Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
LAW 1 REVIEWER
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
212
III. When Maximum Of The Penalty Shall Be Imposed (Special
Aggravating Circumstance That Cant Be Offset By A Generic Mitigating
Circumstance)
1. When in the commission of the crime, advantage was taken by
the offender of his public position;
2. If the offense was committed by any person who belongs to an
organized/syndicated crime group.
IV. What Is An Organized/Syndicated Crime Group?
Means a group of 2 or more persons collaborating
confederating or mutually helping one another for purposes of
gain in the commission of any crime
PARAGRAPH 2:
The same rule applies with respect to aggravating circumstances
which are inherent in the crime.
o Example: Evident premeditation is inherent in robbery
and theft (U.S. Castroverde)
PARAGRAPH 3:
I. Aggravating Or Mitigating Which Arise From:
1. Moral attributes of offender
2. From his private relations with offended party
3. From any other personal cause
These serve to aggravate or mitigate liability of: principals,
accomplices, accessories as to whom such circumstances are
attendant.
II. Examples
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
213
B. Means To Accomplish The Crime
A ordered B to kill C. B used poison without knowledge of A.
Only B will suffer the aggravating circumstance.
II. There Is No Mitigating Circumstance Relating To The Means
Employed In The Execution Of The Crime
It is impossible to conceive of any mitigating circumstance
which can properly be considered as to one of the defendants,
but is not equally applicable to the rest, EVEN to those who had
no knowledge of the same at the time of the commission of the
crime, or their cooperation therein.
III. Difference Between (1) Circumstances Relating To Persons
Participation In The Same And (2) Circumstances Consisting In The
Material Execution Of The Means Employed
Persons Participation
Material Execution / Means Employed
Do not affect all the Have a direct bearing upon the criminal
participants in the crime but liability of all the defendants who had
only those to whom they knowledge thereof at the time of the
particularly apply.
commission of the crime, or of their
cooperation therein.
Example: People v. Villanueva
Defendants though forming of the conspiracy of kidnapping,
were not the ones who actually kidnapped the victim.
Thus, they are not bound or affected by the aggravating
circumstance of nighttime UNLESS THEY KNEW about it prior.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
214
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
215
IV. Subsequence Crime Must Be Committed AFTER CONVICTION Of
Former Crime
If (1) the second crime was committed before his first conviction
and (2) the fourth before his third conviction, and (3) the fifth
and sixth were committed on the same day, the six convictions
(although different in dates) are equivalent to only three.
V. The culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided by law for
the last crime of which he be found guilty
If the accused is tried for robbery and previously convicted of
theft and estafa, robbery is the last crime and if found guilty the
penalty for robbery shall be imposed, while also be declared a
habitual delinquent.
A. Additional Penalty For Habitual Delinquency
1. Upon 3rd conviction additional penalty of prision correctional
in its medium and maximum periods.
2. Upon 4th conviction additional penalty of prision mayor in its
minimum and medium periods.
3. Upon 5th conviction additional penalty of prision mayor in is
maximum period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period.
B. Rational:
If after undergoing punishment for his previous crimes, he
continuous to commit said crimes, he is deemed to have shown
a dangerous propensity to crimes. Hence, he is punished with a
severer penalty for committing any of those crimes the third
time or oftener.
Purpose of the law: to render more effective social defense and
the reformation of multi-recidivists.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
216
Article 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties.
In all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it
shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or
aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of
the deed.
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.
3. When the commission of the act is attended by some
mitigating circumstance and there is no aggravating
circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances attended
the commission of the act, the courts shall reasonably allow
them to offset one another in consideration of their number
and importance, for the purpose of applying the penalty in
accordance with the preceding rules, according to the result of
such compensation.
POINTS
I. Inoperative Because Of Republic Act No. 9346
In light of this only reclusion perpetua is indivisible.
Cannot be affected by generic mitigating circumstances BUT it
can be affected by privileged mitigating circumstances (like
Article 68 & 69).
o Privileged mitigating always considered whether
divisible or indivisible penalty.
II. Outline Of The Rules
1. When penalty consists of 1 indivisible: applied regardless of any
mitigating or aggravating circumstances
2. When penalty is composed of 2 indivisible penalties:
a. Only 1 aggravating greater penalty shall be imposed
b. No aggravating nor mitigating lesser penalty imposed
c. A mitigating and no aggravating lesser penalty
imposed.
d. Both mitigating and aggravating court will allow
them to offset one another.
III. Article 63 Applies Only When The Penalty Prescribed By The Code Is
Either One Indivisible Penalty Or Two Indivisible Penalties
Article 63 does NOT apply if penalty prescribed: reclusion
temporal in max period to death (Because even if it includes 2
indivisible penalties = it has 3 periods of reclusion temporal
max-min, reclusion perpetua-med, Death-max) Article 64
shall apply in this case)
A. Example Of Single And Indivisible Penalty
Reclusion Perpetua for:
o Kidnapping and failure to return a minor (Article 270)
o Rape (Article 266-B)
Death for:
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
217
B. Example Of Two Indivisible Penalties
Reclusion perpetua to Death for:
o Parricide (Article 246)
o Robbery with homicide (Article 294, paragraph 1)
o Kidnapping and serious illegal detention without
intention to extort ransom (Article 267)
o Rape committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by
two or more persons (Article 266-B)
IV. When The Penalty Is Composed Of Two Indivisible Penalties, The
Penalty Cannot Be Lowered By One Degree, No Matter How Many
Mitigating Circumstances Are Present
A. General Rule:
When there are 2 or more mitigating and NO aggravating
court cannot proceed by analogy to provisions of subsection 5
Article 64 (imposition of one degree lower penalty)
US v. Relador: Commission of crime of parricide punishable of
RP to Death but attended by two mitigating (illiteracy and lack
of intention to commit so grave a wrong) and NO aggravating
court imposed one degree lower penalty (Article 64 subsection
5)
HELD: Wrong penalty imposed it should be Article 63 applied
B. Exception: When a privileged mitigating circumstance under Article
68 or Article 69 is present.
If circumstance present is a privileged mitigating circumstance
under Article 68 or Article 69 offender may get a penalty one
or two degrees lower
V. Moral value, not numerical weight of circumstances should prevail.
This is as regards paragraph 4 of Article 63
VI. Mitigating Circumstance Is Not Necessary To Impose Reclusion
Perpetua When The Crime Is Punishable With Two Indivisible Penalties
Of Reclusion Perpetua To Death.
Reason: under Article 63 when crime is penalized with 2
indivisible penalties (reclusion perpetua to death) lesser
penalty should be imposed even when there is no mitigating
circumstance present.
Article 64. Rules for the application of penalties which contain three
periods.
In cases in which the penalties prescribed by law contain three
periods, whether it be a single divisible enalty or composed of three
different penalties, each one of which forms a period in accordance
with the provisions of Articles 76 and 77, the courts shall observe for
the application of the penalty the following rules, according to
whether there are or are no mitigating or aggravating circumstances:
1. When there are neither aggravating nor mitigating
circumstances, they shall impose the penalty prescribed by law
in its medium period.
2. When only a mitigating circumstance is present in the
commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its
minimum period.
3. When only an aggravating circumstance is present in the
commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
218
5.
6.
7.
maximum period.
When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances are
present, the court shall reasonably offset those of one class
against the other according to their relative weight.
When there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no
aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall impose
the penalty next lower to that prescribed by law, in the period
that it may deem applicable, according to the number and
nature of such circumstances.
Whatever may be the number and nature of the aggravating
circumstances, the courts shall not impose a greater penalty
than that prescribed by law, in its maximum period.
Within the limits of each period, the courts shall determine the
extent of the penalty according to the number and nature of
the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the greater
or lesser extent of the evil produced by the crime.
POINTS
I. Article 64 applies only when the penalty has 3 periods.
Article 64 applies when penalty prescribed by law for offense
RT, PM, PC, AM, Am, PC to RT, etc. = because theyre divisible
into 3 periods (minimum, medium, maximum).
When law prescribes single divisible penalty (ex. RT for
homicide) as in Article 76 is distributed in 3 equal parts each
part forms a period called min, med and max.
If penalty made up of 3 diff penalties: PC to RT
Each forms a period according to Article 77
PC = min
PM = med
RT = max
PM is included bec. Its between PC and RT in Scale No. 1 Article
71
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
219
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
220
Article 65. Rules in cases in which the penalty is not composed of
three periods.
In cases in which the penalty prescribed by law is not composed of
three periods, the courts shall apply the rules contained in the
foregoing articles, dividing into three equal portions the time included
in the penalty prescribed, and forming one period of each of the three
portions.
POINTS
I. Purpose Of The Rule
This is applied when the law prescribes a penalty not composed
of three periods (like robbery in an uninhabited place whose
penalty is PC in medium to maximum.)
Just divide the period given by 3 to get the min, med and max.
II. Meaning Of The Rule
1. Compute and determine first the 3 periods of the entire
penalty.
2. Time included in penalty prescribed divided into 3 equal
portions after subtracting minimum (eliminate 1 day) from
maximum of penalty
3. Min or minimum period should be the minimum of the given
penalty (including 1 day)
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
221
IV. Fines Are Not Divided Into Three Equal Portions
The courts are not bound to divide the amount of fine
prescribed by law into 3 equal portions (as in case of
imprisonment imposed in relation to a divisible penalty).
V. Considerations In Imposing Fines
A. Wealth Or Means Of Culprit Is Main Consideration In Fine
Wealth or means of culprit is emphasized because fixed amount
of fine for ALL offenders of particular crime result to
inequality (ex. P100 for rich versus poor man)
o Example: Laborer earning P208/month who has to pay
P20 versus Office worker with P800/month who has to
pay P50 fine for laborer more severe if ever.
To impose same amount of fine for same offense upon persons
differently circumstances penalty of unequal severity =
unjustly discriminatory (People v. Ching Kuan).
B. But Mitigating And Aggravating Circumstances Are Not Entirely
Disregarded. Factors Other Than Financial Condition Of Accused May
Be Considered By Court.
Article 66 says mitigating and aggravating circumstances may
also be considered by court.
Also other factors such as:
o Gravity or seriousness of crime committed
o Heinousness of its perpetration
o Magnitude of its effects on victim(s) (People v. Manuel)
o Position and standing of accused considered
aggravating in gambling.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
222
Article 67. Penalty to be imposed when not all the requisites of
exemption of the fourth circumstance of Article 12 are present.
When all the conditions required in the circumstance number 4 of
Article 12 of this Code to exempt from criminal liability are not
present, the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision
correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon the culprit,
if he shall have been guilty of a grave felony, and arresto mayor in its
minimum and medium periods, if of a less grave felony.
POINTS
I. Article 67 Applies Only When All The Requisites Of The Exempting
Circumstance Of Accident Are Not Present
Article 12(4) Exempting circumstance of accident.
Four conditions necessary to exempt from liability under
Subsection 4 of Article 12:
a. Act causing the injury be lawful; permitted not only by
law but also by regulations.
b. Performed with due care.
c. Injury is caused by mere accident (example: by an
unforeseen event)
d. There be no fault or intention to cause the injury.
Lack of requisites in performance of lawful act AM max to PC
minimum (if grave), AM min to med (if less grave)
II. If All These Conditions Are Not Present:
Article 68. Penalty to be imposed upon a person under eighteen
years of age.
When the offender is a minor under eighteen years and his case is one
coming under the provisions of the paragraph next to the last of
Article 80 of this Code, the following rules shall be observed:
1. Upon a person under fifteen but over nine years of age, who is
not exempted from liability by reason of the court having
declared that he acted with discernment, a discretionary
penalty shall be imposed, but always lower by two degrees at
least than that prescribed by law for the crime which he
committed.
2. Upon a person over fifteen and under eighteen years of age
the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be
imposed, but always in the proper period.
POINTS
I. Article 68 Has Been Partly Repealed By Juvenile Justice Act
Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code (penalty for person under
18 years old) is partly repealed by Republic Act 9344, which
provides that:
a. Child 15 years and below exempt from criminal
responsibility (paragraph 1 repealed).
b. Child 15-18 years old exempt from criminal liability
UNLESS acted with discernment (paragraph 2 modified).
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
223
If court sees that objective of disposition measures imposed
upon child in conflict with the law was NOT fulfilled or child in
conflict with the law willfully failed to comply with conditions of
his/her disposition or rehab program child in conflict with the
law will be brought to court for execution of judgment. The
child shall enjoy the privileged mitigating circumstance under
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
224
C. A penalty lower by one or two degrees than that prescribed by law
shall be imposed x x x in the period which may be deemed proper, in
view of the number and nature of the conditions of exemption present
or lacking.
Court has discretion to impose 1 or 2 degrees lower than
prescribed by law for offense.
o In determining proper period of penalty that is 1 or 2
degrees lower, the court must consider number and
nature of conditions of exemption or justification
present or lacking.
Article 69 makes it privileged mitigating because the penalty is
lowered by one or two degrees.
o Hence, incomplete self-defense (for example) cannot be
offset by any aggravating circumstances.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
225
11. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted
for, the right to follow profession or calling, and
12. Public censure.
Notwithstanding the provisions of the rule next preceding, the
maximum duration of the convicts sentence shall not be more than
threefold the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the
penalties imposed upon him. No other penalty to which he may be
liable shall be inflicted after the sum of those imposed equals the said
maximum period.
Such maximum period shall in no case exceed forty years.
In applying the provisions of this rule the duration of perpetual
penalties (pena perpetua) shall be computed at thirty years. (As
amended by Com. Act No. 217.)
POINTS
I. Outline Of The Provisions Of This Article:
1. When culprit has to serve 2 or more penalties serve them
simultaneously (if nature of penalties permit).
2. Otherwise, order of their respective severity shall be followed.
3. Respective severity of penalties is as follows:
a. Death
b. Reclusion Perpetua
c. Reclusion Temporal
d. Prision Mayor
e. Prision Correccional
f. Arresto Mayor
g. Arresto menor
h. Destierro
i. Perpetual absolute disqualification
j. Temporary absolute disqualification
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
226
A. Computation
Step 1: get the most severe penalty meted out as listed in
Article 70
Step 2: Multiply the duration of that by 3
Step 3: Add the duration of all the different sentences
Step 4: Compare the results of 2 and 3
Step 5: Accused to serve the lesser period, unless it is in excess
of 40 years in which case the culprit shall serve only 40 years.
B. The Phrase The Most Severe Of Penalties Includes Equal Penalties
Fact: Sentenced for 6 cases of estafa. Each of which is 3 months
and 11 days of arresto mayor.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
227
IV. The judge should NOT refrain from imposing the correct penalties
even if these would exceed the limitation of penalties in this article.
This article deals with SERVICE of sentence, not with imposition.
The court should impose the correct penalties even if these will
amount to more than the lifetime of the prisoner.
Why? Because when the convict is pardoned, he should still
serve the other sentences meted on him.
V. Duration Of The Convicts Sentence Refers To Several Penalties For
Different Offenses, Not Yet Served Out.
If the convict already served sentence for one offense prior to
the commission and/or conviction for another offense, the
former will not be considered in the three-fold rule.
The second sentence should only commence after the 1st.
Successive nga eh.
Accused is convicted for 10 counts of rape, all reclusion
perpetua. How long should he remain in jail? 40 years.
o What sentence should accuse serve first? Parepareho
lang naman eh. Justice Callejo: Follow order of docket
numbers. Article 70 doesnt strictly apply (People v.
Conte).
VI. Subsidiary Imprisonment Forms Part Of The Penalty
The result from the three-fold rule will be the aggregate
principal penalty which the principal has to serve. IN ADDITION,
he will have to pay all indemnities with or without subsidiary
imprisonment PROVIDED the principal penalty does not
exceed/is not higher than 6 years.
Bagtas v. Director of Prisons
o Facts: A guilty of 17 crimes. Most severe is 6 months
and 1 day PLUS a fine of P1,000.
VII. Different Systems Of Penalty
Material accumulation system no limitation; all penalties for
all violations were imposed even if they reached beyond the
natural span of human life.
o Article 70, Par. 1,2,3 follow this.
Juridical accumulation system Service of several penalties is
limited to not more than three-fold the max and will not exceed
40 years.
o Article 70, Par. 4,5,6 follow this.
Absorption system Observed in the imposition of the
penalty in complex crimes (Article 48), continuing crimes, and
specific crimes like robbery with homicide, etc.
Article 71. Graduated Scales.
In cases in which the law prescribes a penalty lower or higher by one
or more degrees than another given penalty, the rules prescribed in
Article 61 shall be observed in graduating such penalty.
The lower or higher penalty shall be taken from the graduated scale in
which is comprised of the given penalty.
The courts, in applying such lower or higher penalty shall observe the
following graduated scales:
SCALE NO. 1 (Scale for personal penalties)
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
228
Death
Reclusion perpetua
Reclusion temporal
Prision mayor
Prision correccional
Arresto mayor
Destierro
Arresto menor
Public censure
Fine
SCALE NO. 2 (Scale for penalties depriving political rights)
1. Perpetual absolute disqualification
2. Temporary absolute disqualification
3. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted
for, and the right to follow a profession or calling
4. Public censure
5. Fine
POINTS
I. Death Shall No Longer Form Part Of The Equation In Article 71
Pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346
o This has the effect of appropriately downgrading the
proper penalties attaching to accomplices, accessories,
frustrated and attempted felonies to the level
consistent with the rest of the penal laws.
Since this law bars the application of the death penalty, such
effect necessarily extends to its relevance to the graduated
scale of penalties under Article 71.
o There can be no harmony between Republic Act No.
9346 and the Revised Penal Code unless the later
statute is construed as having downgraded those
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
229
purpose of the
successive service
of sentences)
observed in
graduating
penalties in Article
61
Location of Destierro is Destierro is below Destierro is above
Destierro
above arresto arresto menor
arresto menor
menor
Article 72. Preference in the payment of the civil liabilities.
The civil liabilities of a person found guilty of 2 or more offenses shall
be satisfied by following the chronological order of the dates of the
final judgments rendered against him, beginning with the first in order
of time.
POINTS
I. Applicability
This article applies when the offender who is found guilty of 2 or
more offenses is required to pay civil liabilities resulting from
the same.
II. Order Of Payment Of Civil Liabilities
The order is not based on the dates of the commission.
It is based on the dates of the final judgment.
CLASS DISCUSSION
Is it possible for the payment of civil liabilities to differ from how
the criminal liabilities are served?
Is civil liability imposed/specified or considered as an attached
like accessory penalties? Or must it be expressly imposed?
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
230