Understanding Penalties

Penalties
DAN PERUELO CALICA

Penalty
Penalty is the punishment imposed by lawful authority
upon a person who commits an unlawful, deliberate or
negligent act. [Philippine Law Dictionary, Federico B. Moreno,
Third Edition, 1988, p. 688, citing People v. Moran, 33 Phil. 431]
Penalties Dan P. Calica

Another take on penalty
"Penalty“ is defined as "[p]unishment imposed on a
wrongdoer usually in the form of imprisonment or fine"; "[p
]unishment imposed by lawful authority upon a person who
commits a deliberate or negligent act." Punishment, in turn, is
defined as "[a] sanction - such as fine, penalty, confinement, or loss
of property, right, or privilege - assessed against a person who has
violated the law.” [Samahan ng mga Progresibong Kabataan v.
Quezon City, G.R. No. 225442, 8 August 2017] “

Penalties
1. Penalties in general and measures which are not considered as

penalties
2. Principal and accessory penalties which may be imposed
3. Other classification of penalties
4. Duration and effect of penalties

5. Application of penalties and the Indeterminate Sentence Law
6. Execution and service of penalties and the Probation Law
7. Special rules on certain penalties

PENALTIES IN
GENERAL

Penologic objectives
1. Retributive punishment
2. Preventive or restrictive theory
3. Reformation or rehabilitation
4. Deterrence [Tadiar, Alfredo, A Philosophy of a Penal Code, 52 PHIL.L.J. 165
(1977)]

Constitutional limitations on penalties
◼ Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment
inflicted. [CONST., art. III, sec. 19 (1)]
◼ Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous
crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be
reduced to reclusion perpetua. [CONST., art. III, sec. 19 (1)]
◼ The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading punishment against any prisoner
or detainee or the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman
conditions shall be dealt with by law. [CONST., art. III, sec. 19 (2)]
◼ No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free
will shall be used against a person under custodial investigation. Secret detention places,
solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited. [CONST., art.
III, sec. 12 (2)]

Statutory limitations on penalties
◼ No felony shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law prior
to its commission. [REV. PEN. CODE., art. 21] The penalties which may be imposed are
provided in Article 25 of the Revised Penal Code.
◼ No penalty shall be executed except by virtue of a final judgment. [REV. PEN.

CODE, art. 78]
◼ A penalty shall not be executed in any other form than that prescribed by
law, nor with any other circumstances or incidents that those expressly
authorized thereby. [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 78]
◼ Republic Act No. 9745 (2007) or the Anti-Torture Act enforces the
Constitutional proscription against torture and cruel, degrading or inhuman
punishment.

Penalties which may be imposed
No felony shall be punishable by any penalty not
prescribed by law prior to its commission. [REV. PEN. CODE,
art. 21]
The penalties that may be imposed, according to the

Revised Penal Code, are those enumerated in Article 25
thereof.

Measures of prevention or safety which are
not considered as penalties
1. The arrest and temporary detention of accused persons, as well as their
detention by reason of insanity or imbecility, or illness requiring their
confinement in a hospital;
2. The commitment of a minor to any of the institutions mentioned in article
80 and for the purposes specified therein;
3. Suspension from the employment or public office during the trial or in
order to institute proceedings;
4. Fines and other corrective measures which, in the exercise of their
administrative or disciplinary powers, superior officials may impose upon
their subordinates; and
5. Deprivation of rights and reparations which the civil law may establish in
penal form. [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 24]

Preventive imprisonment
The accused undergoes preventive imprisonment
when the offense charged is non-bailable or, even if
bailable, he cannot furnish the required bail. [Luis B. Reyes, The
Revised Penal Code, Book One, Nineteenth Edition, 2017, p. 627]

Period of preventive imprisonment
deducted from term of imprisonment
Offenders or accused who have undergone preventive imprisonment
shall be credited in the service of their sentence consisting of deprivation of
liberty, with the full time during which they have undergone preventive
imprisonment if the detention prisoner agrees voluntarily in writing after being
informed of the effects thereof and with the assistance of counsel to abide by
the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners.

If the detention prisoner does not agree to abide by the same
disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, he shall do so in writing
with the assistance of a counsel and shall be credited in the service of his
sentence with four-fifths of the time during which he has undergone preventive
imprisonment.
Credit for preventive imprisonment for the penalty of reclusion perpetua

shall be deducted from thirty (30) years. [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 29, as amended by Rep.
Act No. 105923 (2012).

Who are disqualified to be credited with
their preventive imprisonment?
1. Recidivists or those who have been convicted previously twice or more
times of any crime
2. When upon being summoned for the execution of their sentence, they have
failed to surrender voluntarily [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 29, as amended by Rep. Act No.
105923 (2012)

Rule on provisional release of
detention prisoner
Whenever an accused has undergone preventive imprisonment for a
period equal to the possible maximum imprisonment of the offense charged
to which he may be sentenced and his case is not yet terminated, he shall be
released immediately without prejudice to the continuation of the trial thereof
or the proceeding on appeal, if the same is under review. Computation of
preventive imprisonment for purposes of immediate release under this
paragraph shall be the actual period of detention with good conduct time
allowance. [Rev. Pen. Code, art. 29, as amended by Rep. Act No. 10592 (2012)]

In case the maximum penalty to which the accused may be sentenced is
destierro, he shall be released after thirty (30) days of preventive
imprisonment. [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 29, as amended by Rep. Act No. 10592 (2012)]

Who are disqualified to be credited with
their preventive imprisonment?
1. Recidivists or those who have been convicted previously twice or more
times of any crime
2. When upon being summoned for the execution of their sentence, they have
failed to surrender voluntarily [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 29, as amended by Rep. Act No.
10592 (2012)

PRINCIPAL AND
ACCESSORY PENALTIES

Principal and Accessory Penalties
Principal penalties need to be imposed in the judgment of the
court for it to be executed. [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 78]
On the other hand, accessory penalties follow the principal

penalties. The Revised Penal Code provides that, whenever the
courts shall impose a penalty which, by provision of law carries
with it other penalties, according to the provisions of articles 40,
41, 42, 43, 44 and 45, it must be understood that the accessory
penalties are also imposed upon the convict. [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 73]

Principal vs Accessory penalties
Principal penalties Accessory penalties

those expressly imposed those that are deemed
by the court in the included in the imposition
judgment of conviction of the principal penalties

Principal penalties
which may be imposed
1. Death (which has been prohibited to be imposed under Rep.
Act No. 9346)
2. Reclusion Perpetua
3. Reclusion Temporal
4. Perpetual or Temporary Absolute Disqualification

5. Perpetual or Temporary Special Disqualification
6. Prision Mayor
7. Prision Correccional
8. Arresto Mayor
9. Suspension
10. Destierro

11. Arresto Menor
12. Public Censure
13. Fine
14. Bond to Keep the Peace [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 25]

Accessory penalties
which may be imposed
1. Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification
2. Perpetual or temporary special disqualification
3. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted

for, the profession or calling
4. Civil interdiction

5. Indemnification
6. Forfeiture or confiscation of instruments and proceeds of the

offense
7. Payment of costs [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 25]

Penalties which are both principal and
accessory penalties

for, the profession or calling [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 25]

Community Service Act
Republic Act No. 11362 (2018) or the Community Service
Act authorizes the court in its discretion to require community
service in lieu of service in jail for offenses punishable by arresto
menor and arresto mayor. [REP. ACT NO. 11362 (2018), sec. 2, now REV. PEN. CODE,
art. 88a]

Community service
Community service shall consist of any actual physical activity
which inculcates civic consciousness, and is intended towards the
improvement of a public work or promotion of a public service. [REP.
ACT NO. 11362 (2018), sec. 3, now REV. PEN. CODE, art. 88a]

The Death Penalty
The 1987 Constitution prohibited the imposition of the death penalty
unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress deemed
it necessary to impose it. [CONST., art. III, sec. 19 (1)]
Pursuant to the 1987 Constitution, Congress enacted Republic Act No.

7659 (1993), which imposed the death penalty on certain heinous crimes. The
law took effect on 31 December 1993.
Subsequently, the death penalty was prohibited from being imposed by

Republic Act No. 9346 (2006) or An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death
Penalty in the Philippines. Rep. Act No. 9346 was enacted into law on 24 June
2006 and took effect on 14 July 2006.

Previous rules relating to the death penalty
The death penalty is considered as a capital punishment in Article 25 of the Revised
Penal Code.
When the death penalty is reduced to reclusion perpetua, it will have the accessory
penalties of perpetual absolute disqualification and civil interdiction for thirty years following
date of sentence. [Rev. Pen. Code, art. 40]
The death penalty will not be imposed if the convict is below 18 years old, over 70
years old and the required vote is not reached in the Supreme Court. It will be suspended in
case the convict is a woman who is pregnant or within one year from giving birth. [Rev. Pen.
Code, art. 47 and 80]
The rules pertaining to its execution are provided in Articles 81 to 85 of the Revised
Penal Code.

People v. Echegaray
267 SCRA 682 (1997)
Leo Echegaray was convicted of raping his 10-year old daughter and
sentenced to the death penalty. He filed a motion for reconsideration and he
argued, among others, that Republic Act No. 7659 (1993) reimposing the death
penalty is unconstitutional as it is a severe and excessive penalty and a cruel
and unusual punishment and that there are no compelling reasons for its
reimposition.
The Supreme Court acknowledged that the opposition to the death

penalty uniformly took the form of a constitutional question of whether or not
the death penalty is a cruel, unjust, excessive or unusual punishment in
violation of the constitutional proscription against cruel and unusual
punishments. It nevertheless held that it had unchangingly answered this
question in the negative in multiple cases.
In Harden v. Director of Prisons, in particular, the Supreme Court held
that the death penalty is neither cruel, unjust nor excessive. Punishments are
considered cruel when these involve torture or lingering death. The punishment
of death is not cruel as used in the constitution; it implies there is something
inhuman and barbarous, something more than the mere extinguishment of life.
The Supreme Court also reiterated that it does not involve itself in a
protracted debate on the morality or propriety of the death sentence where the
law itself provides therefor in specific and well-defined criminal acts.
Article III, Section 19 (1) of the 1987 Constitution plainly vests in

Congress the power to re-impose the death penalty "for compelling reasons
involving heinous crimes". This power is not subsumed in the plenary legislative
power of Congress, for it is subject to a clear showing of "compelling reasons
involving heinous crimes."

Under the 1987 Constitution, Congress may re-impose the death
penalty provided: (i) Congress define or describe what is meant by heinous
crimes; and (ii) Congress specify and penalize by death only crimes that qualify
as heinous in accordance with the definition or description set in the death
penalty bill and designate crimes punishable by reclusion perpetua to death in
which latter case, death can only be imposed upon the attendance of
circumstances duly proven in court that characterize the crime to be heinous;
and (iii) Congress, in enacting the death penalty bill be singularly motivated by
“compelling reasons involving heinous crimes”.
Crimes in Rep. Act No. 7659 are heinous for being grievous, odious
and hateful offenses and which, by reason of their inherent or manifest
wickedness, viciousness, atrocity and perversity are repugnant and outrageous
to the common standards and norms of decency and morality in a just, civilized
and ordered society.

The Supreme Court held that, insofar as the element of heinousness is
concerned, Rep. Act No. 7659 correctly identified crimes warranting the
mandatory penalty of death. As to the other crimes in Rep. Act No. 7659
punished by reclusion perpetua to death, they are admittedly no less
abominable than those mandatorily penalized by death. The proper time to
determine their heinousness is when on automatic review the Supreme Court is
called upon to pass on a death sentence meted out by the trial court.
Compelling reasons go hand in hand with the heinousness of the crimes.
In the course of the congressional debates on the constitutional requirement

that the death penalty be re-imposed for compelling reasons involving heinous
crimes, we note that the main objection to the death penalty bill revolved
around the persistent demand of the abolitionists for a statement of the
compelling reason in each and every heinous crime and statistical proof that
such compelling reason actually exists.
The Supreme Court held that the elements of heinousness and
compulsion are inseparable and are, in fact, interspersed with each other.
Because the subject crimes are either so revolting and debasing as to violate
the most minimum of the human standards of decency or its effects,
repercussions, implications and consequences so destructive, destabilizing,
debilitating, or aggravating in the context of our socio-political and economic
agenda as a developing nation, these crimes must be frustrated, curtailed and
altogether eradicated. There can be no its or buts in the face of evil, and we
cannot afford to wait until we rub elbows with it before grasping it by the ears
and thrashing it to its demission.
The Supreme Court also held that there is no need that there be an
unprecedented increase in crimes and that all criminal reforms first be
pursued and implemented before the death penalty be re-imposed in case
such reforms prove unsuccessful as argued by the abolitionists.

Article III, Section 19(1) of the 1987 Constitution simply states that
Congress, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, may re-impose the
death penalty. Nothing in the said provision imposes a requirement that for a
death penalty bill to be valid, a positive manifestation in the form of a higher
incidence of crime should first be perceived and statistically proven following
the suspension of the death penalty. Neither does the said provision require
that the death penalty be resorted to as a last recourse when all other criminal
reforms have failed to abate criminality in society It is immaterial and
irrelevant that R.A. No. 7659 cites that there has been an "alarming upsurge of
such crimes", for the same was never intended by said law to be the yardstick
to determine the existence of compelling reasons involving heinous crimes.
Fittingly, thus, what R.A. No. 7659 states is that "the Congress, in the interest
of justice, public order and rule of law, and the need to rationalize and
harmonize the penal sanctions for heinous crimes, finds compelling reasons to
impose the death penalty for said crimes."

Effects of Rep. Act No. 9346 (2006)
◼ The imposition of the death penalty was prohibited. [REP. ACT NO. 9346
(2006), sec. 1]
◼ In lieu of the death penalty, the following shall be imposed:

a. the penalty of reclusion perpetua, when the law violated makes use of
the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code; or
b. the penalty of life imprisonment, when the law violated does not make
use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code. [REP.
ACT NO. 9346 (2006), sec. 2]

Disqualification from the Indeterminate
Sentence Law
Rep. Act No. 9346 provides that persons convicted of
offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will
be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of its effectivity, shall
not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4103, otherwise known as
the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended. [REP. ACT NO. 9346
(2006), sec. 3]

SC Guidelines for use of “without eligibility
for parole” in Rep. Act No. 9346
The Supreme Court clarified in A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC, 4 August 2015, that parole is
extended only to those sentenced to divisible penalties. Reclusion perpetua is an indivisible
penalty and has no minimum nor maximum period. With no “minimum penalty” imposable
on those convicted of a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua, then even prior to the
enactment of Rep. Act No. 9346, persons sentenced by final judgment to reclusion perpetua
could not have availed of parole under the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
Since the distinction between reclusion perpetua and reclusion perpetua without
eligibility for parole if more apparent than real, then there is no more need to append the
phrase “without eligibility for parole” to qualify the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

Was the death penalty abolished by the
1987 Constitution?

People v. Muñoz
G.R. Nos. 38969-70, 9 February 1989
Feliciano Muñoz, Marvin Millora, Tomas Tayaba, Jose Mislang and

seven other men who were the alleged bodyguards of a town mayor mercilessly
killed three persons. Muñoz, Millora, Tayaba and Mislang were convicted of the
three murders, but with different levels of participation as principal and/or
accomplices as the trial court did not find conspiracy. Except for Muñoz, the
three appealed their conviction.
The Supreme Court affirmed their convictions and further ruled that
there was conspiracy and the killing was qualified by treachery. The Supreme
Court then considered what penalty to be imposed on the convicts. At that
time, the penalty for murder was reclusion temporal in its maximum period to
death.
The SC held that the penalty for murder was modified by Section 19(1)
Article III of the Constitution stating that the death penalty shall not be imposed,
unless for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, Congress provides for it.
Any death penalty already imposed is reduced to reclusion perpetua.
Conformably, the Supreme Court has, since 2 February 1987 not

imposed the death penalty whenever it was called for under the said article but
instead reduced the same to reclusion perpetua as mandated by the above
provision. The maximum period of the penalty was thus in effect lowered to the
medium, the same period applied, as before, where the offense was not
attended by any modifying circumstance, with the minimum period, i.
e., reclusion temporal maximum, being still applicable in all other cases. The
three-grade scheme of the original penalty, including death, was thus maintained
except that the maximum period was not imposed because of the constitutional
prohibition.

A reading of Section 19(l) of Article III will readily show that there is
really nothing therein which expressly declares the abolition of the death
penalty. The provision merely says that the death penalty shall not be imposed
unless for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes the Congress hereafter
provides for it and, if already imposed, shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
The language, while rather awkward, is still plain enough. And it is a settled rule
of legal hermeneutics that if the language under consideration is plain, it is
neither necessary nor permissible to resort to extrinsic aids, like the records of
the constitutional convention, for its interpretation.
Article III, Section 19(1) does not change the periods of the penalty
prescribed by Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code except only insofar as it
prohibits the imposition of the death penalty and reduces it to reclusion
perpetua. The range of the medium and minimum penalties remains
unchanged.
The Court relies that this interpretation may lead to certain inequities
that would not have arisen under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code before
its modification. Thus, a person originally subject to the death penalty and
another who committed the murder without the attendance of any modifying
circumstance will now be both punishable with the same medium period
although the former is concededly more guilty than the latter. True enough. But
that is the will not of this Court but of the Constitution.
The problem in any event is addressed not to this Court but to the
Congress. Penalties are prescribed by statute and are essentially and exclusively
legislative. As judges, we can only interpret and apply them and have no
authority to modify them or revise their range as determined exclusively by the
legislature. We should not encroach on this prerogative of the lawmaking body.

Considering the foregoing and since there were no generic aggravating
or mitigating circumstance attending the commission of the offenses, the
applicable sentence is the medium period of the penalty prescribed by Article
248 of the Revised Penal Code which, conformably to the new doctrine here
adopted and announced, is still reclusion perpetua. This is the penalty we
impose on all the accused-appellants for each of the three murders they have
committed in conspiracy with the others.

Should the death penalty be considered in the
graduation of penalties under Article 71 of the
Revised Penal Code?

People v. Bon
G.R. No. 16640, 30 October 2006
Alfredo Bon was convicted of six counts of rape and two counts of
attempted rape of his two minor nieces. The Supreme Court affirmed his
conviction for the said crimes.
The primary issue in this case involves the penalty to be imposed on

Bon for the two attempted rapes, which is two degrees lower, specifically on
whether it should be computed from the death penalty or reclusion perpetua
in view of the passage of Republic Act No. 9346 (2006) prohibiting the
imposition of the death penalty.
The trial court and Court of Appeals reckoned it from the death penalty
and imposed reclusion temporal. The Supreme Court held that it should be
reckoned from reclusion perpetua and imposed instead prision mayor.
We cannot find basis to conclude that Rep. Act No. 9346 intended to
retain the operative effects of the death penalty in the graduation of the other
penalties in our penal laws. People v. Munoz cannot enjoin us to adopt such
conclusion. Rep. Act No. 9346 is not swaddled in the same restraints
appreciated by Munoz on Section 19(1), Article III. The very Congress
empowered by the Constitution to reinstate the imposition of the death
penalty once thought it best to do so, through Rep. Act No. 7659. Within the
same realm of constitutional discretion, Congress has reversed itself. It must
be asserted that today, the legal status of the suppression of the death penalty
in the Philippines has never been more secure than at any time in our political
history as a nation.

Henceforth, death, as utilized in Article 71 of the Revised Penal Code,
shall no longer form part of the equation in the graduation of penalties. For
example, in the case of appellant Bon, the determination of his penalty for
attempted rape shall be reckoned not from two degrees lower than death, but
two degrees lower than reclusion perpetua. Hence, the maximum term of his
penalty shall no longer be reclusion temporal, as ruled by the Court of
Appeals, but instead, prision mayor.

People v. Sarcia
G.R. No. 169641, 10 September 2009
Richard Sarcia was convicted of raping AAA, a 5-year old. He was
sentenced by the RTC to reclusion perpetua, which was modified by the
Court of Appeals to the death penalty. When he committed the rape in 1996,
Sarcia was adjudged by the Supreme Court to be still a minor entitled to the
privileged mitigating circumstance of minority. Under Article 68 of the
Revised Penal Code, when the offender is a minor under 18 years, the
penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be imposed, but always in
the proper period. For purposes of determining the proper penalty because of
the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority, the penalty of death is still
the penalty to be reckoned with. Thus, the proper imposable penalty for the
accused-appellant is reclusion perpetua.

People v. Arpon
G.R. No. 169641, 10 September 2009
Henry Arpon, a minor, was convicted of one count of statutory rape and
6 counts of rape. He was sentenced by the RTC in 2002 to the death penalty
but this was reduced to reclusion perpetua by the Court of Appeals in its
decision in 2008 due to the passage of Republic Act No. 9346 in 2006. The
Supreme Court found that the qualifying circumstances of minority and
relationship attended the commission of the rapes, which necessitates the
imposition of the death penalty. However, the Supreme Court appreciated in
favor of Arpon minority (he was only 13 years during the first rape for which
he was exempted from any criminal liability). The SC reiterated that, for
purposes of determining the proper penalty because of the privileged
mitigating circumstance of minority, the penalty of death is still the penalty to
be reckoned with. Thus, the proper imposable penalty for Arpon is reclusion
perpetua.
Reclusion Perpetua
Reclusion perpetua is a principal penalty, classified as an afflictive
penalty and imposed under Article 25 of the Revised Penal Code.
It involves imprisonment or a deprivation of liberty and was given a

duration of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to forty (40) years pursuant to
Rep. Act No. 7659 (1993), but it remains to be an indivisible penalty. [REV. PEN.
CODE, art. 25 & 27]
It has the accessory penalties of perpetual absolute disqualification and

civil interdiction for life. [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 41]

Reclusion Perpetua remains to be an
indivisible penalty
Republic Act No. 7659 (1993) amended Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code by
stating that the duration of reclusion perpetua will be from twenty years and one day to forty
years. [Rep. Act No. 7659 (1993), sec. 21] Such amendment seemingly implied that reclusion
perpetua has become a divisible penalty.
In People v. Lucas, G.R. Nos. 108172-73, 9 January 1995, the Supreme Court
affirmed the conviction of Conrado Lucas for the rape and attempted rape of his minor child.
He was sentenced to reclusion perpetua in the consummated rape. It likewise concluded that,
although Section 21 of R.A. No. 7659 has fixed the duration of reclusion perpetua from twenty
(20) years and one (1) day to forty (40) years, there was no clear legislative intent to alter its
original classification as an indivisible penalty. It shall then remain as an indivisible penalty and
will not be affected by any modifying circumstance pursuant to Article 63 of the Revised Penal
Code.

Reclusion Perpetua vs Life Imprisonment
1. Reclusion Perpetua is imposed by the Revised Penal Code, while Life
Imprisonment is imposed by a special penal law
2. Reclusion Perpetua entails imprisonment for only thirty (30) years after
which the convict becomes eligible for pardon, while Life Imprisonment
does not appear to have any definite extent of duration [the 30-year
imprisonment was in the un-amended Article 27, Revised Penal Code and it
has since been removed in the amended version]
3. Reclusion Perpetua carries accessory penalties, while it is not so in Life

Imprisonment [People v. Abapo, 239 SCRA 469 (1994), citing People vs. Baguio, 196
SCRA 459 (1991)].
Administrative Circular No. 6-A-92
Supreme Court, 21 June 1993
The Revised Penal Code does not prescribe the penalty of life imprisonment for any of
the felonies therein defined, that penalty being invariably imposed for serious offenses
penalized not by the Revised Penal Code but by special law.
Reclusion Perpetua entails imprisonment for at least thirty (30) years after which the
convict becomes eligible for pardon. It also carries with it accessory penalties, namely:
perpetual special disqualification, etc. It is not the same as life imprisonment which, for one
thing, does not carry with it any accessory penalty, and for another, does not appear to have
any definite extent or duration.
As early as 1948, in People vs. Mobe, reiterated in PP vs. Pilones and in the concurring
opinion of Justice Ramon Aquino in People vs. Sumadic, this Court already made it clear
that reclusion perpetua is not the same as imprisonment for life or life imprisonment. Every
Judge should take note of the distinction and this Court expects that, henceforth, no trial
judge should mistake one for the other.
Reclusion Temporal
Reclusion temporal is a principal penalty, classified as an afflictive
It involves imprisonment or a deprivation of liberty with a duration of

twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years. It is a divisible penalty
consisting of a minimum, medium and maximum periods. [REV. PEN. CODE, art.
25 & 27]
It has the accessory penalties of perpetual absolute disqualification and

civil interdiction during the term of the sentence. [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 41]

Perpetual or temporary absolute
disqualification and Perpetual or temporary
special disqualification
Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification and Perpetual or
temporary special disqualification are both principal and accessory penalties.
These are classified as afflictive penalties and imposed under Article 25 of the
Revised Penal Code.
These penalties involve disqualification from certain rights, including the

right to hold public office, profession or calling, right of suffrage, among others.
The perpetual penalties are indivisible while the temporary penalties are
divisible. [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 25 & 27]

Effects of perpetual or temporary absolute
disqualification for public office
1. The deprivation of the public offices and employments which the
offender may have held, even if conferred by popular election;
2. The deprivation of the right to vote in any election for any popular
elective office or to be elected to such office;
3. The disqualification for the offices or public employments and for the
exercise of any of the rights mentioned; and
4. The loss of all rights to retirement pay or other pension for any office
formerly held. [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 30]

In case of temporary absolute disqualification, the disqualification in
nos. 2 and 3 above shall last during the term of the sentence. [REV. PEN. CODE,
art. 30]

Effects of perpetual or temporary special
disqualification for public office,
profession or calling
1. The deprivation of the office, employment, profession or calling
affected; and
2. The disqualification for holding similar offices or employment

either perpetually or during the term of the sentence, according to the extent of
such disqualification. [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 31]

Prision mayor
Prision mayor is a principal penalty, classified as an afflictive penalty and
imposed under Article 25 of the Revised Penal Code.
It involves imprisonment or a deprivation of liberty with a duration of six

(6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years. It is a divisible penalty consisting
of a minimum, medium and maximum periods. [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 25 & 27]
It has the accessory penalties of temporary absolute disqualification and

perpetual special disqualification from the right of suffrage. [REV. PEN. CODE, art.
42]

Prision correccional
Prision correcional is a principal penalty, classified as a correctional
It involves imprisonment or a deprivation of liberty with a duration of six

(6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years. It is a divisible penalty consisting of
a minimum, medium and maximum periods. [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 25 & 27]
It has the accessory penalties of suspension from public office and from
the right to follow a profession or calling as well as perpetual special
disqualification from the right of suffrage if the duration of said imprisonment
shall exceed eighteen (18) months. [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 43]

Arresto mayor
Arresto mayor is a principal penalty, classified as a correctional penalty
and imposed under Article 25 of the Revised Penal Code.
It involves imprisonment or a deprivation of liberty with a duration of

one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months. It is a divisible penalty
consisting of a minimum, medium and maximum periods. [REV. PEN. CODE, art.
25 & 27]
It has the accessory penalty of suspension of the right to hold public

office and right of suffrage during the term of the sentence. [REV. PEN. CODE,
art. 44]

Destierro
The penalty of destierro means banishment or only a

prohibition from residing within the radius of 25 kilometers from the
actual residence of the accused for a specified length of time.
Although destierro does not constitute imprisonment (which is a
typical example of deprivation of liberty), it is nonetheless a
deprivation of liberty. [People v. Dionisia Bastasa, G.R. No. 32792, 2 February 1979]

Destierro vs Arresto mayor
Destierro is not a higher penalty than arresto mayor. Arresto mayor means
imprisonment or complete deprivation of liberty, whereas destierro means
banishment or only a prohibition from residing within the radius of 25 kilometers
from the actual residence of the accused for a specified length of time. The
respective severities of arresto mayor and destierro must not be judged by the
duration of each of these penalties, but by the degree of deprivation of liberty
involved. Penologists have always considered destierro lighter than arresto mayor.
Such criterion is reflected both in the old Spanish Penal Code and in our Revised
Penal Code. In the graduated scale of article 71 the lawmaker has placed destierro
below arresto mayor. There is, therefore, no basis in fact or in law for holding that
destierro is a higher penalty than arresto mayor and that an offense penalized with
destierro falls under the jurisdiction of the court of first instance. [Uy Chin Hua vs.
Dinglasan, 86 Phil. 617 (1950)]

When is destierro imposed as a penalty?
1. Serious physical injuries or death under exception circumstances [REV. PEN.
CODE, art. 247]
2. In case of failure to give bond for good behavior [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 284]
3. Penalty for concubine in concubinage [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 334]
4. In cases where, after reducing the penalty by one or more degrees,

destierro is the proper penalty

Suspension
Suspension is both a principal penalty and accessory penalty.

As a principal penalty, it is classified as a correctional penalty and
imposed under Article 25 of the Revised Penal Code.
It involves suspension of exercise of a right with a duration of

six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years. It is a divisible
penalty consisting of a minimum, medium and maximum periods.
[REV. PEN. CODE, art. 25 & 27]

Arresto menor
Arresto menor is a principal penalty, classified as a light
It involves imprisonment or a deprivation of liberty with a

duration of one (1) day to thirty (30) days. It is a divisible penalty
consisting of a minimum, medium and maximum periods. [REV. PEN.
CODE, art. 25 & 27]
It has the accessory penalty of suspension of the right to hold

public office and right of suffrage during the term of the sentence.
[REV. PEN. CODE, art. 44]

Public censure
Censure, being a penalty, is not proper in acquittal. [Luis B.

Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Book I, Sixteenth Edition, 2006, p. 607, citing
People v. Abellera, 69 Phil. 623]

Felonies where public censure is
imposed as a penalty
1. Grave scandal [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 200]
2. Indirect bribery [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 211]
3. Slight physical injuries which do not prevent the offended party from
engaging in his habitual work nor require medical attendance [REV. PEN.
CODE, art. 266(2)]
4. Simple imprudence resulting to a light felony [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 365]

Fine
Fine is a principal penalty imposed under Article 25 of the
Revised Penal Code.
It is a pecuniary penalty and is considered as an afflictive

penalty if it exceeds One million two hundred thousand pesos
(P1,200,000.00), a correctional penalty if it does not exceed
P1,200,000.00 but is not less than Forty thousand pesos
(P40,000.00), and a light penalty if it be less than P40,000.00. [REV.
PEN. CODE, art. 26]

Bond to keep the peace
It shall be the duty of any person sentenced to give bond to keep the
peace, to present two sufficient sureties who shall undertake that such person
will not commit the offense sought to be prevented, and that in case such
offense be committed they will pay the amount determined by the court in its
judgment, or otherwise to deposit such amount in the office of the clerk of the
court to guarantee said undertaking. [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 35]
The court shall determine, according to its discretion, the period of

duration of the bond. [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 35]

Should the person sentenced fail to give the bond as required, he shall
be detained for a period which shall in no case exceed six months, if he shall
have been prosecuted for a grave or less grave felony, and shall not exceed
thirty days, if for a light felony. [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 35]
Under Article 284 of the Revised Penal Code, bond for good behavior is
imposed for those convicted for grave and light threats.

Bond for good behavior
In cases of grave threats and light threats, the person making
the threats may also be required to give bail not to molest the
person threatened or, if he fail to give such bail, he shall be
sentenced to destierro. [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 284]

Accessory Penalties
Death when commuted - Perpetual absolute disqualification
Civil interdiction for 30 years
Reclusion perpetua and
reclusion temporal - Civil interdiction for life or during the
period of the sentence as the case
may be
Perpetual absolute disqualification
Prision mayor - Temporary absolute disqualification
Perpetual special disqualification from the
right of suffrage

Prision correccional - Suspension from public office and from
the right to follow a profession or
calling
Perpetual special disqualification from the
right of suffrage, if the duration of
the said imprisonment shall exceed
18 months
Arresto - Suspension of the right to hold public
office and the right of suffrage
during the term of the sentence
[REV. PEN. CODE, art. 41-44]

Civil interdiction
Civil interdiction shall deprive the offender during the time of
his sentence of the rights of parental authority, or guardianship,
either as to the person or property of any ward or marital authority,
of the right to manage his property and of the right to dispose of
such property by any act or any conveyance inter vivos. [REV. PEN.
CODE, art. 34]

Payment of costs
Costs shall include fees and indemnities in the course of the
judicial proceedings, whether they be fixed or unalterable amounts
previously determined by law or regulations in force, or amounts
not subject to schedule. [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 37]

Confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds
or instruments of the crime
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
and forfeited in favor of the Government, unless they be the
property of a third person not liable for the offense, but those
articles which are not subject of lawful commerce shall be
destroyed. [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 45]

CLASSIFICATION
OF PENALTIES

Several classifications of penalties
1. Principal v. Accessory
2. According to divisibility
3. According to gravity
4. According to subject matter

Principal vs Accessory penalties
Principal penalties Accessory penalties

those expressly imposed those that are deemed
by the court in the included in the imposition
judgment of conviction of the principal penalties

Principal penalties which may be imposed
1. Death (prohibited to be imposed under R.A. 9346)
4. Perpetual or Temporary Absolute Disqualification
5. Perpetual or Temporary Special Disqualification
6. Prision Mayor
8. Arresto Mayor
9. Suspension
10. Destierro
11. Arresto Menor
12. Public Censure
13. Fine
14. Bond to Keep the Peace [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 25]

Accessory penalties which may be imposed
for, the profession or calling
4. Civil interdiction
5. Indemnification
6. Forfeiture or confiscation of instruments and proceeds of the
offense
7. Payment of costs [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 25]

Classification of penalties according to divisibility
Divisible penalties Indivisible penalties

• those that have a fixed • those which have no fixed
duration and are divisible duration
into three periods
• death, reclusion perpetua,
• reclusion temporal, prision perpetual absolute or
mayor, prision correccional, special disqualification and
destierro, suspension, public censure
arresto mayor, arresto
menor, fine andbond to
keep the peace
Classification of penalties according to their gravity
Correctional
Capital penalties Afflictive penalties penalties Light penalties
pertains to death • prision mayor • Destierro • arresto menor

• perpetual or • Suspension public censure
penalty only •
temporary special • arresto mayor
disqualification
• prision
• perpetual or
temporary
correccional
absolute
disqualification
• reclusion temporal
• reclusion perpetua

Fine, when afflictive, correctional,
or light penalty
A fine, whether imposed as a single or as an alternative
penalty, shall be considered an afflictive penalty, if it exceeds
1,200,000 pesos; a correctional penalty, if it does not exceed
1,200,000 pesos but is not less than 40,000 pesos; and a light
penalty if it be less than 40,000 pesos. [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 26, as
amended by Rep. Act No. 10951 (2017)]

Classification of penalties according to
subject matter
1. Deprivation of freedom (reclusion, prision, arresto)
2. Restriction of freedom (destierro)
3. Deprivation of rights (disqualification and suspension)
4. Pecuniary (fine)

DURATION AND
EFFECT OF PENALTIES

Duration of penalties
▪ Reclusion Perpetua - 20 years and 1 day to 40 years
▪ Reclusion Temporal - 12 years and 1 day to 20 years
▪ Prision Mayor and
Temporary Disqualification - 6 years and 1 day to 12 years
▪ Prision correccional
▪ Suspension and destierro - 6 months and 1 day to 6 years
▪ Arresto mayor - 1 month and 1 day to 6 months
▪ Arresto menor - 1 day to 30 days
▪ Bond to Keep the Peace - The bond shall be required to cover
such period as the court may
determine [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 27]

Effects of penalties of perpetual or
temporary absolute disqualification
The penalties of perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification for
public office shall produce the following effects:
1. The deprivation of the public offices and employments which
the offender may have held even if conferred by popular election.
2. The deprivation of the right to vote in any election for any

popular elective office or to be elected to such office.

3. The disqualification for the offices or public employments and for the
exercise of any of the rights mentioned.
In case of temporary disqualification, such disqualification as is

comprised in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this article shall last during the term of the
sentence.
3. The loss of all rights to retirement pay or other pension for any office
formerly held. [Rev. Pen. Code, art. 30]

Effects of the penalties of perpetual or
temporary special disqualification
The penalties of perpetual or temporary special disqualification for
public office, profession or calling shall produce the following
effects:
1. The deprivation of the office, employment, profession or calling affected;
2. The disqualification for holding similar offices or employments either

perpetually or during the term of the sentence, according to the extent of
such disqualification. [Rev. Pen. Code, art. 31]

Effects of the penalties of perpetual or temporary
special disqualification for the exercise of the right of
suffrage
The perpetual or temporary special disqualification for the
exercise of the right of suffrage shall deprive the offender
perpetually or during the term of the sentence, according to the
nature of said penalty, of the right to vote in any popular election for
any public office or to be elected to such office. Moreover, the
offender shall not be permitted to hold any public office during the
period of his disqualification. [Rev. Pen. Code, art. 32]

Effects of the penalties of suspension from any public
office, profession or calling, or the right to suffrage
The suspension from public office, profession or calling, and the

exercise of the right of suffrage shall disqualify the offender from holding such
office or exercising such profession or calling or right of suffrage during the term
of the sentence.
The person suspended from holding public office shall not hold another
having similar functions during the period of his suspension. [Rev. Pen. Code, art.
33]

Civil interdiction
Civil interdiction shall deprive the offender during the time of his
sentence of the rights of parental authority, or guardianship, either as to the
person or property of any ward, of marital authority, of the right to manage his
property and of the right to dispose of such property by any act or any
conveyance inter vivos. [Rev. Pen. Code, art. 34]

Effects of bond to keep the peace
It shall be the duty of any person sentenced to give bond to keep the
peace, to present two sufficient sureties who shall undertake that such person
will not commit the offense sought to be prevented, and that in case such
offense be committed they will pay the amount determined by the court in its
judgment, or otherwise to deposit such amount in the office of the clerk of the
court to guarantee said undertaking. [Article 35, RPC]
The court shall determine, according to its discretion, the period of
duration of the bond. [Rev. Pen. Code, art. 35]

Should the person sentenced fail to give the bond as required, he shall
be detained for a period which shall in no case exceed six months, if he shall
have been prosecuted for a grave or less grave felony, and shall not exceed
thirty days, if for a light felony. [Rev. Pen. Code, art. 35]

Costs; what are included
Costs shall include fees and indemnities in the course of the judicial
proceedings, whether they be fixed or unalterable amounts previously
determined by law or regulations in force, or amounts not subject to schedule.
[Rev. Pen. Code, art. 37]

Pecuniary liabilities
In case the property of the offender should not be sufficient for the
payment of all his pecuniary liabilities, the same shall be met in the following
order:
1. The reparation of the damage caused;
2. Indemnification of consequential damages;
3. The fine; and
4. The costs of the proceedings. [Rev. Pen. Code, art. 38]

Civil liabilities
1. Restitution
2. The reparation of the damage caused
3. Indemnification of consequential damages [REV. PEN. CODE, art.
104]

Preference in payment of civil liabilities
The civil liabilities of a person found guilty of two or
more offenses shall be satisfied by following the
chronological order of the dates of the final judgments
rendered against him, beginning with the first in order of
time. [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 72]

Subsidiary penalty
Subsidiary penalty pertains to the subsidiary personal
liability to be suffered by the convict who has no property
with which to meet the fine at the rate of one (1) day for
each amount equivalent to the highest minimum wage rate
prevailing in the Philippines at the time of the rendition of
the judgment of conviction by the trial court.[Rev. Pen. Code, art.
39]

Subsidiary penalty must be imposed
in the judgment
People, through Private Complainant Brian Victor Britchford, v. Salvador Alapan, G.R.
No. 199527, 10 January 2018, affirmed the established rule that subsidiary imprisonment in
case of insolvency must be expressly stated in the judgment of conviction.
Salvador Alapan and his wife, Myrna, were charged with eight (8) counts of violation of
Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 with the Metropolitan Trial Court. Alapan was convicted but his wife
was acquitted because she did not participate in the issuance of the checks. Alapan was
penalized with fine only. When the writ of execution was returned unsatisfied and the fine was
not paid, Private Complainant Britchford filed a Motion to Impose Subsidiary Penalty. This was
denied by the Metropolitan Trial Court, which denial was affirmed by the Regional Trial Court
and the Court of Appeals.The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Metropolitan Trial Court
as the judgment itself by the lower court did not impose subsidiary imprisonment.

Rules on subsidiary penalty
1. The convict will be subjected to subsidiary imprisonment only if this is
included in the judgment of the court
2. The convict will be subjected to subsidiary personal penalty if he or she

has no property to meet the fine imposed by the court as a penalty
3. Subsidiary penalty shall be at the rate of one (1) day for each amount
equivalent to the highest minimum wage rate prevailing in the
Philippines at the time of the rendition of the judgment of conviction by
the trial court
4. Subsidiary penalty can be imposed only if the penalty imposed is prision

correccional, arresto mayor, arresto menor, suspension, destierro or a
fine. It cannot be imposed if the penalty imposed is higher than prision
correccional, i.e. prision mayor and higher

5. If the penalty imposed is prision correccional or arresto and fine, the
subsidiary penalty shall not exceed one-third (1/3) of the term of the
sentence and in no case to continue for more than one (1) year
6. When the penalty is fine only, subsidiary shall not exceed six (6) months
if the culprit is prosecuted for a grave or less grave felony and not to
exceed fifteen (15) days if prosecuted for a light felony
7. If the penalty is not to be executed by confinement, but is of fixed

duration, the subsidiary penalty shall consist of the same deprivation for
the same duration established by the preceding rules
8. In case the financial circumstances of the convict should improve, he or

she shall pay the fine notwithstanding the fact that he or she already
suffered subsidiary personal liability

APPLICATION
OF PENALTIES

Factors in the application or
graduation of penalties
1. Stages of execution [Rev. Pen. Code, art. 6, 7, 46, 50-57, 60, 61, 66, 71 & 75]
2. Extent of participation of the offender [Rev. Pen. Code, art. 16-20, 46, 50-57, 60, 61, 66,
71 & 75]
3. Mitigating, aggravating circumstances and alternative circumstances [Rev. Pen. Code, art.
13-15, 62, 63, 64 & 65]
4. Privileged mitigating circumstances [Rev. Pen. Code, art. 64(5), 68, & 69]
5. Special aggravating circumstances [Rev. Pen. Code, art. 48, 49, 62(1)(a), & 160]

Penalty to be imposed upon
principals in general
• The penalty prescribed by law for the commission of a felony shall be
imposed upon the principals in the commission of such felony. [REV. PEN.
CODE, art. 46]
• Whenever the law prescribes a penalty for a felony in general terms, it shall
be understood as applicable to the consummated felony. [REV. PEN. CODE, art.
46]

Penalties upon principals in consummated,
frustrated, and attempted crime
• The penalty prescribed by law for the commission of a felony shall be
imposed upon the principals in the commission of such felony, which shall
be understood as applicable to the consummated felony. [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 46]
• The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the
consummated felony shall be imposed upon the principal in a frustrated
felony. [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 50]
• The penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the
consummated felony shall be imposed upon the principals in an attempt to
commit a felony. [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 51]

Penalty on accomplices in consummated,
consummated felony shall be imposed upon the accomplices in the
commission of a consummated felony. [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 52]
frustrated felony shall be imposed upon the accomplice in the commission
of a frustrated felony. [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 54]
• The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for an
attempt to commit a felony shall be imposed upon the accomplices in an
attempt to commit the felony. [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 56]

Penalty on accessories in a consummated,
consummated felony shall be imposed upon the accessories to the
commission of a consummated felony. [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 53]
frustrated felony shall be imposed upon the accessories to the commission
of a frustrated felony. [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 55]
attempt shall be imposed upon the accessories to the attempt to commit a
felony. [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 57]

Exceptions to the rules established
in articles 50 to 57
The provisions contained in articles 50 to 57, inclusive, of this
Code shall not be applicable to cases in which the law expressly
prescribes the penalty provided for a frustrated or attempted
felony, or to be imposed upon accomplices or accessories. [REV.
PEN. CODE, art. 60]

Rules for the Application or
Graduation of Penalties
1. When the penalty prescribed for the felony is single and indivisible, the
penalty next lower in degree shall be that immediately following that
indivisible penalty in the respective graduated scale prescribed in article 71
of this Code.
2. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of two indivisible
penalties, or of one or more divisible penalties to be imposed to their full
extent, the penalty next lower in degree shall be that immediately following
the lesser of the penalties prescribed in the respective graduated scale.

3. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of one or two
indivisible penalties and the maximum period of another divisible penalty,
the penalty next lower in degree shall be composed of the medium and
minimum periods of the proper divisible penalty and the maximum period
of that immediately following in said respective graduated scale.
4. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of several periods,
corresponding to different divisible penalties, the penalty next lower in
degree shall be composed of the period immediately following the
minimum prescribed and of the two next following, which shall be taken
from the penalty prescribed, if possible; otherwise, from the penalty
immediately following in the above mentioned respective graduated scale.

5. When the law prescribes a penalty for a crime in some manner not
specially provided for in the four preceding rules, the courts, proceeding
by analogy, shall impose corresponding penalties upon those guilty as
principals of the frustrated felony, or of attempt to commit the same, and
upon accomplices and accessories. [Rev. Pen. Code, art. 61]

Degree and Period
A degree is one entire penalty, one whole penalty or one whole unit of
the penalties enumerated in the graduated scales provided for in Art. 71, RPC.
Each of the penalties of reclusion perpetua, reclusion temporal, prision mayor,
etc., enumerated in the graduated scales, is a degree.
A period is one of the three equal portions, called minimum, medium

and maximum, of a divisible penalty. [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 76]

Graduated Scales (Art. 71, RPC)
Scale No. 1
1. Death
4. Prision Mayor
6. Arresto Mayor
7. Destierro
8. Arresto Menor
9. Public Censure
10. Fine

○ Scale No. 2
1. Perpetual absolute disqualification

2. Temporary absolute disqualification
3. Suspension from public office, the right to vote
and be voted for, and the right to follow a
profession or calling
4. Public censure
5. Fine

Effect of mitigating and aggravating
circumstances
1. Aggravating circumstances which in themselves constitute a crime specially
punishable by law or which are included by the law in defining a crime and
prescribing the penalty therefor shall not be taken into account for the
purpose of increasing the penalty.
2. The same rule shall apply with respect to any aggravating circumstances
inherent in the crime to such a degree that it must of necessity accompany
the commission thereof.

3. Aggravating or mitigating circumstances which arise from the moral
attributes of the offender, or from his private relations with the offended
party, or from any other personal cause, shall only serve to aggravate or
mitigate the liability of the principals, accomplices and accessories as to
whom such circumstances are attendant.
4. The circumstances which consist in the material execution of the act, or in

the means employed to accomplish it, shall serve to aggravate or mitigate
the liability of those persons only who had knowledge of them at the time
of the execution of the act or their cooperation therein. [Rev. Pen. Code,
art. 62(1) to (4)]

Effect of habitual delinquency
1. Upon the third conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty
provided by law for the last crime of which he be found guilty and to the
additional penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum
periods;
2. Upon the fourth conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty
provided for the last crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional
penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods; and

3. Upon a fifth or additional conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the
penalty provided for the last crime of which he be found guilty and to the
additional penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion
temporal in its minimum period.
Notwithstanding the provisions of this article, the total of the two

penalties to be imposed upon the offender, in conformity herewith, shall in no
case exceed 30 years. [Rev. Pen. Code, art. 62(5)]

Habitual delinquent
A person shall be deemed to be habitual delinquent, if within
a period of ten years from the date of his release or last conviction
of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robo,
hurto, estafa, or falsification, he is found guilty of any of said
crimes a third time or oftener.

Rules in application of indivisible penalties
1. In all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be
applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating
circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed.
2. In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two

indivisible penalties, the following rules shall be observed in the application
thereof:
a. When in the commission of the deed there is present only one

aggravating circumstance, the greater penalty shall be applied.

b) When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the
commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
c) When the commission of the act is attended by some mitigating

circumstance and there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty
shall be applied.
d) When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances attended the

commission of the act, the courts shall reasonably allow them to offset one
another in consideration of their number and importance, for the purpose
of applying the penalty in accordance with the preceding rules, according
to the result of such compensation. [Rev. Pen. Code, art. 63]

Application of penalties with three periods
1. When there are neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, they shall
impose the penalty prescribed by law in its medium period.
2. When only a mitigating circumstance is present in the commission of the
act, they shall impose the penalty in its minimum period.
3. When only an aggravating circumstance is present in the commission of the
act, they shall impose the penalty in its maximum period.
4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances are present, the court
shall reasonably offset those of one class against the other according to their
relative weight.

5. When there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating
circumstances are present, the court shall impose the penalty next lower to
that prescribed by law, in the period that it may deem applicable, according
to the number and nature of such circumstances.
6. Whatever may be the number and nature of the aggravating circumstances,
the courts shall not impose a greater penalty than that prescribed by law, in
its maximum period.
7. Within the limits of each period, the courts shall determine the extent of the
penalty according to the number and nature of the aggravating and
mitigating circumstances and the greater or lesser extent of the evil
produced by the crime. [Rev. Pen. Code, art. 64]

Rules on the imposition and
graduation of fines
1. In imposition fines, the court may fix any amount within the limits
established by law; in fixing the amount in each case, attention shall be
given not only to the mitigating and aggravating circumstances but more
particularly to the wealth or means of the culprit. [REV. PEN. CODE, art.
66]
2. Whenever it may necessary to increase or reduce the penalty of fine by

one or more degrees, it shall be increased or reduced, respectively, for
each degree, by one-fourth of the maximum amount prescribed by law,
without, however, changing the minimum. [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 75]

INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW
Act No. 4103 (1933)

Act No. 4103 (1933) or the Indeterminate
Sentence Law
The Indeterminate Sentence Law mandates that a judge, in
imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by the Revised
Penal Code or its amendments as well as other penal laws, to
impose an indeterminate sentence consisting of a maximum and
minimum term. [ACT NO. 4103 (1933), sec. 1]

Applicability of the ISL
The ISL applies to crimes punished under the Revised Penal

Code and under special penal laws. [ACT NO. 4103 (1933), sec. 1]

How to determine the maximum and
minimum terms of the indeterminate sentence
for offenses punishable by special laws
In imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by acts of the
Philippine Legislature, otherwise than by the Revised Penal Code, the court
shall order the accused to be imprisoned for a minimum term, which shall not
be less than the minimum term of imprisonment provided by law for the
offense, and for a maximum term which shall not exceed the maximum fixed
by law. [ACT NO. 4103 (1933), sec. 1]

How to determine the maximum and minimum
terms of the indeterminate sentence for offenses
punishable under the RPC
Where the offense is punished by the Revised Penal Code, or

amendments thereto, the court shall sentence the accused to such maximum
as may, in view of the attending circumstances, be properly imposed under
the present rules of the said Code, and to a minimum which shall not be less
than the minimum imprisonment period of the penalty next lower to that
prescribed by said Code for the offense. [ACT NO. 4103 (1933), sec. 1]

Who are disqualified from the
application of the ISL?
The ISL shall NOT apply to:
1. Persons convicted of offenses punished with the death penalty or life

imprisonment;
2. Those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason;
3. Those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or espionage;
4. Those convicted of piracy;
5. Those who are habitual delinquents;

6. Those who shall have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence;
7. Those who, having been granted conditional pardon by the Chief

Executive, shall have violated the terms thereof;
8. Those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year;
or
9. Those already sentenced by final judgment at the time of the approval of

the ISL. [ACT NO. 4103 (1933), sec. 2]

SPECIAL RULES
ON PENALTIES

Special rules on penalties
1. Penalty for complex crimes and other instances of plurality of crimes
2. Penalty in case of mistake in the identity

3. Penalty for an impossible crime


4. Penalty for incomplete exempting circumstance of accident
5. Penalty for child in conflict with the law

6. Penalty for incomplete justifying or exempting circumstances


Plurality of crimes
1. Complex crime
2. Special complex crime
3. Continued or continuing crime
4. Separate and distinct crimes

Complex crime
A complex crime is committed when a single act constitutes
two or more grave or less grave felonies (compound crime) or
when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other
(complex crime proper). [Article 48, RPC]

Two kinds of complex crimes
1. Compound crime or when a single act constitutes two or more
grave or less grave felonies
2. Complex crime proper or when an offense is a necessary means

for committing the other

Compound crime
1. That only a single act is performed by the offender
2. That the single act produces (i) two or more grave felonies, or (ii)
one or more grave and one or more less grave felonies, or (iii)
two or more less grave felonies

Complex crime proper
1. That at least two offenses are committed
2. That one or some of the offenses must be necessary to
commit the other
3. That both or all of the offenses must be punished under
the same statute

A complex crime is only one crime, hence,
only one penalty is imposed for the
commission of a complex crime

Penalty for complex crime
The penalty for the most serious crime shall be
imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period.
[Article 48, RPC]

No complex crime of rebellion
In Enrile v. Salazar, 186 SCRA 217 (1990)), the Supreme Court
reiterated that there is no complex crime of rebellion.
It affirmed its ruling in People v. Hernandez, 99 Phil. 515 (1956) which

prohibits the complexing of rebellion with any other offense committed on the
occasion thereof, either as a means necessary to its commission or as an
unintended effect of an activity that constitutes rebellion.

People v. Guillen
85 Phil. 307 (1950)
Julio Guillen planned to kill the Philippine President, Manuel Roxas, and
threw a grenade during a rally in Plaza Miranda, Manila, killing one person
and injuring four others. He was charged and convicted by the trial court of
the complex crime of murder and multiple frustrated murder. The Supreme
Court held that the case before it is clearly governed by the first clause of
Article 48 of the RPC because by a single act, that of throwing a highly
explosive hand grenade at President Roxas, Guillen committed two grave
felonies, namely: (1) murder, of which Simeon Varela was the victim; and (2)
multiple attempted murder, of which President Roxas, Alfredo Eva, Jose Fabio,
Pedro Carrillo and Emilio Maglalang were the injured parties

Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code above-quoted requires that the
penalty for the most serious of said crimes be applied in its maximum period.
The penalty for murder is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death.
(Art. 248.) It is our painful duty to apply the law and mete out to the accused
the extreme penalty provided by it upon the facts and circumstances
hereinabove narrated.

People v. Toling
62 SCRA 17 (1975)
Twins Jose and Antonio Toling were charged and convicted of multiple
murder (9 deaths), multiple frustrated murder (6 victims) and triple homicide
(3 victims), when they ran amuck in a Bicol-bound train. The Supreme Court
held that the eight killings and the attempted murder were perpetrated by
means of different acts. Hence, they cannot be regarded as constituting a
complex crime under article 48 of the Revised Penal Code which refers to
cases where "a single act constitutes two or more grave felonies, or when an
offense is a necessary means for committing the other".

People v. Valdez
304 SCRA 611 (1999)
Rolando Valdez was charged and convicted by the trial court of
complex crime of multiple murder with double frustrated murder and for
separate crime of illegal possession of firearms. SC reversed. It was clear from
the evidence that the four crimes of murder resulted not from a single act but
from several individual and distinct acts. Each act by each gunman pulling the
trigger of their respective firearms, aiming each particular moment at different
persons constitute distinct and individual acts which cannot give rise to the
complex crime of multiple murder. The Supreme Court ruled that Valdez was
guilty, not of a complex crime of multiple murder, but of four counts of
murder for the death of the four victims in this case. In the same manner,
Valdez was likewise held guilty for two counts of frustrated murder.

People v. Salvilla
184 SCRA 671 (1990)
Salvilla and his co-accused were charged in the Information with

"Robbery with Serious Physical Injuries and Serious Illegal Detention ("Art.
295, par. 3, in conjunction with Art. 267, RPC"), and sentenced to reclusion
perpetua. We agree with the trial court that a complex crime under Article 48
of the Revised Penal Code has been committed such that the penalty for the
more serious offense of Serious Illegal Detention (Art. 267, Revised Penal
Code), or "reclusion perpetua to death," is to be imposed instead of the
penalty prescribed for Robbery with Serious Physical Injuries (Art. 294 (3),
which is reclusion temporal.

Under Article 48, a complex crime arises "when an offense is a
necessary means for committing the other." The term "necessary means" does
not connote indispensable means for if it did then the offense as a "necessary
means" to commit another would be an indispensable element of the latter
and would be an ingredient thereof. The phrase "necessary means" merely
signifies that one crime is committed to facilitate and insure the commission of
the other. In this case, the crime of Serious Illegal Detention was such a
"necessary means" as it was selected by appellant and his co-accused to
facilitate and carry out more effectively their evil design to stage a robbery.

Special complex crimes
Article 48 of the RPC does not apply in special complex
crimes, e.g. robbery with homicide (Art. 294, par. 1), robbery with
rape (Art. 294, par. 2), kidnapping with murder or homicide (Art.
267, last par.), rape with homicide (Art. 335), because RPC
provides for one single penalty for each of those special complex
crimes.

Special complex crimes or
composite crimes
A composite crime, also known as a special complex crime, is
composed of two or more crimes that the law treats as a single
indivisible and unique offense for being the product of a single
criminal impulse. It is a specific crime with a specific penalty
provided by law. [People v. Villaflores, G.R. No. 184926, 11 April 2012]

Complex crimes vs Special complex crimes
[People v. Villaflores, G.R. No. 184926, 11 April 2012]
Complex crimes Special complex crimes

1. combination of the offenses is not 1. composition of the offenses
specified but generalized, that is, grave is fixed by law
and/or less grave, or one offense being
the necessary means to commit the other
2. penalty for the specified
2. penalty is that corresponding to the most combination of crimes is
serious offense, to be imposed in the specific
maximum period 3. light felony that
3. light felony that accompanies the accompanies a composite
commission of a complex or compound
crime may be the subject of a separate
crime is absorbed
information

Continued crime
A continued or continuous or continuing is a single
crime, consisting of a series of acts but all arising from one
criminal resolution. Only one penalty shall be imposed.
A continued crime is not a complex crime.

Rebellion is a continuing offense
[Umil v. Ramos, 202 SCRA 251 (1991)]

People v. De Leon
49 Phil. 437 (1926)
Vicente de Leon stole two game roosters, belonging to two different owners, in a
yard. He was prosecuted for two crimes of theft. The trial court convicted him for one
crime of theft only. The crime of theft is an offense against personal property and what is
punished is the alarm caused in the community by the perpetration of the act which is
violative of the individual rights guaranteed by the law, as well as the damage that said act
may occasion to the members of the community. Under sound principles, the act of taking
the two roosters, in response to the unity of thought in the criminal purpose on one
occasion, is not susceptible of being modified by the accidental circumstance that the
article unlawfully taken belonged to two distinct persons. There is no series of acts here for
the accomplishment of different purposes, but only of one which was consummated, and
which determines the existence of only one crime. The act of taking the roosters in the
same place and on the same occasion cannot give rise to two crimes having an
independent existence of their own, because there are not two distinct appropriations nor
two intentions that characterize two separate crimes.
Transitory crime in criminal procedure
to determine venue

Penalty when the crime is different from that intended
1. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be higher than that
corresponding to the offense which the accused intended to commit, the
penalty corresponding to the latter shall be imposed in its maximum period.
2. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be lower than that
corresponding to the one which the accused intended to commit, the penalty
for the former shall be imposed in its maximum period.
3. The rule established by the next preceding paragraph shall not be applicable if
the acts committed by the guilty person shall also constitute an attempt or
frustration of another crime, if the law prescribes a higher penalty for either of
the latter offenses, in which case the penalty provided for the attempted of the
frustrated crime shall be imposed in its maximum period. [Rev. Pen. Code, art. 49]

Penalty for impossible crime
The court, having in mind the social danger and degree of
criminality shown by the offender, shall impose upon him the
penalty of arresto mayor or a fine from 200 to 500 pesos. [Rev. Pen.
Code, art. 59]

Penalty for child in conflict with the law
Upon a person over fifteen and under eighteen years of age,
the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be
imposed, but always in the proper period. [Rev. Pen. Code, art. 68]

Penalty for incomplete justifying or
exempting circumstances
A penalty lower by one or two degrees that that prescribed by
law shall be imposed if the deed is not wholly excusable by reason
of lack of some of the conditions required to justify the same or to
exempt from criminal liability in the several cases mentioned in
Article 11 and 12, provided that majority of such conditions be
present. [Rev. Pen. Code, art. 69]

Penalty for incomplete exempting
circumstance under Art. 12, par. 4, RPC
Arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correcional in

its minimum period if he shall have been guilty of a grave felony
and arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods if of a less
grave felony [Rev. Pen. Code, art. 67]

EXECUTION AND
SERVICE OF PENALTIES

How and when penalty is executed
No penalty shall be executed except by virtue of a final

judgment.
A penalty shall not be executed in any other form than that

provided by law, nor with any other circumstances or incidents
than those expressly authorized thereby. [Rev. Pen. Code, art. 78]

How to serve multiple sentences
1. When the culprit has to serve two or more penalties, he shall serve them
simultaneously if the nature of the penalties will so permit.
2. If the penalties cannot be served simultaneously, they will be served

successively on the basis of their severity.
3. The severity of the penalty is based on the following scale:

i. Death
ii. Reclusion Perpetua
iii. Reclusion Temporal
iv. Prision Mayor
v. Prision Correccional
vi. Arresto Mayor
vii. Arresto Menor
viii. Destierro
ix. Perpetual absolute disqualification
x. Temporary absolute disqualification
xi. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for,
the right to follow profession or calling, and
xii. Public censure

Three-fold rule
The maximum duration of the convict’s sentence shall not be more than
threefold the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties
imposed upon him. No other penalty to which he may be liable shall be
inflicted after the sum of those imposed equals the maximum period.
Such maximum period shall in no case exceed forty years.
The duration of perpetual penalties shall be computed at thirty years.

[Rev. Pen. Code, art. 70]

Service of principal penalties of
imprisonment, except arresto menor
The penalties of reclusion perpetua, reclusion temporal,
prision mayor, prision correccional and arresto mayor shall be
executed and served in the places and penal establishments
provided by the Administrative Code in force or which may be
provided by law in the future. [Rev. Pen. Code, art. 86]

Service of arresto menor
The penalty of arresto menor shall be served in the municipal
jail or in the house of the defendant himself under the surveillance
of an officer of the law, when the court so provides in its decision,
taking into consideration the health of the offender and other
reasons which may seem satisfactory to it. [Rev. Pen. Code, art. 88]

Mandate of the Bureau of Corrections
The Bureau of Corrections shall be in charge of safekeeping
and instituting reformation programs to national inmates sentenced
to more than three (3) years. [Rep. Act No. 10575 (2013), sec. 4]

Function of the Bureau of Jail
Management and Penology
The Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (“BJMP”) shall exercise
supervision and control over all city and municipal jails. The provincial jails
shall be supervised and controlled by the provincial government within its
jurisdiction, whose expenses shall be subsidized by the National Government
for not more than three (3) years after the effectivity of this Act. [Rep. Act No.
6975 (1990), sec. 61]

Establishment of district, city or
municipal jails
There shall be established and maintained in every district, city and
municipality a secured, clean adequately equipped and sanitary jail for the
custody and safekeeping of city and municipal prisoners, any fugitive from
justice, or person detained awaiting investigation or trial and/or transfer to the
national penitentiary, and/or violent mentally ill person who endangers himself
or the safety of others, duly certified as such by the proper medical or health
officer, pending the transfer to a medical institution. [Rep. Act No. 6975 (1990),
sec. 63]

Nelson Mandela Rules
The United Nations General Assembly adopted in December
2015 the revised Minimum Standards for the Treatment of
Prisoners, which is known as the Nelson Mandela Rules. Convicts or
prisoners are referred to as persons deprived of liberty or PDLs.

Community Service Act
Republic Act No. 11362 (2018) or the Community Service
Act authorizes the court in its discretion to require community
service in lieu of service in jail for offenses punishable by arresto
menor and arresto mayor. It will be rendered in the place where the
crime was committed under such terms as the court may determine
and under the supervision of a probation officer.
The defendant shall likewise be required to undergo

rehabilitative counselling. [REP. ACT NO. 11362 (2018), sec. 2, now
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 88a]

Community service
Community service shall consist of any actual physical activity
which inculcates civic consciousness, and is intended towards the
improvement of a public work or promotion of a public service.
[REP. ACT NO. 11362 (2018), sec. 3, now REV. PEN. CODE, art. 88a]

Privilege may be availed only once
The privilege of rendering community service in lieu
of jail shall be availed of only once. [REP. ACT NO. 11362
(2018), sec. 3, now REV. PEN. CODE, art. 88a]

PROBATION LAW of 1976
Presidential Decree No. 968 (1976)

Probation
"Probation" is a disposition under which a defendant, after
conviction and sentence, is released subject to conditions imposed
by the court and to the supervision of a probation officer. [PRES.
DECREE NO. 968 (1976), sec. 3(a)]

Who are qualified to apply for probation?
The Probation Law of 1976 applies to all offenders,

except those entitled to the benefits under the provisions
of Presidential Decree No. 603, as amended, and similar
laws. [PRES. DECREE NO. 968 (1976), sec. 1].

Probation as an alternative to
imprisonment for CICL
Sec. 42. Probation as an alternative to imprisonment. – The court

may, after it shall have convicted and sentenced a child in conflict
with the law, and upon application at any time, place the child on
probation in lieu of his/her sentence taking into account the best
interest of the child. For this purpose, Section 4 of Presidential
Decree No. 968, otherwise known as the “Probation Law of 1976”
is hereby amended accordingly. [Rep. Act No. 9344 (2006), sec. 42]

Disqualification for probation of
certain drug offenders
Any person convicted for drug trafficking or pushing under
Rep. Act No. 9165, regardless of the penalty imposed by the court,
cannot avail of the privilege granted by the Probation Law or
Presidential Decree No. 968. [REP. ACT NO. 9165 (2002), sec. 24]

Disqualified offenders for probation
SEC. 9. Disqualified Offenders. — The benefits of this Decree shall not be
extended to those:
a. sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than

six (6) years;
b. convicted of any crime against the national security;
c. who have previously been convicted by final judgment of an offense

punished by imprisonment of more than six (6) months and one (1) day and/or
a fine of more than one thousand pesos (P1,000.00);
d. who have been once on probation under the provisions of this
Decree; and
e. who are already serving sentence at the time the substantive

provisions of this Decree became applicable pursuant to Section 33 hereof.

Understanding Penalties

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

Understanding Penalties

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Penalties

DAN PERUELO CALICA

Penalties Dan P. Calica

Penalties Dan P. Calica

1. Penalties in general and measures which are not considered as

2. Principal and accessory penalties which may be imposed

3. Other classification of penalties

4. Duration and effect of penalties

Penalties Dan P. Calica

6. Execution and service of penalties and the Probation Law

7. Special rules on certain penalties

Penalties Dan P. Calica

Penalties Dan P. Calica

Penalties Dan P. Calica

Penalties Dan P. Calica

◼ No penalty shall be executed except by virtue of a final judgment. [REV. PEN.

Penalties Dan P. Calica

The penalties that may be imposed, according to the

Penalties Dan P. Calica

Penalties Dan P. Calica

Penalties Dan P. Calica

Penalties Dan P. Calica

Credit for preventive imprisonment for the penalty of reclusion perpetua

Penalties Dan P. Calica

Penalties Dan P. Calica

Penalties Dan P. Calica

Penalties Dan P. Calica

Penalties Dan P. Calica

Penalties Dan P. Calica

On the other hand, accessory penalties follow the principal

Penalties Dan P. Calica

Principal penalties Accessory penalties

Penalties Dan P. Calica

4. Perpetual or Temporary Absolute Disqualification

Penalties Dan P. Calica

Penalties Dan P. Calica

12. Public Censure

Penalties Dan P. Calica

2. Perpetual or temporary special disqualification

3. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted

Penalties Dan P. Calica

6. Forfeiture or confiscation of instruments and proceeds of the

7. Payment of costs [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 25]

Penalties Dan P. Calica

2. Perpetual or temporary special disqualification

3. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted

Penalties Dan P. Calica

Penalties Dan P. Calica

Penalties Dan P. Calica

Pursuant to the 1987 Constitution, Congress enacted Republic Act No.

Subsequently, the death penalty was prohibited from being imposed by

Penalties Dan P. Calica

Penalties Dan P. Calica

The Supreme Court acknowledged that the opposition to the death

Article III, Section 19 (1) of the 1987 Constitution plainly vests in

Penalties Dan P. Calica

Penalties Dan P. Calica

In the course of the congressional debates on the constitutional requirement

Penalties Dan P. Calica

Penalties Dan P. Calica

◼ In lieu of the death penalty, the following shall be imposed:

Penalties Dan P. Calica

Penalties Dan P. Calica