7/27/2017

COVERAGE

Revised Penal Code, Title Three, Articles 21 to 88

Exclude the following provisions:

Article 80 (repealed by Republic Act No. 9344)

PENALTIES Articles 81 to 85 (because Republic Act No. 9346

expressly prohibits the imposition of death
penalty)
Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra
Note that Republic Act No. 9344 amended Article 68

Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act No. 4103, as

amended by Act No. 4225 and Republic Act No. 4203)

Probation Law (P.D. No. 968)

Classification
(RPC, Article 25, in relation to Article 9)
Classification
(RPC, Article 25, in relation to Article 9) PRINCIPAL PENALTIES may further be classified
according to gravity, to wit:
Article 25 classifies penalties into: a. Capital Penalty (i.e., death);

A. PRINCIPAL PENALTIES (those expressly b. Afflictive Penalties (i.e., reclusion perpetua, reclusion
specified in the judgment of conviction); and temporal, perpetual or temporary absolute
disqualification, perpetual or temporary special
disqualification, prision mayor);
B. ACCESSORY PENALTIES (those deemed
included in the principal penalty and do not c. Correctional Penalties (i.e., prision correccional,
have to be expressly specified in the arresto mayor, suspension, destierro);
judgment of conviction)
d. Light Penalties (i.e., arresto menor, public censure);
and

e. Penalties common to afflictive, correctional and light

penalties (i.e., fine, bond to keep the peace).

1
 7/27/2017

Classification Classification
(RPC, Article 25, in relation to Article 9) (RPC, Article 25, in relation to Article 9)

PRINCIPAL PENALTIES may further be classified PRINCIPAL PENALTIES may also be classified
according to gravity. according to divisibility, to wit:
* This classification corresponds to the classification of the a. INDIVISIBLE PENALTIES those that have no fixed
felonies in Article 9, into grave, less grave and light. duration and therefore cannot be divided into periods,
such as:
Art. 9. Grave felonies, less grave felonies and light
felonies. GRAVE FELONIES are those to which the law attaches the Death
capital punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are Reclusion Perpetua
afflictive, in accordance with Art. 25 of this Code.
(Under R.A. No. 7659, the duration of reclusion
LESS GRAVE FELONIES are those which the law punishes perpetua is fixed at 20 years and 1 day to 40 years.
with penalties which in their maximum period are correctional, in However, in People v. Lucas [G.R. Nos. 108172-73, 9
accordance with the above-mentioned article. January 1995), the Supreme Court ruled that reclusion
perpetua shall remain an indivisible penalty)
LIGHT FELONIES are those infractions of law for the Perpetual absolute or special disqualification
commission of which a penalty of arrest menor or a fine not exceeding Public Censure
200 pesos or both, is provided.

Classification
(RPC, Article 25, in relation to Article 9) Classification
(RPC, Article 25, in relation to Article 9)
PRINCIPAL PENALTIES may also be classified
according to divisibility, to wit: PRINCIPAL PENALTIES may also be classified
according to divisibility, to wit:
a. INDIVISIBLE PENALTIES
b. DIVISIBLE PENALTIES those that have a fixed
People v. Jacinto duration and therefore can be divided into three
(G.R. No. 182239, 16 March 2011) periods, such as:

Under Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code, when Reclusion Temporal;

the offender is a minor under 18 years, the penalty next Temporary special disqualification
lower than that prescribed by law shall be imposed, but Prision Mayor;
always in the proper period. However, for purposes of Prision Correccional;
determining the proper penalty because of the Arresto Mayor;
privileged mitigating circumstance of minority, the Suspension;
penalty of death is still the penalty to be reckoned Destierro; and
with. Thus, the proper imposable penalty for the accused- Arresto Menor .
appellant is reclusion perpetua.

2
 7/27/2017

Classification
(RPC, Article 25, in relation to Article 9)
Penalty for Complex Crimes
ACCESSORY PENALTIES, which are deemed (RPC, Art. 48)
included in the imposition of principal penalties, are
as follows: ARTICLE 48. Penalty for Complex Crimes.
When a single act constitutes two or more
Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification; crimes, or when an offense is a necessary means
Perpetual or temporary special disqualification; for committing the other, the penalty for the most
Suspension from public office, the right to vote
and be voted for, the profession or calling;
serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be
Civil interdiction; applied in its maximum period.
Indemnification;
Forfeiture or confiscation of instruments and
proceeds of the offense; and
Payment of costs.

Order of Severity (RPC, Art. 70) Order of Severity (RPC, Art. 70)

Successive service of sentence. When the culprit has xxx xxx xxx
to serve two or more penalties, he shall serve them simultaneously
if the nature of the penalties will so permit; otherwise, the following 1. Death,
rules shall be observed: 2. Reclusion perpetua,
3. Reclusion temporal,
In the imposition of the penalties, the order of their 4. Prision mayor,
respective severity shall be followed so that they may be executed 5. Prision correccional,
successively or as nearly as may be possible, should a pardon 6. Arresto mayor,
have been granted as to the penalty or penalties first imposed, or
7. Arresto menor,
should they have been served out.
8. Destierro,
9. Perpetual absolute disqualification,
For the purpose of applying the provisions of the next
10 Temporal absolute disqualification.
preceding paragraph, the respective severity of the penalties
11. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be
shall be determined in accordance with the following scale:
voted for, the right to follow a profession or calling, and
12. Public censure.
xxx xxx xxx

3
 7/27/2017

Order of Severity (RPC, Art. 70)

Three-fold Rule
Notwithstanding the provisions of the rule next
preceding, the maximum duration of the convict's sentence shall
not be more than three-fold the length of time corresponding to The maximum duration of the convict's sentence
the most severe of the penalties imposed upon him. No other shall not be more than threefold the length of time
penalty to which he may be liable shall be inflicted after the sum corresponding to the most severe of the penalties
total of those imposed equals the same maximum period. imposed upon him. No other penalty to which he may
be liable shall be inflicted after the sum total of those
Such maximum period shall in no case exceed forty imposed equals the same maximum period. Such
years.
maximum period shall in no case exceed forty (40)
In applying the provisions of this rule, the duration of years.
perpetual penalties (pena perpetua) shall be computed at thirty
years. (As amended). In applying the provisions of this rule the duration of
perpetual penalties shall be computed at thirty years
(Art. 70).

Graduated scales (RPC, Art. 71)

In the case in which the law prescribed a penalty lower or
People v. Conrado Lucas higher by one or more degrees than another given penalty, the rules
(G.R. Nos. 108172-73, 9 January 1995) prescribed in Article 61 shall be observed in graduating such
penalty. The lower or higher penalty shall be taken from the
* Although Section 17 of R.A. No. 7659 has fixed the duration graduated scale in which is comprised the given penalty. The
of reclusion perpetua from twenty (20) years and one (1) day courts, in applying such lower or higher penalty, shall observe the
to forty (40) years, there was no clear legislative intent to following graduated scales:
alter its original classification as an indivisible penalty. It shall
then remain as an indivisible penalty. SCALE NO. 1
1. Death,
2. Reclusion perpetua,
3. Reclusion temporal,
4. Prision mayor,
5. Prision correccional,
6. Arresto mayor,
7. Destierro,
8. Arresto menor,
9. Public censure,
10. Fine.

4
 7/27/2017

Graduated scales (RPC, Art. 71) Rules for Graduating Penalties

(RPC, Article 61)
SCALE NO. 2
For the purpose of graduating the penalties which are to be
1. Perpetual absolute disqualification, imposed upon persons guilty as principals of any frustrated or
2. Temporal absolute disqualification attempted felony, or as accomplices or accessories, the following
3. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be rules shall be observed:
voted for, the right to follow a profession or calling,
4. Public censure, 1. When the penalty prescribed for the felony is single and
5. Fine. indivisible, the penalty next lower in degrees shall be that
immediately following that indivisible penalty in the respective
graduated scale prescribed in Article 71 of the Revised Penal Code.

2. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed

of two indivisible penalties, or of one or more divisible penalties to
be impose 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.

Rules for Graduating Penalties

(RPC, Article 61) Rules for Graduating Penalties
(RPC, Article 61)
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 5. When the law prescribes a penalty for a crime in some
of the medium and minimum periods of the proper divisible penalty and manner not specially provided for in the four preceding rules, the
the maximum period of that immediately following in said respective courts, proceeding by analogy, shall impose corresponding penalties
graduated scale. upon those guilty as principals of the frustrated felony, or of attempt to
commit the same, and upon accomplices and accessories.
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
 7/27/2017

Rules for Graduating Penalties

(RPC, Article 61) Effect of the Attendance of Mitigating or Aggravating
Tabulation of the Provisions of the Chapter Circumstances and of Habitual Delinquency
(RPC, Article 62)

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.

1(a). When in the commission of the crime, advantage

was taken by the offender of his public position, the penalty to
be imposed shall be in its maximum regardless of mitigating
circumstances.

The maximum penalty shall be imposed if the offense

was committed by any group who belongs to an
organized/syndicated crime group.

Effect of the Attendance of Mitigating or Aggravating Effect of the Attendance of Mitigating or Aggravating
Circumstances and of Habitual Delinquency Circumstances and of Habitual Delinquency
(RPC, Article 62) (RPC, Article 62)

3. Aggravating or mitigating circumstances which arise

An organized/syndicated crime group means a group of from the moral attributes of the offender, or from his private
two or more persons collaborating, confederating or mutually relations with the offended party, or from any other personal
helping one another for purposes of gain in the commission of cause, shall only serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of
any crime. the principals, accomplices and accessories as to whom such
circumstances are attendant.

2. The same rule shall apply with respect to any

aggravating circumstance inherent in the crime to such a 4. The circumstances which consist in the material
degree that it must of necessity accompany the commission execution of the act, or in the means employed to accomplish
thereof. 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.

6
 7/27/2017

Effect of the Attendance of Mitigating or Aggravating Effect of the Attendance of Mitigating or Aggravating
Circumstances and of Habitual Delinquency Circumstances and of Habitual Delinquency
(RPC, Article 62) (RPC, Article 62)

5. Habitual delinquency shall have the following effects:

5. Habitual delinquency shall have the following effects:
(c) Upon a fifth or additional conviction, the culprit shall be
(a) Upon a third conviction the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided for the last crime of which he be found
sentenced to the penalty provided by law for the last crime of guilty and to the additional penalty of prision mayor in its maximum
which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period.
correccional in its medium and maximum periods;
Notwithstanding the provisions of this article, the total of the two
penalties to be imposed upon the offender, in conformity herewith, shall
(b) Upon a fourth conviction, the culprit shall be
in no case exceed 30 years.
sentenced to the penalty provided for the last crime of which
he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision For the purpose of this article, a person shall be deemed to be
mayor in its minimum and medium periods; and 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.

Penalty for Incomplete Accident

(RPC, Article 67)
Imposition of fines
(RPC, Article 66)
When all the conditions required in circumstances
In imposing fines, the courts may fix any Number 4 of Article 12 of the RPC to exempt from
amount within the limits established by law; in fixing criminal liability are not present, the penalty of arresto
the amount in each case attention shall be given, not mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in
only to the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, its minimum period shall be imposed upon the culprit if
but more particularly to the wealth or means of the he shall have been guilty of a grave felony, and arresto
culprit. mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if of a less
grave felony.

7
 7/27/2017

Penalty to be imposed upon a Minor Penalty to be imposed when the crime committed is
(Article 68 of the RPC, as amended by R.A. No. 9344) not wholly excusable
(RPC, Article 69)
While an offender over 9 years but under 15 years who
acts with discernment is not exempt from criminal liability A penalty lower by one or two degrees than that
under Article 68, and a discretionary penalty shall be imposed prescribed by law shall be imposed if the deed is not
which shall always be lower by 2 degrees than that prescribed
wholly excusable by reason of the lack of some of the
by law for the crime committed, said offender is exempt from
criminal liability under R.A. No. 9344; hence, no penalty shall
conditions required to justify the same or to exempt from
be imposed. criminal liability in the several cases mentioned in Article
11 and 12, provided that the majority of such conditions
When an offender is over 15 but under 18 years of age, be present. The courts shall impose the penalty in the
the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be period which may be deemed proper, in view of the
imposed under Article 68, while under R.A. No. 9344, the number and nature of the conditions of exemption
offender shall be exempt from criminal liability unless he/she present or lacking.
acted with discernment.

Additional Penalty to be imposed upon Penalty for Impossible Crime

Public Officers who are guilty as Accessories (RPC, Article 59)
under Art 19, par. 3
(RPC, Article 58) When the person intending to commit an offense
has already performed the acts for the execution of the
Those accessories falling within the terms same but nevertheless the crime was not produced by
of paragraphs 3 of Article 19 of this Code who reason of the fact that the act intended was by its nature
should act with abuse of their public functions, one of impossible accomplishment or because the
shall suffer the additional penalty of absolute means employed by such person are essentially
perpetual disqualification if the principal offender inadequate to produce the result desired by him, the
shall be guilty of a grave felony, and that of court, having in mind the social danger and the degree
absolute temporary disqualification if he shall be of criminality shown by the offender, shall impose upon
guilty of a less grave felony. him the penalty of arresto mayor or a fine from 200 to
500 pesos.

8
 7/27/2017

Diagram of Application of Articles 50 to 57 Exceptions to the rules under Articles 50 to 57

Principals Accomplices Accessories 1. The provisions contained in Articles 50 to 57, inclusive,

shall not be applicable to cases in which the law
Consummated 0 1 2 expressly prescribes the penalty provided for a
frustrated or attempted felony, or to be imposed upon
Frustrated 1 2 3 accomplices or accessories (RPC, Article 60).

2. The courts, in view of the facts of the case, may impose

Attempted 2 3 4 upon the person guilty of the frustrated crime of
parricide, murder or homicide, defined and penalized in
Note: 0 represents the penalty prescribed by law in the preceding articles, a penalty lower by one degree
defining a crime, which is to be imposed on the principal in a than that which should be imposed under the provision
consummated offense, in accordance with Article 46 of the of Article 50. The courts, considering the facts of the
RPC. The other figures represent the degrees to which the case, may likewise reduce by one degree the penalty
penalty must be lowered, to meet the different situations which under article 51 should be imposed for an attempt
anticipated by law. to commit any of such crimes (RPC, Article 250).

Bases for the determination of the extent of penalty

to be imposed under the RPC Duration of Penalties (Art. 27)

1. The stage reached by the crime in its development The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be from twenty
(either attempted, frustrated or consummated); (20) years and one (1) day to forty (40) years.

2. The participations therein of the persons liable; and The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be from twelve
(12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years.
3. The aggravating or mitigating circumstances which
attended the commission of the crime. The duration of the penalties of prision mayor and
temporary disqualification shall be from six (6) years and
In the different stages of execution in the one (1) day to twelve (12) years, except when the penalty of
commission of the crime and in the participation therein of disqualification is imposed as an accessory penalty, in which
the persons liable, the penalty is graduated by degree. case, its duration shall be that of the principal penalty.

9
 7/27/2017

Subsidiary Imprisonment Subsidiary Imprisonment

If the convict has no property with which to meet the

2. When the principal penalty imposed be only a fine,
fine, he shall be subject to a subsidiary personal liability at
the subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed six months, if
the rate of one day for each eight pesos, subject to the
the culprit shall have been prosecuted for a grave or less
following rules:
grave felony, and shall not exceed fifteen days, if for a light
felony.
1. If the principal penalty imposed be prision
correccional or arresto and fine, he shall remain under
3. When the principal penalty imposed is higher than
confinement until his fine referred in the preceding
prision correccional, no subsidiary imprisonment shall be
paragraph is satisfied, but his subsidiary imprisonment shall
imposed upon the culprit.
not exceed one-third of the term of the sentence, and in no
case shall it continue for more than one year, and no
fraction or part of a day shall be counted against the
prisoner.

Adoption of the technical nomenclature of Spanish penalty

Subsidiary Imprisonment RPC is not generally applicable to malum prohibitum. However, when a special law,
which punished malum prohibitum, adopts the technical nomenclature of the
penalties in RPC, the provisions under this Code shall apply (People vs. Simon, G.R.
4. If the principal penalty imposed is not to be No. 93028, July 29, 1994) such as: (1) Article 68 on the privilege mitigating
executed by confinement in a penal institution, but such circumstance of minority; (2) Article 64 on application on penalty in its minimum
period if there is confession; and (3) Article 160 on special aggravating circumstance
penalty is of fixed duration, the convict, during the period of quasi-recidivism.
of time established in the preceding rules, shall continue
to suffer the same deprivation as those of which the RA No.7080 and RA No. 10591 adopt the nomenclature of the penalties in RPC.
Hence, minority, confession (Jacaban vs. People, G.R. No. 184955, March 23, 2015;
principal penalty consists. Malto vs. People, G.R. No. 164733, September 21, 2007) or quasi-recidivism shall
be considered in plunder and illegal possession of loose firearm.
5. The subsidiary personal liability which the convict Under Section 98 of RA No. 9165, the provisions of RPC shall not apply except in
may have suffered by reason of his insolvency shall not the case of minor offenders. Hence, if the accused is a minor, privilege mitigating
relieve him from the fine in case his financial circumstance of minority (People vs. Mantalaba G.R. No. 186227, July 20, 2011;
People vs. Musa, G.R. No. 199735, October 24, 2012; Asiatico vs. People, G.R No.
circumstances should improve. 195005, September 12, 2011), confession or quasi-recidivism (People vs. Salazar,
G.R. No. 98060, January 27, 1997) shall be considered in crime involving dangerous
drugs. In this case, life imprisonment shall be considered as reclusion perpetua. If
the accused is an adult, these circumstances shall not be appreciated.

10
 7/27/2017

Adoption of the technical nomenclature of Spanish penalty

Incorrect Penalty

If the special law (such as RA No. 6325 on hijacking and RA No. 3019 one The court should prescribe the correct penalties
corruption) did not adopt the technical nomenclature of penalties in RPC, the latter
shall not apply. Mitigating circumstance of confession shall not be appreciated since
in complex crimes in strict observance of Article 48 of
the penalty not borrowed from RPC cannot be applied in its minimum period. The the Revised Penal Code. In estafa through
crime has no attempted or frustrated stage since penalty not borrowed from RPC
cannot be graduated one or two degrees lower.
falsification of commercial documents, the court
should impose the penalty for the graver offense in
Mitigating circumstance of old age can only be appreciated if the accused is over 70
years old at the time of the commission of the crime under RA No. 3019 and not at
the maximum period. Otherwise, the penalty
the time of promulgation of judgment (People vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 177105-06, prescribed is invalid, and will not attain finality (De
August 12, 2010, J. Bersamin). Moreover, this mitigating circumstance of old age
cannot be appreciated in crime punishable by RA No. 3019 since this law did not
Castro vs. People, G.R. No. 171672, February 02,
adopt the technical nomenclature of the penalties of the RPC. 2015, J. Bersamin).

De Castro vs. People

(G.R. No. 171672, February 02, 2015, J. Bersamin)
De Castro vs. People
The guilt of the petitioner for four counts of estafa through falsification (G.R. No. 171672, February 02, 2015, J. Bersamin)
of a commercial document was established beyond reasonable doubt. As a
bank teller, she took advantage of the bank depositors who had trusted in her In Criminal Case No. 94-5525, involving P2,000.00, the estafa is
enough to leave their passbooks with her upon her instruction. punished with four months and one day of arresto mayor in its maximum
period to two years and four months of prision correccional in its minimum
In the four criminal cases involved in this appeal, the falsification of period. The falsification of commercial document is penalized with prision
commercial documents is punished with prision correccional in its medium and correccional in its medium and maximum periods (i.e., two years, four
maximum periods (i.e., two years, four months and one day to six years) months and one day to six years) and a fine of P5,000.00. The latter
and a fine of P5,000.00. In contrast, the estafa is punished according to the offense is the graver felony, and its penalty is to be imposed in the
value of the defraudation. maximum period, which is from four years, nine months and 11 days to
six years plus fine of P5,000.00. The penalty next lower in degree
In Criminal Case No. 94-5524, estafa was the graver felony
is arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its
because the amount of the fraud was P20,000.00; hence, the penalty
for estafa is to be imposed in its maximum period. However, the RTC and the
minimum period (i.e., four months and one day to two years and four
CA fixed the indeterminate sentence of two years, 11 months and 10 days months). Thus, the indeterminate sentence of three months of arresto
of prison correccional, as minimum, to six years, eight months and 20 days mayor, as minimum, to one year and eight months of prision
of prision mayor, as maximum. Such maximum of the indeterminate penalty correccional, as maximum that both the RTC and the CA fixed was
was short by one day, the maximum period of the penalty being six years, erroneous. The SC rectified the error by prescribing in lieu thereof the
eight months and 21 days to eight years. Thus, the indeterminate sentence indeterminate sentence of two years of prision correccional, as minimum,
is corrected to three years of prison correccional, as minimum, to six to four years, nine months and 11 days of prision correccional plus
years, eight months and 21 days of prision mayor, as maximum. fine of P5,000.00, as maximum.

11
 7/27/2017

De Castro vs. People De Castro vs. People

(G.R. No. 171672, February 02, 2015, J. Bersamin) (G.R. No. 171672, February 02, 2015, J. Bersamin)

In Criminal Case No. 94-5526, involving P10,000.00, the RTC In Criminal Case No. 94-5527, where the amount of the fraud was
and the CA imposed the indeterminate sentence of four months and 20 P35,000.00, the penalty for estafa (i.e., prision correccional in its maximum
days of arresto mayor, as minimum, to two years, 11 months and 10 days period to prision mayor in its minimum period, or four years, two months
of prision correccional, as maximum. However, the penalty for the and one day to eight years) is higher than that for falsification of
falsification of commercial documents is higher than that for the estafa. To commercial documents. The indeterminate sentence of two years, 11
accord with Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for months and 10 days of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight years
falsification of commercial documents (i.e., prision correccional in its of prision mayor, as maximum, was prescribed. Considering that the
medium and maximum periods and a fine of P5,000.00) should be maximum period ranged from six years, eight months and 21 days to eight
imposed in the maximum period. Accordingly, the SC revised the years, the CA should have clarified whether or not the maximum of eight
indeterminate sentence so that its minimum is two years and four months years of prision mayor already included the incremental penalty of one
of prision correccional, and its maximum is five years of prision year for every P10,000.00 in excess of P22,000.00. Absent the
correccional plus fine of P5,000.00. clarification, we can presume that the incremental penalty was not yet
included. Thus, in order to make the penalty clear and specific, the
indeterminate sentence is hereby fixed at four years of prision
correccional, as minimum, to six years, eight months and 21 days
of prision mayor, as maximum, plus one year incremental penalty. In other
words, the maximum of the indeterminate sentence is seven years, eight
months and 21 days of prision mayor.

Incorrect Penalty Incorrect Penalty

In Fransdilla vs. People, (GR No. 197562, April 20, 2015, J. In People vs. Fontanilla, G.R. No. 177743, January 25,
Bersamin), the trial judge fixed the indeterminate sentence at 2012, J. Bersamin - The trial court sentenced the accused to suffer
"imprisonment of 12 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months reclusion perpetua to death for murder. This is erroneous.
of reclusion temporal as minimum to 17 years, 4 months and 1 day to Reclusion perpetua and death should not be imposed as a
20 years of reclusion temporal as maximum". This is a patent compound, alternative or successive penalty for a single felony. In
elementary error. Considering that the clear objective of the ISLAW is short, the imposition of one precluded the imposition of the other.
to have the convict serve the minimum penalty before becoming
eligible for release on parole, both the minimum and the maximum Article 64 of RPC provides the rules on application of
penalties must be definite, not ranging. This objective cannot be
divisible penalty. Under this provision, the penalty prescribed for a
achieved otherwise, for determining when the convict would be eligible
felony shall be applied in its proper imposable period based on the
for release on parole would be nearly impossible if the minimum and
the maximum were as indefinite as the RTC fixed the indeterminate
presence of modifying circumstances.
sentence. Indeed, that the sentence is an indeterminate one relates
only to the fact that such imposition would leave the period between
the minimum and the maximum penalties indeterminate "in the sense
that he may, under the conditions set out in said Act, be released from
serving said period in whole or in part."

12
 7/27/2017

Incorrect Penalty Incorrect Penalty

Under Article 249 of RPC, the penalty for homicide is reclusion

Under Article 349 of RPC, the penalty for bigamy temporal. In the absence of any modifying circumstances, reclusion temporal
is prision mayor. In the absence of modifying shall be applied in its medium period, which ranges from 14 years, 8 months
circumstances, prision mayor pursuant to Article 64 shall be and 1 day to 17 years and 4 months. Applying Article 64, within the limits of
the medium period of reclusion temporal, the courts shall determine the
applied in its medium period, which ranges from 8 years and extent of the penalty according to the number and nature of the aggravating
1 day to 10 years. Applying the ISLAW, the minimum of the and mitigating circumstances and the greater or lesser extent of the evil
indeterminate sentence should be within the range of prision produced by the crime. Thus, the court could not impose the highest penalty
correccional, the penalty next lower than that prescribed for of the medium period of reclusion temporal, and that, is 17 years and 4
the offense, which is from 6 months and 1 day to 6 years. months without specifying the justification for so imposing. Without proper
justification, the court should impose the lowest penalty of the medium period
Accordingly, the indeterminate sentence of 2 years and 4 of reclusion temporal, and that is, 14 years, 8 months. Since ISLAW is
months of prision correccional, as minimum, to 8 years and 1 applicable, 14 years, 8 months shall be considered as the maximum penalty
day of prision mayor as maximum is proper. (Lasanas vs. while the minimum penalty shall be fixed within the limits of prision mayor,
People, G.R. No. 159031, 23 June 2014, J. Bersamin) which ranges from 6 years and 1 day to 12 years. Hence, the accused is
sentenced to suffer 10 years of prision mayor as minimum indeterminate
penalty to 14 years, 8 months of reclusion temporal as maximum penalty.
(Ladines vs. People, G.R. No. 167333, 11 January 2016, J. Bersamin)

Probation Law
(P.D. No. 968, as amended)
Probation Law
(P.D. No. 968, as amended) Disqualified Offenders (Sec. 9) The benefits of this law
shall not extend to those:
Definition
(a) sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of
"Probation" is a disposition under which a more than six years;
defendant, after conviction and sentence, is released
subject to conditions imposed by the court and to the (b) convicted of any offense against the security of the
supervision of a probation officer. State;

(c) who have previously been convicted by final judgment of

an offense punished by imprisonment of not less than one
(1) month and one (1) day and/or a fine of not less than Two
Hundred (200) Pesos;

13
 7/27/2017

Probation Law
Probation Law (P.D. No. 968, as amended)
(P.D. No. 968, as amended) Francisco v. Court of Appeals
(G.R. No. 108747; 6 April 1995)

Disqualified Offenders (Sec. 9) The benefits of this Probation is a special privilege granted by the state to a penitent
law shall not extend to those: qualified offender. It essentially rejects appeals and encourages an
otherwise eligible convict to immediately admit his liability and save the
state of time, effort and expenses to jettison an appeal. The law
(d) who have been once on probation; and expressly requires that an accused must not have appealed his
conviction before he can avail of probation. This outlaws the
(e) who are already serving sentence at the time the element of speculation on the part of the accused to wager on the
substantive provisions of this law became applicable. result of his appeal that when his conviction is finally affirmed on
appeal, the moment of truth well-nigh at hand, and the service of his
sentence inevitable, he now applies for probation as an "escape hatch"
thus rendering nugatory the appellate court's affirmance of his
conviction. Consequently, probation should be availed of at the first
opportunity by convicts who are willing to be reformed and
rehabilitated, who manifest spontaneity, contrition and remorse.

Probation Law
(P.D. No. 968, as amended) Probation Law
(P.D. No. 968, as amended)
Lagrosa v. People
(GR. No. 152044, 3 July 2003)
Lagrosa v. People
Petitioners Domingo Lagrosa and Osias Baguin were convicted by (GR. No. 152044, 3 July 2003)
the Regional Trial Court of Tagbilaran of violating Section 68 of P.D 705, as
amended (the Revised Forestry Code), for having in their possession forest
products without the requisite permits. The trial court sentenced them to suffer Petitioners contend that they should be allowed to apply for
the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from two (2) years, four (4) months probation even if they had already appealed the decision of the trial
and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years of court. They argue that their case should be considered an exception to
prision mayor, as maximum. the general rule which excludes an accused who has appealed his
conviction from the benefits of probation. To bolster this assertion,
Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) which modified and
petitioners claim that what prompted them to appeal the decision of the
reduced the penalty to an indeterminate penalty ranging from six (6) months
and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to one (1) year, eight (8)
trial court was the erroneous penalty imposed by the trial court.[
months and twenty one (21) days of prision correccional, as maximum. They
then filed for Probation with the trial court but such was denied. The CA, upon
petition for certiorari, affirmed the decision of the trial court. Aggrieved, the
petitioners raised the issue to the Supreme Court asserting that the application
for probation was made at the first opportunity.

14
 7/27/2017

Probation Law
Probation Law
(P.D. No. 968, as amended)
(P.D. No. 968, as amended)
Lagrosa v. People
Lagrosa v. People
(GR. No. 152044, 3 July 2003)
(GR. No. 152044, 3 July 2003)

HELD: The Supreme Court held that petitioners are not

HELD: The petitioners may not be granted probation.
being candid when they claimed that what prompted them to
The trial court sentenced petitioners to a maximum term of appeal the decision of the trial court was the erroneous penalty it
eight years, which was beyond the coverage of the imposed. The fact that petitioners put the merits of their
Probation Law. They only became eligible for probation after conviction in issue on appeal belies their claim that their
the Court of Appeals modified the judgment of the trial court appeal was prompted by what was admittedly an incorrect
and reduced the maximum term of the penalty imposed on penalty. Certainly, the protestations of petitioners connote a
them to one year, eight months and twenty-one days. profession of guiltlessness, if not complete innocence, and do not
Having appealed from the judgment of the trial court and simply assail the propriety of the penalties imposed. For sure,
having applied for probation only after the Court of Appeals petitioners never manifested that they were appealing only for the
had affirmed their conviction, petitioners were clearly purpose of correcting a wrong penalty to reduce it to within
probationable range.
precluded from the benefits of probation.

Probation Law
Probation Law
(P.D. No. 968, as amended)
(P.D. No. 968, as amended)
Arnel Colinares v. People
Lagrosa v. People
(G.R. No. 182748; 13 December 2011)
(GR. No. 152044, 3 July 2003)
The accused was convicted by the RTC for Frustrated Homicide
punishable by imprisonment of more than six (6) years. On appeal, the
HELD: Hence, upon interposing an appeal, more so Supreme Court found him guilty of Attempted Homicide which offense
after asserting their innocence therein, petitioners should be is punishable by less than six (6) years imprisonment. The accused
precluded from seeking probation. By perfecting their appeal, then applied for probation. The Supreme Court held that the
petitioners ipso facto relinquished the alternative remedy of accused should be granted probation although he appealed from
availing of the Probation Law, the purpose of which is simply the judgment of conviction. The ruling in Francisco does not
to prevent speculation or opportunism on the part of an apply because Arnel Colinares has no right to choose whether or
accused who, although already eligible, does not at once not to appeal or apply for probation since the stiff penalty that the
apply for probation, but did so only after failing in his appeal. trial court imposed on him denied him that choice. It was only after
he appealed the judgment of conviction that he was granted the right
to apply for probation. The ruling in Francisco remains that those who
will appeal from judgments of conviction, when they have the option to
try for probation, forfeit their right to apply for that privilege.

15
 7/27/2017

Probation Law
(P.D. No. 968, as amended) Probation Law
(P.D. No. 968, as amended)
Padua v. People
(G.R. No. 168546, 23 July 2008)
Section 42 of R.A. No. 9344 provides:
Michael Padua was charged and convicted for violation of Section
5, Article II of Rep. Act No. 9165 for selling dangerous drugs. Under Probation as an Alternative to Imprisonment. -
Section 24 of Rep. Act No. 9165, any person convicted of drug
trafficking cannot avail of the privilege of probation. The law
The court may, after it shall have convicted and
considers the users and possessors of illegal drugs as victims while sentenced a child in conflict with the law, and upon
the drug traffickers and pushers as predators. Hence, while drug application at any time, place the child on probation in
traffickers and pushers, like Michael Padua, are categorically lieu of service of his/her sentence taking into account the
disqualified from availing the law on probation, youthful drug best interest of the child. For this purpose, Section 4 of
dependents, users and possessors alike, are given the chance to
mend their ways.
Presidential Decree No. 968, otherwise known as the
"Probation Law of 1976", is hereby amended
Thus, while the provisions of R.A. 9165, particularly Section 70 accordingly.
thereof, deals with Probation or Community Service for First-
Time Minor Offender in Lieu of Imprisonment, minor Michael
Padua who was charged and convicted of violating Section 5,
Article II, R.A. 9165, cannot avail of probation.

Probation Law
Probation Law
(P.D. No. 968, as amended)
(P.D. No. 968, as amended)

Arrest of Probationer (Sec. 15)

Period of Probation (Sec. 14)
At any time during probation, the court may issue a
(a) The period of probation of a defendant sentenced to a
warrant for the arrest of a probationer for violation of any
term of imprisonment of not more than one year shall
of the conditions of probation.
not exceed two years, and in all other cases, said
The probationer, once arrested and detained, shall
period shall not exceed six years.
immediately be brought before the court for a hearing,
which may be informal and summary, of the violation
(b) When the sentence imposes a fine only and the
charged.
offender is made to serve subsidiary imprisonment in
The defendant may be admitted to bail pending such
case of insolvency, the period of probation shall not be
hearing. In such a case, the provisions regarding release
less than nor to be more than twice the total number of
on bail of persons charged with a crime shall be applicable
days of subsidiary imprisonment as computed at the
to probationers arrested.
rate established in the RPC.

16
 7/27/2017

Probation Law Probation Law

(P.D. No. 968, as amended) (P.D. No. 968, as amended)

Arrest of Probationer (Sec. 15)

Termination of Probation; Exception (Sec. 16)
If the violation is established, the court may revoke or
continue his probation and modify the conditions thereof. After the period of probation and upon consideration
If revoked, the court shall order the probationer to serve of the report and recommendation of the probation
the sentence originally imposed. officer, the court may order the final discharge of the
probationer upon finding that he has fulfilled the terms
An order revoking the grant of probation or modifying the
terms and conditions thereof shall not be appealable.
and conditions of his probation and thereupon the
case is deemed terminated.

Probation Law Indeterminate Sentence Law

(P.D. No. 968, as amended)
(a) Application on the imposed sentence

Termination of Probation; Exception (Sec. 16)

In imposing a prison sentence for an offense
The final discharge of the probationer shall operate punished by the Revised Penal Code, or its
to restore to him all civil rights lost or suspend as a amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to
result of his conviction and to fully discharge his an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of
liability for any fine imposed as to the offense for which shall be that which, in view of the attending
which probation was granted. circumstances, could be properly imposed under the
rules of said Code, and the minimum which shall be
The probationer and the probation officer shall each within the range of the penalty next lower to that
be furnished with a copy of such order. prescribed by the Code for the offense.

17
 7/27/2017

Indeterminate Sentence Law Indeterminate Sentence Law

(a) Application on the imposed sentence (b) Coverage

If the offense is punished by any other law The Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable
(Special Law), the court shall sentence the accused to to:
an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which
shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the a. Those convicted of offenses punished with
minimum shall not be less than the minimum term death penalty or life imprisonment;
prescribed by the same.
b. Those convicted of treason, conspiracy or
proposal to commit treason or espionage;

Indeterminate Sentence Law Indeterminate Sentence Law

(b) Coverage (b) Coverage

The Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable The Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable
to: to:

c. Those convicted of misprision of treason, e. Those who are habitual delinquents, i.e.,
rebellion, sedition or coup d' etat; those who, within a period of ten (10) years from the
date of release from prison or last conviction of the
crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries,
d. Those convicted of piracy or mutiny on the robbery, theft, estafa, and falsification, are found guilty
high seas or Philippine waters; of any of said crimes a third time or oftener;

18
 7/27/2017

Indeterminate Sentence Law

Indeterminate Sentence Law
(b) Coverage

(b) Coverage The Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable to:

The Indeterminate Sentence Law is not h. Those whose maximum term of imprisonment does
applicable to: not exceed one (1) year or those with definite sentence;

f. Those who escaped from confinement or i. Those convicted of offenses punished with reclusion
evaded sentence; perpetua, or whose sentences were reduced to reclusion
perpetua by reason of Republic Act No. 9346 enacted on June
24, 2006, amending Republic Act No. 7659 dated January 1,
g. Those who having been granted conditional 2004; and
pardon by the President of the Philippines shall have
violated any of the terms thereof; j. Those convicted for violation of the laws on terrorism,
plunder and transnational crimes.

Indeterminate Sentence Law Indeterminate Sentence Law

Conditions of Parole Conditions of Parole

Every prisoner released from confinement on parole The limits of residence of such paroled prisoner during
shall report personally to such government officials or other his parole may be fixed and from time to time changed by
parole officers appointed by the Board of Indeterminate the said Board in its discretion. If during the period of
Sentence for a period of surveillance equivalent to the surveillance such paroled prisoner shall show himself to be
remaining portion of the maximum sentence imposed upon a law-abiding citizen and shall not violate any law, the Board
him or until final release and discharge by the Board of of Indeterminate Sentence may issue a final certificate of
Indeterminate Sentence. The officials so designated shall release in his favor, which shall entitle him to final release
keep such records and make such reports and perform such and discharge (Sec. 6).
other duties as may be required by said Board (Sec. 6).

19
 7/27/2017

Mandatory application of ISLAW

Indeterminate Sentence Law
The application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law is mandatory to both the
Revised Penal Code and the special laws (Romero vs. People, G.R No.
171644, November 23, 2011). However, the Supreme Court, in People vs.
Conditions of Parole Nang Kay, G.R. No. L-3565, April 20, 1951, has provided an exception. In this
case, the accused pleased guilty to offense where the law prescribed a penalty
Whenever any prisoner released on parole, during the of 5 to 10 years imprisonment. The court sentenced the accused to suffer 5
years of imprisonment. The Supreme Court sustained the penalty. Fixing the
period of surveillance, violate any of the conditions of his penalty at the minimum limit without applying Act No. 4103 is favorable to the
parole, the Board of Indeterminate Sentence may issue accused since the accused shall be automatically released upon serving 5
years of imprisonment. Applying Act No. 4103 would lengthen the penalty
an order for his re-arrest which may be served in any because the indeterminate maximum penalty must be necessarily more than 5
part of the Philippines by any police officer. In such case years (People vs. Arroyo, G.R. No. L-35584-85, February 13, 1982). However,
the Nang Kay principle is not applicable where the crime is punishable under
the prisoner so re-arrested shall serve the remaining the Revised Penal Code. The application of ISLAW is always mandatory if the
unexpired portion of the maximum sentence for which he penalty is prescribed by RPC since it is favorable to the accused. It is favorable
was originally committed to prison, unless the Board of to the accused since in fixing the minimum penalty, the prescribed penalty
under the Code shall be lowered by one degree. On the other hand, in fixing the
Indeterminate Sentence shall, in its discretion, grant a minimum penalty for offense under special law involved in the Nang Kay case, the
new parole to the said prisoner (Sec. 8). prescribed penalty shall not be lowered (People vs. Judge Lee, Jr, G.R. No. 66859,
September 12, 1984).

Mandatory application of ISLAW Rules for the Application of Indivisible Penalties

(RPC, Article 63)

The Nang Kay principle is not also applicable where the accused does not In all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible
deserve a lenient penalty. In Batistis vs. People, G.R. No. 181571, penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any
December 16. 2009, the SC through Justice Bersamin said the Nang Kay mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended
exception is not applicable where there is no justification for lenity towards
the commission of the deed.
the accused since he did not voluntarily plead guilty, and the crime
committed is a grave economic offense because of the large number of
fake Fundador confiscated. 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:

1. When in the commission of the deed there is present only

one aggravating circumstance, the greater penalty shall be applied.

2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating

circumstances in the commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall
be applied.

20
 7/27/2017

Rules for the Application of Indivisible Penalties

Rules for the Application of Indivisible Penalties
(RPC, Article 63) Special Mitigating Circumstance

Accused was found guilty of parricide punishable by the penalty of

reclusion perpetua to death. Applying the rules for application of indivisible
3. When the commission of the act is attended by some penalties (Article 63), the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be
mitigating circumstances and there is no aggravating circumstance, applied if there are two mitigating circumstance. The penalty cannot be
the lesser penalty shall be applied. lowered to reclusion temporal, no matter how many mitigating
circumstances are present. The special mitigating circumstance is found in
4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances rules for application of divisible penalties (Article 64), which is not
attended the commission of the act, the court shall reasonably allow applicable because the penalty is not divisible (People v. Takbobo, G.R.
them to offset one another in consideration of their number and No. 102984, June 30, 1993). The Takbobo principle is also applicable if the
penalty prescribed by law for the crime committed is a single indivisible
importance, for the purpose of applying the penalty in accordance
penalty such as reclusion perpetua.
with the preceding rules, according to the result of such
compensation. If there are three mitigating circumstance and one aggravating
circumstance, special mitigating circumstance for purposes of graduating
the penalty shall not be appreciated. Although there are two remaining
mitigating circumstances after applying the off-set rule, the penalty shall not
be lowered by one degree because the appreciation of special
circumstance requires that there is no aggravating circumstance.

Rules for the Application of Indivisible Penalties Application of Divisible Penalties

Offset Rule

Only ordinary aggravating and mitigating circumstances are There are four kinds of divisible penalty, which are
subject to the offset rule. Privileged mitigating circumstance of minority governed by Article 64, to wit:
cannot be off-set by ordinary aggravating circumstance (Aballe v. People,
G.R. No. L-64086, March 15, 1990). If privileged mitigating circumstance
and ordinary aggravating circumstance attended the commission of felony, (1) Penalty composed of three periods fixed in
the former shall be taken into account in graduating penalty; the latter in accordance with Article 76;
applying the graduated penalty in its maximum period (People v. (2) Penalty not composed of three periods computed in
Lumandong, G.R. NO. 132745, March 9, 2000, En Banc). Quasi-recidivism
is a special circumstance and cannot be offset by a generic mitigating accordance with Article 65;
circumstance (People v. Macariola, G.R. No. L-40757, January 24, 2983). (3) Complex penalty under Article 77, par. 1; and
The circumstance of treachery, which qualifies the killing into murder, (4) Penalty without specific legal form under Article 77,
cannot be offset by a generic mitigating circumstance voluntary surrender
(people v. Abletes and Pamero, G.R. No. L-33304, July 31, 1974). par. 2

21
 7/27/2017

Rules for the Application of Penalties which contain Rules for the Application of Penalties which contain
Three Periods Three Periods
(RPC, Article 64) (RPC, Article 64)

In cases in which the penalties prescribed by law contain 3. When only an aggravating circumstance is present in the
three periods, whether it be a single divisible penalty or composed of commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its maximum
three different penalties, each one of which forms a period in period.
accordance with the provisions of Articles 76 and 77, the court shall
observe for the application of the penalty the following rules, 4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances are
according to whether there are or are not mitigating or aggravating present, the court shall reasonably offset those of one class against
circumstances: the other according to their relative weight.

1. When there are neither aggravating nor mitigating 5. When there are two or more mitigating circumstances and
circumstances, they shall impose the penalty prescribed by law in its no aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall impose the
medium period. penalty next lower to that prescribed by law, in the period that it may
deem applicable, according to the number and nature of such
2. When only a mitigating circumstances is present in the circumstances.
commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its minimum
period.

Rules for the Application of Penalties which contain Penalty Containing Three Periods
Three Periods
(RPC, Article 64)
Article 76 of RPC expressly fixed the range of the
6. Whatever may be the number and nature of the period for reclusion temporal, prision mayor, temporary
aggravating circumstances, the courts shall not impose a greater disqualification, prision correccional, destierro, suspension,
penalty than that prescribed by law, in its maximum period. arresto mayor, and arresto menor. To find the range of the
periods of any of the aforesaid penalties, one will simply read
7. Within the limits of each period, the court shall determine Article 76. If the crime committed is homicide and there is
the extent of the penalty according to the number and nature of the
one mitigating circumstance of confession, the prescribed
aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the greater and lesser
extent of the evil produced by the crime.
penalty of reclusion temporal shall be applied in its minimum
period because of Article 64. Article 76 expressly states that
the range of the minimum period of reclusion temporal is from
12 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months. Within the
range of this period, the maximum indeterminate penalty
shall be fixed.

22
 7/27/2017

Penalty Containing Three Periods Penalty Containing Three Periods

Determining the legal duration of the minimum,

The range of the minimum, medium and maximum medium and maximum periods of each penalty.
periods fixed in accordance with Article 76 is one-third equal
portion of the respective penalties except arresto mayor. The legal duration of each period of a penalty is determined
by dividing the duration of the penalty by three periods. The
Under Article 76, the minimum period of arresto mayor
quotient is then added to the start of the duration of each penalty.
ranges from 1 month and 1 day to 2 months; medium period
ranges from 2 month and 1 day to 4 months; and maximum Illustration:
period ranges from 4 months and 1 day to 6 months. Hence,
the time included in the duration of the minimum period of Prision mayor 6 years and 1 day as minimum to 12 years
arresto mayor is only one month while that of the medium as maximum.
and maximum is two months.
Step 1: Subtract the minimum / lower limit (disregarding 1 day) from
the maximum / upper limit.

Thus: 12 years 6 years = 6 years

Penalty Containing Three Periods Penalty Containing Three Periods

Determining the legal duration of the minimum, Determining the legal duration of the minimum,
medium and maximum periods of each penalty. medium and maximum periods of each penalty.

Step 2: Divide the difference of 6 years by 3 periods. The quotient is Step 5: To get the maximum period, add 1 day to 10 years, which is
2 years. the upper limit of the medium period of prision mayor. Thereafter,
add 2 years. The duration of the maximum period of prision mayor
Step 3: Add 2 years to the start of the minimum period of 6 years. is 10 years and 1 day to 12 years.
The minimum period of prision mayor is 6 years and 1 day to 8
years; 1 day is added to the lower limit of the minimum period to The same formula and procedure are followed in computing
distinguish it from the maximum period of prision correccional. the duration of the period of the other penalties.

Step 4: To distinguish the lower limit of the medium period from the
upper limit of the minimum period, add 1 day to 8 years, which is
the upper limit of the minimum period. Thereafter, add 2 years. The
duration of the medium period of prision mayor is 8 years and 1 day
to 10 years.

23
 7/27/2017

Rule in cases in which the Penalty is Not Composed Penalty Not Composed of Three Periods
of Three Periods
(RPC, Article 65) Penalties with divisible duration, the periods of which
are not expressly mentioned in Article 76 are called penalties
In cases in which the penalty prescribed by law is not composed of three periods; since Article 76 has not fixed
the duration of their periods, they must be computed in
not composed of three periods, the courts shall apply the
accordance with Article 65. Under this provision, the time
rules contained in the foregoing articles, dividing into included in the duration of penalty shall be divided into three
three equal portions of time included in the penalty equal portions and periods shall be formed from each portion.
prescribed, and forming one period of each of the three
portions. The penalty for malversation under paragraph 2 of
Article 217 of the RPC is prision mayor in its minimum and
medium period. The range of this penalty is not found in
Article 76. Considering that this penalty is not composed of
three periods, the time included in the penalty prescribed
should be divided into three equal portions, which each
portion forming one period, pursuant to Article 65 (Zafra v.
People, G.R. No. 176317, July 23, 2014, J. Bersamin).

Penalty Not Composed of Three Periods Penalty Not Composed of Three Periods

The minimum, medium and maximum periods shall be formed out

The duration of prision mayor in its minimum and medium of 3 equal portions of the penalty. The time included in the duration
period is 6 years and 1 day to 10 years. To determine the of each period is 1 year and 4 months.
time included in the duration, deduct one day and the
lower limit of the prescribed penalty from its upper limit. 6 years
+1 year and 4 months
10 years------------------upper limit 7 years and 4 months
-6 years and 1 day-----lower limit +1 year and 4 months
-1 . 8 years and 8 months
4 years-------------------time included in the duration of +1 year and 4 months
10 years
penalty
Thus, the minimum period of the prescribed penalty of prision
Fours years, which is the time included in the duration shall mayor in its minimum and medium periods ranges from 6 years
be divided into three equal portions. and 1 day to 7 years and 4 months; its medium period ranges from
7 years, 4 months and 1 day to 8 years and 8 months; its maximum
4 years/3 = 1 year and 4 months-----1/3 portion of the period ranges from 8 years , 8 months and 1 day to 10 years (Zafra
penalty v. People, G.R. No. 176317, July 23, 2014, J. Bersamin).

24
 7/27/2017

Complex Penalty Complex Penalty

Complex penalty is composed of three distinct penalties. The periods Prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its
of complex penalty is formed in accordance with Article 77, par. 1. medium period prescribed for simple robbery under Article 294 of RPC
Applying this provision, each of the components of the complex is a complex penalty since it is composed of three distinct penalties.
penalty shall form a period; the lightest of them shall be the Thus, prision correccional in its maximum period, which is the lightest
minimum, the next the medium, and the most severe the maximum of the three, shall be minimum period of this prescribed penalty. Prision
period. mayor in its minimum period, which is the most severe, shall be the
maximum period. In sum, prision correccional in its maximum period to
Reclusion temporal to death prescribed for treason committed by prision mayor in its medium period prescribed for robbery shall be
resident alien under Article 114 of the RPC is a complex penalty. This broken down as follows:
penalty is composed of three distinct penalties, namely: reclusion
temporal, reclusion perpetua and death penalty. Out of these three Minimum: Prision correccional in its maximum period
components, periods shall be formed in accordance with Article 77, (4 years, 2 months and 1 day to 6 years)
par. 1. Thus, reclusion temporal, which is the lightest of the three, shall Medium: Prision mayor in its minimum period
be minimum period of penalty of reclusion temporal to death; reclusion (6 years and 1 day to 8 years)
perpetua, which is the next penalty, shall be the medium period; death Maximum: Prision mayor in its medium period
penalty, which is the most severe, shall be the maximum period. Thus, (8 years and 1 day to 10 years)
in the absence of modifying circumstances, reclusion temporal to death
See: People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 168173, December 24, 2008, En Banc, People v. Barrientos, G.R. No. 119835, January 28,
prescribed for treason shall be applied in its medium period, and that 1998, En Banc, People v. Castillo, G.R. No. L-11793, May 19, 1961, En Banc, People v. Diamante, G.R. No. 180992, September
is, reclusion perpetua. 4, 2009, and People v. Lumiwan, G.R. Nos. 122753-56, September 7, 1998.

Penalty Without Specific Legal Form

Complex Penalty
Reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua prescribed for mutilation under Article 262
is a penalty without a specific form (People v. Romero, G.R. No. 112985, April 21,
Reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua 1999). The duration of its periods is not fixed by Article 76. This penalty cannot be
divided into three equal portions in accordance with Article 65 since it has an
prescribed for sexual abuse under Section 5 (b) of RA No. 7610 is a indivisible component, and that, is reclusion perpetua. It is not a complex penalty
complex penalty since it is composed of three distinct penalties. under Article 77, par. 1 since it merely is merely composed of two distinct penalties.
Applying Article 77, par, 1, this complex penalty can be broken down Thus, its periods shall be determined in accordance with Article 77, par. 2, which
as follows: provides that the periods shall be distributed, applying for analogy the prescribed
rules. Applying Article 77, par. 1 by analogy, the maximum period shall be formed out
of the most severe penalty, and that is, reclusion perpetua. Applying Article 65 by
Minimum: Reclusion temporal in its medium period
analogy, the duration of reclusion temporal shall be divided into two equal portions
(14 years, 8 months and 1 day to 17 years and 4 months) and minimum and medium periods shall be formed from each portion. Applying
Medium: Reclusion temporal in its maximum period Article 77, par. 3, reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua is broken as follows:
(17 years, 4 months and 1 day to 20 years)
Maximum: Reclusion perpetua Minimum: Lower half of reclusion temporal
(12 years and 1 day to 16 years)
Medium: Higher half of reclusion temporal
See: People v. Morante, G.R. No. 187732, November 28, 2012
(16 years and 1 day to 20 years)
Maximum: Reclusion perpetua

See: People v. Macabando, G.R. No. 188708, July 31, 2013; People v. Romero, G.R. No. 112985, April 21, 1999; Gonzales v.
People, G.R. No. 159950, February 12, 2007; and People v. Olivia, G.R. No. 122110, September 26, 2000

25
 7/27/2017

Penalty Without Specific Legal Form

Penalty of offense under special law
Reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua prescribed for
malversation under Article 217 is a penalty without specific form. The duration of its
periods is not fixed by Article 76. This penalty cannot be divided into three equal
The penalty for possession of dangerous drugs is 12 years and 1 day to 20 years of
portions in accordance with Article 65 since reclusion perpetua component is not
imprisonment. The court cannot impose a straight penalty of 12 years and 1 day
divisible. It is not a complex penalty under Article 77, par. 1 since it is merely
since the application of indeterminate sentence law is mandatory (unless the
composed of two distinct penalties. Thus, its periods shall be determined in
accused deserves a lenient penalty by confessing pursuant to the Nang Kay
accordance with Article 77, par. 2. Applying this provision, the maximum period shall
principle). Applying the ISLAW, the minimum indeterminate penalty shall not be less
be formed out of the most severe penalty, and that is, reclusion perpetua. The
than 12 years and 1 day while the maximum shall not exceed 20 years. Thus, the
duration of reclusion temporal in its maximum period shall be divided into two equal
court can sentence the accused to suffer 15 years of imprisonment as minimum to
portions, and minimum and medium periods shall be formed from each portion. In
18 years as maximum (Asiatico vs. People. G.R No. 195005, September 12, 2011;
sum, reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua is broken down
Escalante vs. People, G.R. No. 192727, January 9, 2013)
as follows:
Under Section 9 of RA 3019, the penalty for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 is
Minimum: Lower half of reclusion temporal in its maximum period
imprisonment for not less than 6 years and 1 months and not more than 15 years.
(17 years, 4 months and 1 day to 18 years and 8 months)
Applying the ISLAW, the minimum indeterminate penalty shall not be less than 6
Medium: Higher half of reclusion temporal in its maximum period
years and 1 month while the maximum shall not exceed 15 years. Thus, the court
(18 years, 8 months and 1 day to 20 years)
can sentence the accused to suffer 6 years and 1month of imprisonment as
Maximum: Reclusion perpetua
minimum to 10 years as maximum (People vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 177105-06, August
See: Estepa v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 59670, February 15, 1990, Torres v. People, G.R. No. 175074, August 31, 2011, 12, 2010, Bersamin)
Cabarlo v. People, G.R. No. 172274, November 16, 2006; Mesina v. People, G.R. No. 162489, June 17, 2015, Bersamin.

THANK YOU!

26