QUASI-RECIDIVISM

What is Article 160 of the

Revised Penal Code?

Santos, Mertin Cristel T.

Juris Doctor (JD) 1-5

Polytechnic University of the Philippines (Manila)

College of Law
Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code
In accordance with the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, the penalty
imposed for quasi-recidivism are expressly stipulated in Article 160, which reads:

Article 160. Commission of another crime during service of penalty

imposed for another offense; Penalty. - Besides the provisions of Rule 5 of
Article 62, 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 punished by the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law
for the new felony.
Any convict of the class referred to in this article, who is not a habitual criminal,
shall be pardoned at the age of seventy years if he shall have already served out
his original sentence, or when he shall complete it after reaching the said age,
unless by reason of his conduct or other circumstances he shall not be worthy of
such clemency.1

To begin with, it is of significant importance that the “quasi-recidivism” be defined.

Hence, according to Justice Reyes (2021), quasi-recidivism is a special aggravating
circumstance where a person, after having been convicted by final judgment, shall
commit a new felony before beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving the
same.
In addition, he shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty
prescribed by law for the new felony.

Elements of Article 160 of the Penal Code

Under the law, there are two (2) elements for Article 160 to have been committed,
they are:
1. That the offender was already convicted by final judgment of one offense.
2. That he committed a new felony before beginning to serve such sentence or
while serving the same.2

1
The Revised Penal Code of the Philippines
2
The Revised Penal Code, Criminal Law, Book Two
The phrases "Before beginning to Serve such Sentence" and "Or while serving
the same."
A person convicted by final judgment for one offense may commit a new felony
before beginning to serve his sentence for the first offense if he committed the new
felony while being transported to prison or jail after his conviction for the first offense
was upheld by an appellate court and his commitment was ordered.
On the other hand, with regard to the latter, Article 160 also applies when a
person convicted by final judgment commits a second felony while serving his sentence
for the first offense.
Therefore, if the offender committed a new felony after serving the sentence for
the first offense and both offenses are included in the same title of the Code, such
offender is considered an ordinary recidivist under Article 14, paragraph 9, of the Code,
because he did not commit the new felony before or while serving the sentence for the
first offense.3

First Crime should not be a Felony, while the Second should be such.
Regarding the effect of quasi-recidivism under Article 160 of the Revised Penal
Code, it makes no difference whether the crime for which an accused was serving a
sentence at the time of the commission of the offense charged falls under said Code or
a special law.
Meanwhile, it is imperative to note of the word "felony" used in this article. The
second offense must be a felony.
Hence, if a prisoner serving a sentence for another offense is caught in
possession of a firearm without a license, this article does not appear to apply, for the
reason that the legislation punishing illegal possession of firearm is a separate law.
Furthermore, it is not necessary to make Article 10 applicable in this
case, because Article 160 refers to "the maximum period" of the legal penalty for the
new offense. In this relation, the penalty provided by special law has no periods, unlike
the three periods prescribed by the Revised Penal Code for a divisible penalty.4

3
The Revised Penal Code, Criminal Law, Book Two
4
The Revised Penal Code, Criminal Law, Book Two
Not a Requirement that Two Offenses are under the Same Title of the Code.
Art. 160 does not appear to require that the offense for which the convict is
serving a sentence and the new felony committed while serving a sentence be included
in the same Code title.
On the other hand, in recidivism, both the first and second offenses must be
incorporated in the same title of the Code, however in quasi-recidivism, this is not
required.5

Quasi-recidivism vis-à-vis Reiteracion

The aggravating circumstance of "reiteracion" necessitates that the previous
sentences of the offender against whom it is considered have been completed.
In the case of People vs. Layson, et al., L-25177 (Oct. 31, 1969), at the time of
the commission of the homicide, all of the defendants were still serving their respective
sentences. Hence, the unique aggravating circumstance of quasi-recidivism (Article
160, R.P.C.) was properly evaluated against all of the defendants.

Pardon at 70 years old

The second paragraph of Article 160 stipulates that a quasi-recidivist shall be
granted pardon when he reaches the age of 70 and has completed his original
sentence, or when he completes it after reaching said age, unless his conduct or other
circumstances render him unworthy of such pardon.
However, a quasi-recidivist cannot be granted pardon if he is a habitual offender,
even if he is 70 years old and has already served his original sentence.6

Relevant Jurisprudence
Under the Philippine jurisprudence, the Supreme Court of the Philippines has
ruled over a numerous amount of cases in relation with Article 160 of the Revised Penal
Code and some of such cases are the following:
In the case of People v. Peralta, et. al., G.R. No. L-15959 (October 11, 1961), the
CFI of Rizal declared the defendants guilty of murder and sentenced them to death due
to the existence of a unique aggravating factor of quasi-recidivism.
Meanwhile, on automatic review by the Supreme Court, the defendants' counsel
contends that the allegation of quasi-recidivism in the Information is ambiguous
5
The Revised Penal Code, Criminal Law, Book Two
6
The Revised Penal Code, Criminal Law, Book Two
because it fails to state whether the offenses for which the defendants were serving
sentences at the time of the crime charged were punishable under the RPC or a special
law.
However, the Supreme Court held that, no. Regarding the effect of quasi-
recidivism under Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code, it makes no difference whether
the crime for which an accused is serving sentence at the time of the commission of the
offense charged is covered by said Code or a special law. According to the RPC, only
subsequent offenses must be felonies.
On the other hand, in the case of People v. Yabut, G.R. No. 39085 (September
27, 1933), while serving a sentence for the crime of homicide, the defendant-appellant
murdered Sabas Aseo, for which the CFI of Manila found him guilty of the crime of
murder and sentenced him to death.
On appeal to the Supreme Court, the appellant argues that the CFI erred in
applying Article 160 of the RPC because it is only applicable when the new crime
committed by a person who is already serving a sentence is distinct from the crime for
which he is serving a sentence.
The Supreme Court ruled that, no. The new offense need not be distinct or of a
different nature than the previous offense. The appellant's removal of the word "another"
from the headnote of Article 160 is not warranted. The language is clear and
unambiguous.
There is not the slightest indication in the text of article 160 that it applies only
when the new offense is of a different nature than the previous offense for which the
defendant is serving a sentence. Therefore, Article 160 applies even if he is currently
serving a sentence for homicide and was subsequently found guilty of murder.

Summary
In accordance with this provision, any person who commits a felony after having
been convicted by final judgment, before beginning to serve such sentence, or while
serving such sentence, shall be punished by the utmost period of the penalty prescribed
by law for the new felony.
This circumstance has been interpreted by the court as a special aggravating
circumstance in which the actual penalty imposed is derived from the maximum period
of the prescribed penalty, irrespective of any generic mitigating circumstances.
Hence, for a person to be held criminally liable under this article the following
elements must concur: (1) That the offender was already convicted by final judgment of
one offense; and (2) That he committed a new felony before beginning to serve such
sentence or while serving the same.
Furthermore, a quasi-recidivist shall be granted pardon when he reaches the age
of 70, provided that he is not a habitual offender, and has completed his original
sentence, or when he completes it after reaching said age, unless his conduct or other
circumstances render him unworthy of such pardon.