LESSON MANUSCRIPT (15th Week, Crim Law 1, Book I, RPC)

PROFESSOR: J/DIR. ROMEO L. OGOY, TLPE (Ret.)

Lesson Topic: Multiple Offenses; Modification and Extinction of Criminal Liability. (Article 14, paras 9 and
10, RPC; Article 160, RPC, Article 62, para 5, RPC; Article 89, RPC, Book 1; P.D. 968 as amended by R.A.
No. 10707)

I. Prayer then Recapitulation of the previous topic of week 14 and entertain some clarificatory
questions.

II. Multiple Offenses:

Multiple Offenses are the following:

1. Recidivism (Article 14, para 9, RPC);

2. Reiteracion (Article 14, para 10, RPC);

3. Quasi-Recidivism (Article 160, RPC);

4. Habitual Delinquency (Article 62, para 5, RPC);

They are distinguished as follows:

a. Crime Committed:

In recidivism, the previous crime and the present crime are embraced in the same Title of the RPC;

In Reiteracion, the penalty for the previous crime is equal or greater than that for the present crime or
the penalty for the two previous crimes is lighter than that for the present crime;

In Quasi-Recidivism, the nature of the previous crime and present is not material;

In Habitual Delinquency, the previous, subsequent, and present crimes must be: Serious or Less Serious
Physical Injuries; Theft, Robbery; Estafa or Falsification of document;

b. Period of Time:

In Recidivism, what is important is the “date of trial” of the present crime in relation to “date of
conviction of his previous crime. The accused was being tried of the present crime when he was
convicted of the previous crime by final judgment;

In Reiteracion and Quasi-Recidivism, what is important is the date of commission of the present crime.

In Reiteracion, the accused committed the present crime after serving his sentence for previous crime or
crimes;

In Quasi-Recidivism, the accused committed the present crime before beginning to serve or while
serving his sentence for the previous crime;
In Habitual Delinquency, what is important is the “date of conviction of the subsequent or present crime
in relation to the “date of his last release or conviction”. (People vs Morales, G.R. No. 42924, March 12,
1935);

In Habitual Delinquency, the accused was convicted (found guilty) of the second crime within 10 years
after conviction or release of the first crime; then, he is convicted of the third crime within 10 years after
conviction or release of the second crime; and so on and so forth;

c. Number of Crimes Committed:

In Recidivism and Quasi-Recidivism, there must be at least two crimes;

In Reiteracion, there must be at least two crimes. But if the penalty for the previous crimes is lighter
than for the present crime, there must be at least three crimes;

In Habitual Delinquency, there must be at least three crimes;

d. Effects in Relation to the Penalty:

Recidivism and Reiteracion are “Ordinary Aggravating Circumstances”, the presence of any of which will
require the application of penalty for the present crime its maximum period unless offset by a mitigating
circumstance;

Quasi-Recidivism is a “Special Aggravating Circumstance”, the presence of which will require the
application of the penalty for the present crime in its maximum period regardless of the presence of a
mitigating circumstance;

Habitual Delinquency is an “extra-ordinary” or “special aggravating circumstance, the presence of which

will require the imposition of penalty in addition to the principal penalty for the present crime. This is ot
subject to the offset rule;

Recidivism:

A Recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previously convicted by the
final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of this code. (Article 14, RPC);

The phrase “at the time of his trial for an offense” employed in defining recidivism includes everything
that is done in the course of the trial;

It includes from arraignment until after sentence is announced by the judge in open court. (People vs
Lagarto, G.R. No. 65833, May 6, 1991);

However, Recidivism can still be appreciated even if “before his trial” for the present crime, he was
convicted by final judgment of his previous crime. (People vs. Bernal, G.R. No. 44988, Octobeer 31,
1936);

Reiteracion:
There is Reiteracion when the offender has been previously punished for an offense to which the law
attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty.
(Article 14, RPC);

i. Previously Punished – The phrase “previously punished” employed in defining Reiteracion

means that the accused has served out the sentence for his previous crime;

ii. Previous Crime and Present Crime – If there is only one prior offense, it must be punishable by
a penalty equal or greater than that for the present crime;

The penalty for the previous crime of homicide, which has been served out, is Reclusion Temporal while
that for simple rape, the present crime, is Reclusion Perpetua;

Here, there is no Reiteracion because the penalty for the previous crime for homicide is lesser than that
for simple rape. (People vs. Race, Jr., G.R. No. 93143, August 4, 1992);

If there is more than one prior crime, Reiteracion is present even if previous crimes are punishable by a
penalty lesser than that for present crime;

Thus, there is “Reiteracion” even if the penalties for grave slander, qualified trespass to dwelling and
robbery, which have been served out, are lesser than that for the present crime of murder. (People vs.
Molo, G.R. No. L-44680, January 11, 1979);

In appreciating Reiteracion, what is controlling is the penalty prescribed by law for the previous and
present crimes and not the penalty actually imposed by the court after trial;

Recidivism and Reiteracion:

If the crimes are embraced in the same Title such as homicide and maltreatment, the aggravating
circumstance to be appreciated against him is Recidivism rather than Reiteracion;

There is no Reiteracion because that circumstance requires that the previous offenses should not be
embraced in the same Title of the Code;

In Reiteracion, the offender commits a crime different from that for which he was previously convicted.
(People vs. Real, G.R. No. 93436, March 24, 1995);

Accused was previously convicted of adultery and served the penalty for it, and was charged of physical
injuries;

He was found guilty of homicide. His liability for homicide shall not be aggravated by Recidivism or
Reiteracion,

He is not a Recidivist because homicide and adultery are not embraced in same Title of the RPC.
Homicide is a crime against person while adultery is a crime against chastity;

Reiteracion is not present since the penalty for the previous crime of adultery is less than that for
homicide;

The crime of physical injuries shall not be considered in determining Recidivism and Reiteracion since he
was not yet convicted thereof;
Both Recidivism and Reiteracion can be appreciated in murder. There is Recidivism since the accused
was previously convicted of another murder, frustrated murder, and less serious physical injuries at the
time of trial for murder;

There is Reiteracion since he committed murder after serving out the penalties for grave slander,
qualified trespass to dwelling and robbery. (People vs. Molo, G.R. No. L-44680, January 11, 1979);

Quasi-Recidivism:

Any person, who shall commit a felony after having been convicted by final judgment, before beginning
to serve such sentence, or while serving the same, shall be considered as a Quasi-Recidivist. (Article 160,
RPC);

Quasi-Recidivism is an extraordinary aggravating circumstance and cannot be offset by an ordinary

mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender or confession. (People vs. Macariola, G.R. No. L-40757,
January 24, 1983);

i. Previous Crime and Present Crime – Quasi-Recidivism will be appreciated regardless of

whether the previous crime, for which an accused is serving sentence at the time of commission of the
crime charged, falls under the RPC or under Special Law. (People vs Alicia, G.R. No. L-38176, Janurary 22,
1980);

But the present crime must be a felony punishable under the RPC or an offense punishable under
Special Law, which adopts the technical nomenclature of the penalties of the RPC;

One who committed illegal possession of loose firearm while serving sentence for theft is a Quasi-
Recidivist;

Although Court of Appeal Justice Luis Reyes and Justice Regalado opined that the second crime must be
a felony to appreciate Quasi-Recidivism because Article 160 speaks of a “felony”;

The Supreme Court in People vs. Salazar, G.R. No. 98060, January 27, 1997, appreciated Quasi-
Recidivism against the accused who committed a malum prohibitum under R.A. No. 6425 (the old
dangerous drugs law) because this law adopts the technical nomenclature of the penalty under the RPC;

Article 160, RPC, on Quasi-Recidivism shall be applied in the imposition of penalty under R.A. No. 10591;

Section 98 of R.A. No. 9165, which has repealed R.A. No. 6425, provides that RPC shall not apply to the
provisions of this Act, except in the case of Minor Offenders;

Thus, Salazar principle is only applicable if the offender, who violated dangerous drugs law, is a Minor;

ii. After Finality of Decision – Bernardo was enraged by his conviction for robbery by the Judge
Samsonite despite insufficient evidence;

Pending his appeal, Bernardo escaped in order to get even with Judge Samsonite. Bernardo killed the
judge. Bernardo committed the crime while the judgment of conviction is on appeal;

Thus, Quasi-Recidivism cannot be considered since he did not commit the crime after having been
convicted by final judgment;
 iii. Before Serving Sentence – One who committed a crime outside of prison before he begins to
serve his sentence of homicide is a Quasi-Recidivist;

If the accused is placed on probation, the conviction shall become final but the service of sentence shall
be suspended;

One who committed a crime while on probation is a Quasi-Recidivist because the crime was committed
before serving her sentence for the previous crime for which she is placed under probation. (People vs.
Salazar, G.R. No. 98060, January 27, 1997);

The Salazar case applies to one who committed a crime while under parole or conditional pardon. In
parole or conditional pardon, “the service of unexpired portion of sentence is suspended”. A parolee or
pardonee is a convict by final judgment;

Commission of crime while the service of unexpired sentence is suspended by reason of parole or
conditional pardon falls within the contemplation of the Article 160 because the crime is deemed
committed “before the service of sentence”. (People vs. Balictar, G.R. No. L-29994, July 20, 1979);

If the pardon is absolute, the criminal liability is extinguished, and thus, the penalty is considered as
served out;

One who committed a crime after the grant of absolute pardon is not a Quasi-Recidivist. But Reiteracion
may be appreciated;

iv. While Serving Sentence – There is Quasi-Recidivism where:

a. The convicted prisoner killed the victim inside the New Bilibid Prison (People vs. Alvis,
G.R. No. L-39049, June 24, 1983); or

b. The convicted prisoner escaped from a penal colony, and then committed robbery
with homicide. (People vs. Retania, G.R. No. L-34841, January 22, 1980);

Quasi-Recidivism cannot be appreciated in the crime of evasion of service of sentence because the
former is inherent in the latter. (Article 62, RPC);

v. Recidivism and Quasi-Recidivism – A convicted prisoner, who was serving his sentence in the
National Penitentiary for the crime of robbery, committed murder;

He is not a recidivist with respect to the murder that he committed since this crime and his previous
crime of robbery are punishable under different titles;

However, he is a Quasi-Recidivist since he committed the latter while serving his sentence for the
former, Quasi-Recidivism shall be appreciated instead of recidivism;

Quasi-Recidivism can be considered regardless of the nature of the crime for which the accused is
serving sentence and the crime committed while serving sentence;

Habitual Delinquency:
Habitual delinquent is a person who, within a period of 10 years from the date of his last release or last
conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa or falsification,
is found guilty of any of the said crimes a third time or oftener. (Article 62, para 5, RPC);

The law imposes an additional penalty based on the criminal propensity of the accused apart from that
provided by law for the last crime for which he is found guilty;

Habitual Delinquency is not, however, a crime in itself. It is only a factor in determining the total penalty.
In fact, the provision on habitual delinquency is found in Article 62, RPC, on application of penalties and
not in Book Two thereof which defines felonies. (Almeda vs. Villaluz, G.R. No. L-31665, August 6, 1975);

i. Serious and Less Serious Physical Injuries – According to Justice Regalado, the term “serious or
less serious physical injuries” in Article 62 should be understood to have been used in the technical
term;

Thus, frustrated homicide, or slight physical injuries is not within the contemplation of the words
“serious or less serious physical injuries” in Article 62, RPC;

Murder and grave threat are not habitual delinquency crimes. Hence, the accused cannot be considered
as habitual delinquent although he was convicted of 3 counts murder and 5 counts of grave threat;

ii. Robbery – Robbery for purposes of habitual delinquency may include robbery with homicide,
or robbery with serious physical injuries;

In case of robbery with serious physicial injuries, conviction thereof shall be counted as one for purpose
of habitual delinquency;

Special complex crime consisting of two felonies is technically one crime;

iii. Stages – Habitual; delinquency is applicable to the crimes mentioned in the law regardless of
the stage of execution;

Offender, who commits a crime, whether attempted or frustrated, subjectively reveals the same degree
of depravity and perversity as one who commits a consummated crime;

To exclude him from the operation of rule on habitual delinquency would thwart its purposes and
expose society to a constant menace from such delinquent who, when he resolves to commit a crime,
certainly does not propose not to go beyond an attempt or a frustration, but rather to consummate it.
(People vs. Abuyen, G.R. No. 30664, February 2, 1929);

iv. Accomplice and Accessories – Habitual delinquency applies to accomplices and accessories of
habitual delinquency crimes;

The participation of offenders in committing those crimes repeatedly, whether as principals, accomplices
or accessories, reveals the persistence in them of the inclination to wrongdoing, and of the perversity of
character that had led them to commit the previous crimes. (People vs. San Juan, G.R. No. L-46896,
January 15, 1940);

v. Recidivism and Habitual Delinquency – One who is convicted of robbery with homicide and
was previously convicted for theft three times is a recidivist and habitual delinquent at the same time;
These habitual delinquency crimes are embraced in the same Title of the RPC, on crimes against
property. Both circumstances of recidivism and habitual delinquency shall be appreciated against him
since the effects thereof are not inconsistent with each other;

The effect of recidivism is the application of the penalty for theft in its maximum period; while the effect
of habitual delinquency is the imposition of a penalty in addition to the principal penalty for theft;

However, while recidivism will aggravate the principal penalty for theft, it cannot aggravate the
additional penalty for habitual delinquency because recidivism is inherent in habitual delinquency.
(People vs. Tolentino, G.R. No. 48740, August 5, 1942; People vs Manalo, G.R. No. L-8586, May 25,
1956);

A convict can be a habitual delinquent without being a recidivist. Not all habitual delinquency crimes are
embraced in the same Title of the RPC such as theft, falsification and serious physical injuries;

If the habitual delinquency crimes are not embraced within the same Title, the convict is a habitual
delinquent but not recidivist;

On the other hand, a convict can be a recidivist without being a habitual delinquent. One who is
convicted of theft, estafa, and robbery is a recidivist because these crimes are embraced in the Title of
the RPC on crimes against property;

However, he is not a habitual delinquent if the interval of time between his last release or conviction
and present conviction is more than 10 years;

One who is convicted of acts of lasciviousness, seduction and abduction is a recidivist because these
crimes are embraced in the Title of the RPC on crimes against chastity;

But he is not a habitual delinquent since they are not habitual delinquency crimes;

III. Modification and Extinction of Criminal Liability:

Criminal liability of the offender is totally extinguished by:

1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties,
liability therefore is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment;

2. By service of sentence;

3. By amnesty, which completely extinguishes the penalty and all its effects;

4. By absolute pardon;

5. By prescription of the crime;

6. By prescription of the penalty;

7. By marriage between the offender and the offended party in crimes against chastity (Article
89, RPC) or in rape; or forgiveness in marital rape (Article 266-C, RPC);

8. By final discharge of the probationer (P.D. No. 968 as amended by R.A. No. 10707); and
 9. Decriminalization;

Criminal extinction is different from criminal exemption:

The modes of extinguishing criminal liability arise after the commission of the crime;

On the other hand, justifying circumstance, exempting circumstance, or absolutory cause which exempts
offender from criminal liability, attends the commission of the crime;

In criminal exemption there is no criminal liability from the very beginning;

While in criminal extinction, there is criminal liability at the beginning but it is thereafter extinguished;

Death of the Accused:

Death of the offender or accused extinguishes his criminal liability. However, death of the offended
party will not extinguish the criminal liability of the offender;

When the death of the offender occurs after final judgment, only his criminal liability is extinguished.
However, his civil liability is not affected by his death;

Hence, despite the death of a convict after finality of conviction for theft, his heirs are obligated to
return to the offended party the stolen properties;

When the death of the offender occurs before final judgment, his liability as to the personal penalties
and pecuniary penalties is extinguished under Article 89 of the RPC;

Service of Sentence:

In the service of sentence, it is the prison or jail authorities who will determine whether penalty
imposed is completely served before offender is released and not the court;

This is so because of the principle that jurisdiction of the court attaches until termination of the case.
Once an accused has been sentenced by final judgment, the court loses jurisdiction and the convict
commences to serve his sentence under the jurisdiction of the prison/jail authorities;

In counting or crediting the service of sentence, the following are being considered:

i. when the law speaks of a month, it means 30 days; and of year is 365 days or 366 days in case
of leap year, under Article , Civil Code;

ii. The successive service of sentence in accordance with their severity, under Article 70, RPC,
and the three (3) fold rule but all subject to 40 year- limitation rule, as well as the perpetua penalty
computed at 30 years;

iii. The duration of Reclusion Perpetua up to 40 years under Article 27, RPC;
 iv. The other concept of Reclusion Perpetua with the period of 30 years, when there is
preventive imprisonment, which shall be deducted from the said period of 30 years, under R.A. No.
10592;

v. The credit of preventive imprisonment, GCTA, STAL and the TASTM;

Amnesty:

Amnesty is defined as an act of grace (by the President) concurred in by the legislature, which is usually
extended to groups of persons who committed a political offense, which puts into oblivion the offense
itself;

Under Article 89, RPC, criminal liability, penalty and “all its effects” are totally or completely
extinguished by amnesty;

Section 19, Article VII, Constitution, provides that the President may also grant amnesty with
concurrence of majority of all the members of the Congress;

Absolute Pardon:

It is a Pardon by the Chief Executive. Grant of pardon is an act of forgiveness, and thus, it relieves the
person pardoned from the penal consequences of the crime but it does not erase or blot out the crime
itself;

Pardon does not make a person innocent of the crime from which he was convicted. As far as the law is
concerned, a person pardoned is still a convicted criminal although he will not suffer the penal
consequences of his criminal act;

The very act of forgiveness implies the commission of wrong, and that wrong has been established bu
the most complete method known to modern civilization;

Pardon may relieve the offender from the disability of fines and forfeitures attendant upon a conviction,
but they cannot erase the stain of bad character, which has been definitely fixed. (Monasanto vs
Factoran, Jr., G.R. No. 78239, February 9, 1989);

Prescription of Crime:

The law on prescription of crimes is an act of grace whereby the State, after the lapse of a certain period
of time, surrenders its sovereign power to prosecute the criminal act. 9People vs. Reyes, G.R. Nos.
74226-27, July 27, 1989);

It is a loss or waiver by the State of its right to prosecute an act prohibited and punished by law. (Magat
vs. People, G.R. No. 92201, August 21, 1991);

The period of prescription shall commence to run from the day on which the crime is discovered by the
offended party, the authorities, or their agents;
it shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information, and shall commence to rum again
when such proceedings are terminated without the accused being convicted or acquitted, or are
unjustifiably stopped for any reason not imputable to hm;

The term of prescription shall not run when the offender is absent from the Philippines. (Article 91,
RPC);

Under Article 90, RPC, the periods of prescription for felony/crime, in general, are as follows:

Death penalty -- 20 years

Reclusion Perpetua – 20 years

Reclusion Temporal – 20 years

Prision Mayor – 15 years

Prision Correccional – 10 years

Arresto Mayor – 5 years

Arresto Menor – 2 months

Prescription of Penalty:

The period of prescription of penalties shall commence to run from the date when the culprit should
evade the service of his sentence;

It shall be interrupted if the defendant should give himself up, be captured, should go to some foreign
country with which this Government has no extradition treaty, or should commit another crime before
the expiration of the period of prescription. (Article 92, RPC);

Under the provision of Article 92, RPC, it shall commence to run from the date the felon evades the
service of his sentence;

Pursuant to Article 57, RPC, evasion of sentence can be committed only by those who have been
convicted by final judgment by escaping during the term of his sentence; Clearly, one who has not been
committed to prison cannot be said to have escaped therefrom;

The periods of prescription of penalties, in general, are as follows:

Death penalty –------- 20 years

Reclusion Perpetua –-- 20 years

Reclusion Temporal –- 15 years

Prision Mayor ----------- 15 years

Prison Correccional –-- 10 years

Arresto Mayor –--------- 5 years

Arresto Menor –-------- 1 year

Special Rule:

Libel or Other Similar Offense - 1 year

Grave Oral Defamation and Slander by Deed - 6 months

Marriage:

Pardon in the form of marriage shall totally extinguish criminal liability arising from seduction,
abduction, or acts of lasciviousness. (Article 89, RPC);

This marriage between the offended party and offender shall also extinguish criminal action if the same
is already instituted, or penalty if the same is already imposed. (Article 344, RPC);

There are two rules under Article 334, RPC, in connection with marriage as a mode of criminal
extinction:

First, in cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness and rape, the marriage of the offender with
the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or remit the penalty already imposed upon him;

Second, this rule on criminal extinction shall also be applicable to the co-principals, accomplices, and
accessories;

Article 334, RPC provides marriage as a mode of extinguishing criminal liability arising from rape.
According to Justice Regalado, since rape is now a crime against person, it should be considered as
deleted from the text of Article 334;

In case of rape, the applicable rule is now Article 266-C of the RPC, as amended by R.A. No. 8353;

Under this provision, subsequent marriage between the offender and offended party shall extinguish the
criminal action or penalty: Provided, That the crime shall not be extinguished or the penalty shall not be
abated if the marriage is void ab initio;

Final Discharge of the Probationer:

Under P.D. No. 968 as amended by R.A. No. 10707, the final discharge of probationer issued by the
Court totally extinguishes criminal liability;

Decriminalization of Law

Once a particular criminal act has been decriminalized, it is no longer a crime. The benefits shall apply
even to those who are convicted and serving sentence which will cause their immediate release from
prison or jail.

END OF MANUSCRIPT, CRIM LAW 1

PROFESSOR: J/DIRECTOR ROMEO L. OGOY, TLPE (Ret.)