in his search and capture. (People vs. Ablao, 183
SCRA 658, citing People vs. Lingatong, G.R. No. L-34019, January 29,
1990)
So also, it must be surrender of the body of the accused to persons in
authority or their agents. So the surrender of his gun, not himself, by
handing over the weapon through the balustrade of the faculty room, and
the surrender being made to his brother who was not a person in
authority nor an agent can not be considered an attenuating
circumstance. He holed in the faculty room, in effect holding some
teachers and students as hostages, as the faculty room was surrounded by
soldiers and there was no escape open to him. (People vs. Tac-an, 182
SCRA 601)
Voluntary surrender requires that the offender had not been actually
arrested; that he surrendered himself to a person in authority or to the
latter’s agent; and that the surrender was voluntary. (People vs. Callet,
382 SCRA 43) For surrender to be voluntary, it must be spontaneous and
show the intent of the accused to submit himself unconditionally to the
authorities either because (1) he acknowledges his guilt or (2) he wishes
to save them the trouble and expense incidental to his search and capture.
(People vs. Zeta, 382 SCRA 141)
The law says that the offender is deaf and dumb meaning not only deaf
but also dumb, or that he is blind, meaning blind in both eyes, but even if
he is only deaf and not dumb, or dumb only but not deaf, or blind only in
one eye, he still entitled to a mitigating circumstance under this article as
long as his physical defects restrict his means of action, defense or
communication with his fellowmen. The restriction however must relate to
the mode of committing the crime. Thus, even if he is armless or somehow
limping because he was a polio victim in his younger days, if the charge is
libel or oral defamation, his illness does not give him the privilege to
mitigate his criminal liability for the said crime
If the illness not only diminishes the exercise of offender’s will power
but deprives him of the consciousness of his acts, it becomes an
exempting circumstance to be classified as insanity or imbecility.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Under Sec. 23,1(a) of R.A. No. 7659, when in the commission of the
crime advantage was taken by the offender of his public position, the
penalty to be imposed shall be in its maximum regardless mitigating
circumstances.
It would seem that when this aggravating circumstance is present in the
commission of heinous crimes, it can not offset by any mitigating
circumstance.
If the accused could have perpetrated the crime without occupying his
position, then there is no abuse of public position. Since no evidence was
adduced to prove that the killing was in any way facilitated by the public
position of the accused, in fact, it was not even shown whether the accused
wore his uniform or use his service firearm, this aggravating circumstance
is not present. (People vs. Sumaoy,263 SCRA 460)
3. That the act be committed (a) with insult or in disregard of the respect
due the offended party on account of his rank, age or sex, or that (b) it
be committed in the dwelling of the offended party if the latter has not
given any provocation. (par. 3)
Considering the fact that the deceased, Silvina Cuyos, was already sixty
(60) years old at the time she was killed by the accused who was then only
twenty-three (23) years old, whom witnesses saw as if wrestling with the
said deceased who sustained fatal injuries at the neck, there is disregard of
the respect due the offended party on account of her age. (People vs. Rubio,
257 SCRA 528)
Where the accused took turns in hitting the victim, a seventy (70)-year
old woman, with pieces of wood they brought in going to the house of the
said victim, the circumstance of disregard of the respect due the offended
party on account of her sex and age is present. (People vs. Lapaz, 171
SCRA 539)
b. Dwelling
In People vs. Perreraz, 362 SCRA 202, it was ruled: He who goes to
another’s house to hurt him or do wrong is more guilty than he who
offends him elsewhere. For the circumstance of dwelling to be considered,
it is not necessary that the accused should have actually entered the
dwelling of the victim to commit the offense – it is enough that the victime
who gave no provocation was attacked inside his own house, as the
assailant might have devised means to perpetrate the assault from the
outside.
Where the complainant was forcibly taken from her house, brought to a
nearby Barangay where she was raped, dwelling is an aggravating
circumstance. (People vs. Lacanieta, 330 SCRA 519)
Where the accused is the uncle of the victim and who had taken shelter
in the house of the victim’s parents, the rape that he committed against his
niece is attended with Abuse of Confidence and Obvious Ungratefulness.
(People vs. Cabresas, 244 SCRA 362)
Night has been defined as a period of time from sunset to sunrise. (Art.
13, Civil Code) Viada poetically defines it as the beginning of dusk to the end
of dawn. (See The Revised Penal Code by Reyes, p. 356) It is not however the
period or the time that is material. It is more of the darkness or nocturnity that
enshrouds the situation. Thus, if at 10:30 p.m. a killing occurred in a dance
party where the place was bright or keenly illuminated, there is no nighttime to
speak of.
There is a band whenever more than three (3) armed male-factors shall
have acted together in the commission of the offense. (People vs. Landicho,
258 SCRA 1) Thus, at least four (4) must be the number (People vs. Polones,
230 SCRA 279) and they must be armed although the arms need not to be
limited to firearms. When the two (2) groups are almost similarly armed, like
where the group of the offended party numbered five (5) but only three (3)
were armed so that there is no band, while the offenders were four (4) who
were all armed and therefore constituted a band, there is no band as
aggravating circumstance as it did not facilitate the commission of the crime.
Likewise, if the meeting is casual, the homicide committed by the killers
comprising a band is not aggravated.
8. That the crime be committed with the aid of armed men or persons
who insure or afford impunity.
The law uses the words “men” and “persons” – meaning in the plural
form and so at least two (2) persons are involved.
The law defines recidivist as one who, at the time of his trial for one
crime, shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime
embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code.
10. That the offender has been previously punished for an offense to which
the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two (2) or more
crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty.
The crimes should not be embraced in the same title of the Code for
accused will then be classified as a recidivist. Thus, if A has been convicted of
Murder, and after grant of parole committed Homicide, he labors under this
paragraph (10) known as reiteracion, but he is also suffering from recidivism
(reincidencia). In such a case, he will be considered only as recidivist, and par.
10 will no longer apply to him.
Mere promise, as long as it is the reason why the offense was done, is
sufficient.
The purpose in employing the means – that is, inundation fire, poison,
etc., must be to kill the offended party to consider it as aggravating. Thus,
where the purpose of the offenders in putting in flames the polo shirt of the
victim was for further merriment because the victim continued to dance even
while his clothes were on fire, to the delight of the crowd, there is no
aggravating circumstance of by means of fire, as obviously the objective of
using fire to kill the victim is not present.
Under R.A. No. 8294 which amends P.D. No. 1866, when a person
commits any crime under the Revised Penal Code or special laws with the use
of explosives including but not limited to pillbox, Molotov cocktail bombs,
detonation agents or incendiary devices resulting in the death of a person, the
same is aggravating. (Sec.2)
So, where A and B had a fistic fight and A found himself at the
receiving end despite his size and threatened to kill B shouting, after they
separated “Hanggang bukas na lang ang buhay mo” and thereafter forgot
everything but when he saw B in the afternoon of that day, he stabbed him,
there is no lacking. However, if after making the threat A went to his friends
borrowing firearm, and when nobody lent him, he brought a bolo, sharpened it
the whole morning of the following day and looked for B whom he killed with
the said bolo, evident premeditation shall be taken against him.
In People vs. Mojica, 10 SCRA 515, the lapse of one (1) hour and
forty-five (45) minutes (4:15 p.m. to 6 p.m.) was considered by the Supreme
Court as sufficient. In People vs. Cabodoc, 263 SCRA 187, where at 1:00 p.m.,
the accused opened his balisong and uttered “I will kill him (referring to the
victim),” and at 4:30 p.m. of the said date accused stabbed the victim, it was
held that the lapse of three and a half hours (3 ½ hours) from the inception of
the plan to the execution of the crime satisfied the last requisite of evident
premeditation.
Where it appears that after the fight was broken up, the accused
returned to kill the victim after four (4) hours, it can not be deduced with
certainly that he clung to his decision to kill the victim. There is no evident
premeditation. (People vs. Nell, et al., G.R. No. 109660, July 1, 1997)
However, in People vs. Aspile, 191 SCRA 530, appellants are ruled not
to have employed craft since they had already boarded the vessel when they
pretended to buy Tanduay Rum in exchange for the dried fish and chicken they
were carrying. Even without such pretense, they could nonetheless have
carried their unlawful scheme.
There is only a hairline distinction between craft and fraud and the
Supreme Court in various cases has used them interchangeably. Justice Luis
Reyes in his book, The Revised Penal Code, Book 1, 1993 Ed., p. 399, has
distinguished the two (2) terms, in that when there is a direct inducement by
insidious words or machinations, fraud is present; otherwise, the act of the
accused done in order not to arouse the suspicion of the victims constitutes
craft.
If the offender put charcoal on his entire nakedbody, entered the house
of his neighbors and raped her, the crime of rape is aggravated by this
circumstance.
But the accused must be able to hide his identity during the initial
stage, if not all trough out, the commission of the crime and his identity must
have been discovered only later on, to consider his aggravating circumstance.
If despite the mask worn by the accused, or his putting of charcoal over his
body, the offended party even before the initial stage knew him, he was not
able to hide his identity and this circumstance can not be appreciated.
15. That advantage be taken of superior strength or means employed to
weaken the defense.
The accused who, with sand in his hand, threw the same into eyes of
the offended party when they were about to strike each other causing
momentary blindness on the part of the latter has employed means to weaken
the defense.
The fact however that there were two persons who attacked the victim
does not per se establish that the crime was committed with abuse of superior
strength. To take advantage of superior strength means to purposely use
excessive force out of proportion to the means available to the person attacked
to defend himself. (People vs. Casingal, 243 SCRA 37)
Where appellant’s group numbered more than five (5), two (2) of
whom were armed with bladed weapons while the victim was unarmed
surrounded by the group, with his hand held by at least one (1), and was
stabbed fatally sustaining two (2) frontal wounds and other injuries, the crime
is aggravated by abuse of superior strength in as much as no alevosia was
proven as the appellant’s did not consciously adopt their mode of attack.
(People vs. Daen, Jr., 244 SCRA 382)
The attack of the three (3) men all armed with bladed weapons against
an unarmed woman whose body bore seventeen (17) stab wounds, clearly
shows the presence of this circumstance.
When the victim was raped with the accused forcing her, using the
same position as dogs do, that is, the dog-style position in the sexual act, the
Rape is aggravated by ignominy. (People vs. Saylan, 130 SCRA 159)
The original intent of the accused did not comprehend the commission
of rape. Hence, the crime of Rape cannot be regarded as principal offense. But
since it attended the commission of Robbery with Homicide, the Rape is
deemed to aggravate the crime. Instead of ignominy, it is the Rape itself that
aggravates the crime. (People vs. Aspile, 191 SCRA 530)
There is likewise ignominy when the accused “plastered” with mud the
vagina of the offended party right after raping her. (People vs. Fernandez, 183
SCRA 511)
The ruling that if robbery with homicide was committed with additional
killings and/or rape, the additional killings or the rape shall be considered
aggravating circumstances has been rendered obsolete by the Supreme Court’s
decision in People vs. Regala, 329 SCRA 709, holding that there is no law
providing that additional rape/s homicide/s committed on the occasion of
robbery should be considered as aggravating circumstance. A penal law is
liberally construed in favor of the offender and no person should be brought
within its terms if it is not clearly made so by the statute.
In People vs. Gano, 353 SCRA 126, the Supreme Court citing the
Regala case held:
It should be noted that there is no law providing that additional
rape/s or homicide/s should be considered as aggravating circumstance.
The enumeration of aggravating circumstances under Article 14 of the
Revised Penal Code is exclusive as opposed to the enumeration in
Article 13 of the same Code regarding mitigating circumstances where
there is specific paragraph (paragraph 10) providing for analogous
circumstances.
In taking away certain valuable articles from the house, accused entered
through the window. The crime committed is Robbery; but because this
circumstance is not alleged in the information, the offence is classified as
Theft. However, the crime is aggravated by Unlawful Entry. (People vs.
Sunga, 43 Phil. 205)
Where the escaped was done through the window, the crime is not
attended by this circumstance since there was no unlawful entry.
19. That as a means to the commission of a crime, a wall, roof, floor, door
or window be broken.
While that law uses the words “wall, roof, floor, door or window,” in
one case, where accused entered a field tent cutting the ropes at the rear of the
tent, and killed the victim soldiers sleeping thereat, the Supreme Court
considered the crime of Murder, attended by the aggravating circumstance of
forcible entry.
20. That the crime be committed with the aid of persons under fifteen (15)
years of age, or by means of motor vehicles, airships or other similar
means.
The crime is aggravated by the use of motor vehicle where the accused
deliberately availed themselves of a tricycle in order to consummate their
dastardly act and to use it as a cover to facilitate the commission of Murder.
(People vs. De la Cruz, 190SCRA 328)
Likewise, the use of motor vehicle by the accused aggravated the
commission of Robbery with Homicide since the vehicle was used to facilitate
their escaped from the scene of the crime. (People vs. Bartulay, 192 SCRA
621)
21. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately
augment by causing another wrong not necessary for its commission.
The fact that the victim’s decapitated body bearing forty-three (43) stab
wounds, twenty-four (24) of which were fatal, was found dumped in the street
is not sufficient for a finding of cruelty where there is no showing that the
accused, for his pleasure and satisfaction, caused the victim to suffer slowly
and painfully and inflicted on him unnecessary physical and moral pain.
(People vs. Ilaoa, 233 SCRA 231)
It would seem that there must be proof showing that when the second
and subsequent stab wounds were inflicted, the victim was still alive because
the essence of cruelty is that the culprit fins=ds delight in prolonging the
suffering of the victim.
In People vs. Binondo, 241 SCRA 764. When the victim was
decapitated, the Supreme Court considered the presence of this aggravating
circumstance stating that: “no greater outrage, insult or abuse can a person
commit upon a corpse than to sever the head there from. The head represents
the dignity of the person and any violence directed towards it can not but be
deliberately or inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim or outraging
or scoffing at his person or corpse.”
In People vs. Tac-an, 182 SCRA 601, it was said that “in the absence of
a competent medical or other direct evidence of ingestion of a dangerous drug,
courts must be wary and critical of indirect evidence considering the severe
consequences for the accused of a finding that he acted under the influence of
prohibited drug.”
However, if the evidence is clear that the accused perpetrated the act
while under the influence of illegal drugs, the crime is aggravated.
Although the circumstance that human life was destroyed with the used
of an unlicensed firearm is not aggravating under Art. 14, RPC, it may still be
taken into consideration to increase the penalty because of the explicit
provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1866 as amended by R.A. No. 8294.
Section 1, par. 3 of said law says that if homicide or murder is committed with
the used of an unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be
considered as an aggravating circumstance. Further, under Sec. 3 thereof, when
a person commits any of the crimes defined in the Revised Penal Code or
special laws with the use of explosives like pill box, Molotov cocktails bombs,
fire bombs or other incendiary devices which result in the death of any person,
such use shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance.
The law enumerates them as (1) relationship of the offender and the
offended party (2) intoxication, and (3) degree of instruction and education of
the offender.
1. Relationship
2. Intoxication
The rule however is that not only illiteracy. But also lack of sufficient
intelligence, is necessary to successfully avail of this alternative circumstance
as mitigating.
Who are the particeps criminis – that is, those participants in the crime?
They are the principals, accomplices, and accessories. However, for light
felonies, the persons criminally liable are only the principals and the
accomplices. (Art. 16)
1. Principals
The acts of the participants must be towards the same end in carrying
out their plan. So that in the first example above, even if A only acted as look-
out in the yard of X’s house, and B just accompanied C to the room where X
was sleeping, ready to assist C if the need arises, and it was only C who fired
the gun that killed X, all the, three (3), meaning A, B and C are principals by
direct participation.
Where the accused conspired with this three (3) co-accused to kill the
two (2) victims and the role assigned to him was to kill one of the victims
which he did, he is a principal by direct participation in the two (2) murders.
Where conspiracy has been adequately proven, there is collective
criminal responsibility, for in conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. On the
other hand, if there is no conspiracy proved, individual criminal liability may
ensue.
There are two (2) ways of directly inducing another to commit a crime:
(a) By giving price, reward or promise. To fall under the scenario, the
price, reward or promise must be the primordial consideration
why the principal by direct participation proceeded to commit the
crime. So that if he would commit the offense just the same with
or without the price, promise or reward, the one who gave the
price or reward is not liable. Necessarily, there must be
conspiracy between the giver of the consideration, and the doer of
the act.
Even if the inducement be directly made, with the inducer insistent and
determined to procure the commission of the crime, he still can not be
classified as principal by induction if the inducement is not the determining
cause for committing the crime. Thus, if the actor has reason of his own to
commit the offense, there can be no principal by induction.
Thus, with a gun in his hand, A gave B a knife and ordered him to kill
X who was sleeping nearby otherwise he (A) would shoot him (B). If B would
stabbed X to death, A is a principal by inducement by directly forcing another
to perpetrate a crime. B, on the other hand, is a principal by direct participation
although he would be exempt from criminal liability under Article 12, par. 6.
2. Accomplices
In the above example, take note that while B did not conspire with A to
kill X, he (B) concurred with A in his purpose. Had he conspired with A, B is a
principal by indispensable cooperation. That act of A however must have a
relation to the participation of B. Thus, if while B, knowing A’s purpose to kill
X, still lent his gun to A, but A used a bolo in killing X, then B can not be
considered an accomplice.
They are those who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime,
and without having participated as principals or accomplices, take part
subsequent to its commission in any of the following manners:
1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the
effects of the crime.
The body of the crime however does not only mean the
body of the person killed. This phrase refers to CORPUS
DELICTI – that is, the body or the substance of the offense.
(People vs. Bantagan, 54 Phil. 841). Corpus delicti simply means
the fact that a crime has actually been committed. (People vs.
Madlangbayan, 94 SCRA 685)
Title Three
PENALTIES
In General
Classification of Penalties
Classification of Penalties
1. Death
2. Reclusion
3. Reclusion Temporal
4. Prison Mayor
5. Prision Carreccional
6. Arresto Mayor
7. Arresto Menor
8. Destierro
9. Perpetual Absolute Disqualification
10. Temporary Absolute Disqualification
11. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for,
the right to follow profession or calling
12. Public censure
The maximum duration however of the convict’s sentence shall not be
more than threefold the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the
penalties imposed. Said maximum period shall in no case exceed forty (40)
years. (Art. 70)
For the purpose of graduating the penalties in the light of the mitigating
and aggravating circumstances present in the commission of the offense, the
courts shall observe the following graduated scales:
Duration or Penalties
xxx
Reclusion Perpetua, despite its “defined duration” in R.A. No. 7659 – twenty (20)
years and one (1) day to forty (40) years – is still to be classified as an indivisible penalty
(People vs. Lucas, 232 SCRA 537), and should be imposed in its entire duration in
accordance with Art. 63 of the Revised Penal Code. (People vs. Magallano, 266 SCRA
305)
Preventive and Subsidiary Imprisonment
2. When upon being summoned for the execution of his sentenced, he shall
have failed to surrender voluntarily. (Art. 29, RPC)
There is no subsidiary imprisonment if the penalty is more thatn six (6) years.
Moreover the subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed one third (1/3) of the principal
penalty or one (1) year which ever is lesser.
The court must first consider whether the penalties imposable are Divisible or
Indivisible. Indivisible penalties are those which have no fixed duration like death,
reclusion perpetua, perpetual absolute or special disqualification, and public censure;
while Divisible penalties are those having fixed duration and case be divided into three
(3) periods.
In case the law prescribes two indivisible penalties, like reclusion perpetua
to death (the penalty for Infanticide, Parricide, Murder, etc.), the presence of one
mitigating circumstance would result in the application of the lesser penalty, while the
presence of an aggravating circumstance would mean the application of the greater
penalty. If there is no mitigating and no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall
be applied. If there be present both mitigating and aggravating circumstance, the court
shall reasonably allow them to offset one another. (Art. 63)
When the penalty is single indivisible, like the penalty for Piracy under Article
122 as amended by Sec. 3, R.A. No. 7659 – which is reclusion perpetua, such penalty
shall be applied regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance such as
minority, in which case, the penalty may be reduced by a degree. Such is also the rule in
case of two (2) indivisible penalties like reclusion perpetua to death. If the mitigating
circumstance in attendance is privilege mitigating, the penalty shall be lowered by one
degree. Thus, when the crime proven is Murder, (the penalty is reclusion perpetua to
death under Art. 248, Revised Penal Code as amended by Sec. 6 of R.A. No. 7659), and
the accused is a minor below sixteen (16) years old, the penalty shall be reclusion
temporal.
When the penalty is divisible and there is neither aggravating nor mitigating
circumstance, the penalty shall be applied in medium period. If there is one ordinary
mitigating circumstance it shall be applied in it minimum period, and if there is one (1)
aggravating circumstance, the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period. If the
mitigating circumstance present is privileged one, the reduction of the penalty shall be by
degree, not only by period. If there are both mitigating and aggravating circumstance, the
court shall reasonably offset them according to their relative weight. (Art. 64)
If the commission of the crime was attended by both mitigating and aggravating
circumstances, the rules (Art. 62) are as follows:
Example: “By means of fire” (Art. 14, par. 12) shall not be considered in the crime of
Arson. That the crime was committed in the dwelling of the offended party (Art. 14,
par. 3) shall not aggravate the liability of the offender convicted of Trespass to
Dwelling.
So also, “by means of poison” (Art. 14, par. 12) will not be considered to increase
the liability in Murder qualified by using poison.
2. Aggravating circumstances which are inherent in the crime to such a degree that
they must of necessity accompany the crime shall not increase the penalty.
Example: X, Y, and Z, conspiring with each other, killed W who is X’s brother-
in-law. Z committed it with evident premeditation while Y is a recidivist. The
aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation applies only to Z, the fact that
the victim is X’s brother-in-law would affect the liability only of X while
recidivism which is personal to Y shall increase the liability of Y only.
4. The circumstance which consist in the material execution of the act or in the
means employed to accomplish it shall aggravate or mitigate the liability of those
who had knowledge of them at the time of the execution of the act.
Example: A, B, and C agreed to kill X and so armed with guns they proceeded to
the house of the latter whereupon A told B and C that he would just stay in the
yard to prevent any relative of X from helping the victim. When B and C entered
the room of X, and saw him sleeping, it was C who shot him. The treachery that
attended the commission of the crime shall also affect B and not only C
treacherously killed X in his sleep because B had knowledge of the employment
of the treacherous act being present actually during the shooting. A’s liability is
not aggravated by treachery as he had no knowledge of it, being in the yard.
Every penalty imposed for the commission of a felony shall carry with it the
forfeiture of the proceeds of the crime and the instruments or tools with which it was
committed. Such proceeds and instruments or tools shall be confiscated in favor of the
Government unless they be property of a third person not liable for the offense; but those
articles which are not subject of lawful commerce shall be destroyed. (Art. 45)
When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an
offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious
crime shall be imposed, to be applied in its maximum period. (Art. 48)
Art. 48 speaks of two (2) types of complex crimes: (1) when a single act
constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, otherwise known as compound
crime, and (2) when an offense is a necessary means of committing the other, which is
the complex crime proper.
An example of No. 1 – that is, compound crime, is when A with a revolver shot
B, missing him but the bullet hit X who is A’s father. A committed the crime of
Attempted Homicide with Parricide. Or, when in recklessly driving his car, Y hit the car
of W which in turn hit the car of A, the damages suffered by the two (2) cars resulting in
grave or less grave felonies (not merely light).
An example of No. 2 – that is, complex crime proper, is when the Municipal
Treasurer, who received ten thousand (P10,000.00) from a taxpayer, placed in the
duplicate original of the receipt the amount of one thousand (P1000.00) and then
misappropriated the difference of nine thousand ((P9,000.00) is guilty of Malversation
through Falsification of a Public Document because Falsification is necessary means to
commit Malversation.
In complex crimes, one offense should not be punishable under another law. Both
must be a violation of the Revised Penal Code. Thus, while Illegal Possession of Firearm
could be argued as a necessary means to commit Murder or Homicide, there is no
complex crime committed because one crime is punishable under a special law while the
other is by Revised Penal Code.
While one can be convicted only of rebellion where the murders, robberies and
kidnapping were committed as a means to or in furtherance of the rebellion, offenses
which were not committed in furtherance of the rebellion but for personal reasons or
other motives, are to be punished separately even if committed simultaneously with the
rebellious acts. (People vs. Oliva, 344 SCRA 435)
A single crime consisting of a series of acts arising from one criminal resolution
or intent not susceptible of division. (Philippine Law Dictionary by Moreno)
In People vs. Encila, 76 O.G. 5824, it was defined as a continuous, unlawful act
or series of acts set on foot by a single impulse and operated by an unintermittent force
however long a time it may occupy.
When the actor, there being unity of purpose and of right violated, commits
diverse acts, each of which, although of a delictual character, merely constitutes a partial
execution of a single particular delict, such concurrence of delictual acts is called “delito
continuado.” (Gamboa vs. Court of Appeals, 68 SCRA 314)
Where, however, in a train, the accused-twins ran amuck killing eight (8) persons
and wounding one during that occasion, it was held that the eight murders and one
attempted murder were committed qualified by treachery. (People vs. Toling, 62 SCRA
17)
Since the opening sentence of this law says: “xxx in imposing a prison term xxx”
this Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable to destierro. So that if a concubine is
found guilty under Article 334, the court shall impose a straight penalty of not less than
six (6) months and one (1) day nor more than six (6) years as this is the range of
destierro provided for in Article 27. The Judge thus can sentence a concubine to a
straight prison term of six (6) months and one day, or ten (10) months, or one (1) year, or
five (5) years, etc.
To cite a specific example: If A who is only seventeen (17) years old was found
guilty of Homicide with a mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, the court shall
first determine the applicable penalty by applying the mitigating circumstance present.
Since the accused is only seventeen (17) years old, he is entitled to a mitigating
circumstance of minority which is a privileged one. Thus, the penalty of reclusion
temporal prescribed for Homicide (Art. 249) will be reduced to prison mayor, which is
one degree lower. The court will the consider the other mitigating circumstance of
voluntary surrender so that the maximum period under the Indeterminate Sentence Law is
prison mayor which has a range of six (6) years and one (1) day to eight (8) years.
The minimum term shall be any range of prision correccional which is the
penalty next lower in degree to prison mayor. The sentence of the court thus is as
follows:
If in the above example, the seventeen (17)-year-old convict did not voluntarily surrender
but is a recidivist, then the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence is prision mayor
in its maximum period, that is ten (10) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) but the
minimum is the same – any range within prision correccional.
This Indterminate Sentence Law is applicable to special laws as it says: “if the offense is
punished by any other law.” Thus, People vs. Viente, 225 SCRA 361, the accused was
found guilty of carnapping under Republic Act No. 6539 and was sentenced by the trial
court to a straight imprisonment of thirty (30) years. The Supreme Court, ruling that the
Indeterminate Sentence Law applies to violation of special laws, modified the penalty to
seventeen (17) years and four (4) months as minimum to thirty (30) years as maximum
since Section 14 of the said Republic Act provides that, if carnapping is committed by
means of violence or intimidation, the penalty is imprisonment for not less than seventeen
(17) years and four (4) months and not more than thirty (30) years.
There are exceptions to the application of the Indeterminate Sentece Law. Thus,
Section 2 provides that the law shall not apply to person convicted of offenses punished
with death penalty or life imprisonment; to those convicted of treason, conspiracy or
proposal to commit treason, misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or espionage or
piracy; to those who are habitual delinquents; to those who shall have escaped from
confinement or evaded sentence; to those who violated the conditional pardon granted by
the Chief Executive; to those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed
one (1) year; nor to those already sentenced by final judgement at the time of the
approval of the Act.
Accused Mary Rose Ondo, having bee sentenced to life imprisonment for Large
Scale Illegal Recruitment is not entitled to the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence
Law. (People vs. Ondo, 227 SCRA 562) The Court also refused to grant her the benefits
of P.D. No. 603, otherwise known as the “Child and Youth Welfare Code.”
Recidivists are entitled to the availment of the Indeterminate Sentence Law since
those disqualified are Habitual Delinquents. (People vs. Venus, 63 SCRA 435)
When the accused escaped from jail from his case was on appeal, he is not
entitled to the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. (People vs. Martinado, 214
SCRA 712)
A youthful offender whose sentenced is suspended under Sec. 192 of P.D. No.
603 and who escaped from his confinement is still entitled to the application of the
Indeterminate Sentence Law. The same is true with an accused confined in the National
Center for Mental Health (formerly National Mental Hospital) since their confinement
can not be considered punishment but more of administrative matters for their
rehabilitation. (People vs. Soler, 63 Phil. 868; People vs. Co, C.A. 67 O.G. 7451)
A person sentenced to destierro who entered the prohibited area within the
prohibited period has evaded the service of his sentence (People vs. Abilog, 82 Phil. 174)
and when he committed a crime in that area, he will not be entitled to the benefits of the
Indeterminate Sentence Law for the new crime.
Probation Law
Under Section 4 of the law, the trial court may, after it shall have convinced and
sentenced a defendant, and upon application by said defendant within the period of
perfecting as appeal, suspend the execution of the sentenced and place the defendant on
probation for such period and upon such terms and conditions as it may deem best:
provided that no such application shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has
perfected the appeal from the judgment of conviction.
Probation is a mere privilege, not a right of the accused. It is rather an act of grace
or clemency or immunity conferred by the State which may be granted by the court to a
seemingly deserving defendant who thereby escapes the extreme rigors of the penalty
imposed by law.
5. Who are already serving sentenced at the time the substantive provisions of
this Decree became applicable.
If the accused is sentenced to more than six (6) year imprisonment even by a day,
he is no longer entitled to the benefits of the Probation Law.
However, multiple prison terms imposed against the accused found guilty of
several offences in one decision should not be added up, and their sum total should not be
determinative of his eligibility for, nay his disqualification from, probation since the law
uses the word “maximum” not “total” term of imprisonment. (Francisco vs. Court of
Appeals, et al., 243 SCRA 384) Thus, if A, having been charged for five (5) cases which
were jointly heard is sentenced in one decision for one (1) year and eight (8) months for
each of the charges so that the totality of the prison term is more than six (6) years, he is
not disqualified to avail of the provisions of the Probation Law.
Conditions of Probation
Every probation order issued by the court shall contain the following conditions:
2. He shall report to the probation officer at least once a month at such time
and place specified in the order.
The trial court may impose other conditions for the probationer to comply.
1. When the accused is convinced under R.A. No. 9165 – the new Anti-
Dangerous Drugs Law except when he is a first offender minor in which
case he is eligible for probation even if the penalty imposed is more than six
(6) years. However if he is convinced of drug trafficking or pushing he is
disqualified.
1. Conditional Pardon;
3. Good conduct allowances which the culprit may earn while serving
sentenced.
If the accused dies, at whatever stage of the case, personal penalty is totally
and permanently extinguished. You can not imprison a dead person. With respect
to pecuniary liabilities like fine or costs of the proceedings, they are extinguished
only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment.
With respect to civil liability of the accused, if he dies after the judgment
has become final, the same is not extinguished and it can be enforced against the
estate of the deceased. If he dies however, before promulgation of sentence, or
even after, but the same is not yet final, on account of an appeal or a motion for
reconsideration duly filed, the civil liability is also extinguished. The offended
party nevertheless is allowed to file a separate civil action, this time based on
either contract, quasi-contract, law or quasi-delicts (the other sources of obligation
under Article 1157 of the Civil Code). The statute of limitations on the civil
liability in such a case is deemed interrupted during the pendency of the criminal
case. (People vs. Bayotas, 236 SCRA 239)
2. Service of Sentence
When the accused has fully served his sentence, his personal or criminal
liability is to be considered permanently terminated.
It is the Chief Executive who can grant both but in the case of Amnesty, it
needs concurrence of Congress. While pardon looks forward and relieves the
offender from the consequences of an offense of which he has been convicted,
Amnesty looks backward and abolishes and puts into oblivion the offense itself; it
so overlooks and obliterates the offense with which he is charged that the person
released by amnesty stands before the law precisely as though he had committed
no offense. (Barrioquinto, et al. vs. Fernandez, et al., 82 Phil. 642). Thus, Art. 89
says “xxx by amnesty which completely extinguishes the penalty and all its
effects.”
4. Prescription of Crime
It is the forfeiture or loss of the right of the State to Prosecute the offender
or file criminal action after the lapse of a certain period of time. (See The Revised
Penal Code, Book I by Luis B. Reyes) Crimes punishable by death, reclusion
perpetua or reclusion temporal shall prescribed in twenty (20) years; those
punishable by the other afflictive penalties (like prision major), in fifteen (15)
years; and those by correctional penalty, in ten (10) years except those by arresto
mayor which shall prescribe in five (5) years while grave oral defamation and
grave slander by deed prescribed in six (6) months. Light offences shall prescribe
in two (2) months. When the penalty imposable is a compound one, the highest
penalty shall be made the basis of the application of the rules on prescription.
(Art. 90)
The period of prescription shall commence to run from the day of discovery
of the crime by the offended party, the authorities or their agents. (Art. 91) Thus,
if A witnessed the killing of X by B, and since A not being related to X, got
scared, and did not report the crime to the authority, the crime (Murder or
Homicide) will never prescribe. But if A is the son of X, or even if not related to
X, he reported to the police authorities what he witnessed, and no complaint is
filed in court within twenty (20) years, then the crime will prescribed, and after
twenty (20) years and one (1) day from the discovery of the crime, no charge can
be filed against B anymore.
The filing of the complaint even with the Fiscal’s office only (Francisco vs.
Court of Appeals, 122 SCRA 538; Calderon- Bargas vs. RTC-Pasig, Metro
Manila, 227 SCRA 56) or with the court shall interrupt the prescriptive period.
Thus, in the example above, if B was charged before the court or the prosecutor’s
office on the tenth (10th) year from discovery, the prescriptive period is
interrupted. If one (1) year after the filing of the complaint or information, the
proceedings were stopped without fault on the part of B, or was dismissed, the
period shall begin to run again, and after nine (9) years and one (1) day, the crime
of B shall be deemed prescribed since the ten (10)-year period that lapsed without
filing any criminal complaint shall be considered so that only nine (9) years and
one (1) day would be needed to complete the prescriptive period of twenty (20)
years.
Criminal cases, however, which are covered by the Rule on Summary
Procedure under the Rules of Court must be filed with the Court, otherwise, they
shall prescribe even if filed already with the Fiscal’s office, after the lapse of sixty
(60) days. (Zaldivia vs. Reyes, et al., 211 SCRA 277) However, in Cabelic vs.
Geronimo, May 27, 2002, a case of slight physical injury thus covered by the
Rules on Summary Procedure, the Supreme Court ruled that the period by
prescription was interrupted by the filing of the complaint with the office of the
Provincial Prosecutor. The Zaldivia case involved a violation of a municipal
ordinance where the applicable law is not Art. Of the Revised Penal Code but Act
No. 3326.
5. Prescription of Penalty
Prescription of the penalty is that loss or forfeiture of the right of the State to
execute the final sentence of conviction after the lapse of a certain period of time.
Problem:
During the period that the accused/convict escaped, he lives a life of a hunted
animal, hiding mostly in the mountains and forest in constant mortal fear of being caught.
His life, far from being happy, comfortable and peaceful, is reduced to a mere existence
filled with fear, discomfort, loneliness and misery. As the distinguished penal
commentator Viada said, the convict who evades sentence is sometimes sufficiently
punished by his voluntary and self-imposed punishment, and at times, his voluntarily
exile is more grievous than the sentence he was trying to avoid. And all the tie he has to
utilize every ingenuity and means to outwit the Government agencies bent on recapturing
him. For all this, the Government extends to him a sort of condonation or amnesty. (See
Inflate vs. Provincial Warden, 92 Phil. 310)
In other crimes, marriage of the complainant and the accused does not extinguish
criminal liability. In the crimes of SARA (Seduction, Abduction, Rape and Acts of
Lasciviousness), the marriage must be entered into in good faith, and if undertaken only
to avoid criminal prosecution, such marriage does not result in the extinction of penal
liability. (People vs. Santiago, 51 Phil. 68) If done in good faith however, the marriage
benefits the accessory or accomplice even if he is already serving sentenced. (Laceste vs.
Santos, 56 Phil. 472) Under R.A. No. 8353, the subsequent valid marriage between the
offender and the offended party in the crime of rape shall extinguish the criminal action
or the penalty imposed. In case of multiple rapes, however, the principle does not apply.
Thus, if A, B and C raped W in that when A was having sex with W, B, and C were
holding the legs and arms of W, and when it was B’s turn, A and C were the ones holding
W’s legs and arms, and when C was the one having sex with W, the ones holding her
arms and legs were A and B. even if later on, A contracted marriage with W, there is no
extinction of penal responsibility because this is a case of multiple rapes.
Even if rape is now a crime against person and no longer a crime against chastity,
the principle of marriage as a form of extinguishment of criminal liabilities applies.
With respect to Good Conduct Allowances, Art. 97 provides for the guidelines
which by its nature may be expanded or supplemented by the prison’s authority. The
prisoner however, to be entitled, must be serving his sentence. If the accused is enjoying
liberty under a conditional pardon, he can not be entitled to the good conduct allowances.
(People vs. Martin, 68 Phil. 122)
The allowances for good conduct granted by the Director of Prisons (now Bureau
of Corrections) shall not have revoked. (Art. 99)
Title Five
CIVIL LIABILITY
Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. (Art. 100) Thus, if
A committed Murder, Theft or Rape, aside from imprisonment, he is obliged to pay the
offended party the civil liability which includes restitution, reparation of the damage
caused, and indemnification for consequential damages. (Art. 104) Of course, if the crime
is one from which no civil liability may arise, like illegal Possession of Firearm (P.D.
No. 1866 as amended by R.A. No. 8294) or illegal Sale, Transport or Possession of
Prohibited or Regulated Drugs (R.A. No. 6425 as amended by R.A. No. 7659), the convict
incures no civil liability.
If an accused however was not held criminally liable, it does not mean he is not
civilly liable. In fact, under the Rules of Court, in case of acquittal, unless there is a clear
showing that the act from which the civil liability might arise did not exist, the judgment
shall make a finding on the civil liability of the accused in favor of the offended party.
(Rule 120, Sec. 2)
For the crimes committed by minors and insane persons who are exempt from
criminal liability, the civil liability shall devolve upon those having legal authority or
control over them unless it appears that there was no fault or negligence on their part or
that they are insolvent, in which case, the property of the minor or the insane shall be
liable, excepting property exempt from execution. (Art. 101, RPC) This is thus a direct
and primary liability of the parents or guardian.
The civil obligations arising from crimes devolve upon the heirs of the person
criminally liable, and the action demand likewise descends to the hiers of that person
injured. (Art. 108, RPC)
Thus, if A was found guilty of killing B, and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua
and to pay the heirs of B, fifty thousand (P 50,000.00) but died while serving sentenced,
his (A’s) heirs are bound to pay the heirs of B the said amount of fifty thousand (P
50,000.00) if he left properties sufficient to cover the civil liability.
This is subject however to the provision of Article 1288 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines which provides:
The convict shall be obliged to satisfy the civil liability contained in the judgment
of conviction even if he has served his sentence, or has not been required to serve the
same by reason of amnesty, pardon, commutation of sentence or any other reason. (Art.
113, RPC)