Mala in se vs mala prohibita

9. Recidivism (Art. 14, Par. 9)

Recidivist is 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 this Code.  Recidivism involves at least two conviction, and hence, it
is a form of plurality of crimes like reiteration, habitual delinquency and quasi-recidivism.  The first conviction must
be by final judgment and must take place prior to the second conviction. (People v. Baldera, 86 Phil. 189)  The
number of years intervening between the convictions is immaterial.  Recidivism is likewise considered even if the
offender has been given absolute pardon for the first conviction, since pardon merely extinguishes the penalty (US v.
Sotelo, 28 Phil. 147) but not in the case of amnesty as such extinguishes all the effects in law of the crime
committed. (US v. Francisco, 10 Phil. 185)
Habitual delinquent is a person who within a period of ten (10) years from the date of his release or last conviction
of the crime of serious or less serious physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa, or falsification, has been found guilty
of any said crimes a third time or oftener. (Art. 62, Par. 5)
Distinction:
Recidivism Habitual Delinquency

1. Applies to all offenses embraced in the same title of the 1. Applicable only to robbery, theft, estafa, falsification,
Code. serious and less serious injuries.

2. Need not be alleged in the complaint or information. 2. Must be alleged or charged.

3. If not offset, merely raises the imposition of the prescribed

3. Carries with it an additional penalty.
penalty to its maximum period.

4. Between each conviction there should not be a lapse of

4. Intervening period between convictions  is immaterial.
time of more than 10 years.

May the offender be a recidivist and a habitual delinquent at the same time? Yes, if the offender was convicted for
the third time of theft within the conditions prescribed by law, the first and second convictions referring to robbery
and estafa, recidivism will be aggravating in the imposition of the principal penalty for the crime of theft.  At the
same time, by reason of such recidivism, he is also a habitual delinquent, and is sentenced to the additional penalty
provided by law, although in the imposition of the said additional penalty, recidivism is no longer considered as an
aggravating circumstance as it is inherent in this form of habitual delinquency. (People v. Manalo, 8586, May 25,
1956)  May the offender be a habitual delinquent without being a recidivist?  Yes, if the three convictions refer to
the specific felonies not embraced in the same title of the Code like robbery, falsification and serious physical
injuries.

Quasi-recidivism arises when the offender shall commit a felony after having been convicted by final judgment,
before beginning to serve the sentence, or while serving the same, he shall be punished by the maximum period of
the penalty prescribed by law for the new felony, besides being penalized as a habitual delinquent, if applicable.
(Art. 160)  This is not a separate crime by itself.
It is necessary to allege recidivism in the information and to attach thereto certified copies of the previous sentence
rendered against the accused to be presented during the trial. (People v. Martinada, 194 SCRA 36) (Q18, 1993 Bar)

10. Reiteracion or Habituality.
That the offender has been previously punished for an offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty
or for 2 or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty. (Art. 14, Par. 10)
In reiteracion (habituality), it is essential that the offender must have been previously punished, i.e., he must have
served, partially or totally, the penalty imposed upon him; that  the penalty  for the crime for which he was 
previously  punished, must  be equal or greater than the penalty for the crime for which he is on trial, or that he had
previously been  punished for 2 or more offenses the penalty for which is lighter  than the  penalty  prescribed for
the offenses for which he  is  on trial.  Reiteracion is discretionary on the court.  In reiteracion, the offenses are not
embraced in the same title of the Code.
To be appreciated, it is necessary to present as evidence certified copies of the sentence rendered against the
accused, except when the accused pleads guilty to an information alleging reiteracion. (People v. Monterey, Sept. 3,
1996)

Craft vs fraud

Craft is cunning or intellectual trickery or chicanery resorted to by the accused to carry out his evil design. (People
v. Zea, 130 SCRA 77)  There is craft when the accused assumed a position of authority to gain entrance in a house
to enable him to be alone with the offended party to commit acts of lasciviousness upon her. (People v. Timbol, 47
OG 1859) Also, this circumstance is aggravating where the offenders pretended to be bona fide passengers of a
jeepney in order not to arouse suspicion, but once inside the jeepney, they robbed the passengers and the driver.
(People v. Lee, 66848, Dec. 20, 1991)  If the craft is used to insure the commission of the crime without risk to the
accused, it is absorbed by treachery. (People v. Malig, 46 OG Sup. 11, 255)

Fraud which constitutes deceit and manifested by insidious words or machination is illustrated in the case of the
step-father of the offended party, who taking advantage of the absence of the her mother, took the young girl away
and told her she was to be taken to the house of her godmother but instead she was taken to another house where she
was raped. (People v. De Leon, 50 Phil. 539)

The term disguise refers to  anything that the offender may use to prevent recognition.  If in spite of the disguise, the
offender was recognized, such cannot be aggravating. (People v. Sonsona, 8966, May 25, 1955)