CRIM. TIPS

8/12/2019 CRIM. TIPS

1/27

Complex Crime vs. Compound Crime (2004)

Distinguish clearly but briefly: Between compound and

complex crimes as concepts in the Penal Code.SUGGESTED ANSWER:

COMPOUD C!"M#$ result when the offender

committed only a single felonious act from which two or

Criminal Law Bar Examination Q & A (1994-2006)

more crimes resulted. %his is pro&ided for in modified

form in the first part of 'rticle ()* !e&ised Penal Code*

limiting the resulting crimes to only gra&e and+or less

gra&e felonies. ,ence* light felonies are excluded e&en

though resulting from the same single act.

COMP-# C!"M#$ result when the offender has to

commit an offense as a necessary means for committing

another offense. Only one information shall be filed and

if pro&en* the penalty for the more serious crime shall be

imposed.

Complex Crime vs. Special Complex Crime vs. DelitoContinuado (2005)Distinguish the following from each other:SUGGESTED ANSWER:

'n O!D"'!/ COMP-# C!"M# is made up of two

or more crimes being punished in distinct pro&isions ofthe !e&ised Penal Code but alleged in one information

either because they were brought about by a singlefelonious act or because one offense is a necessary

means for committing the other offense or offenses.

%hey are alleged in one information so that only onepenalty shall be imposed. 's to penalties* ordinary

complex crime* the penalty for the most serious crime

shall be imposed and in its maximum period

' $P#C"'- COMP-# C!"M#* on the other hand* is

made up of two or more crimes which are considered

only as components of a single indi&isible offense beingpunished in one pro&ision of the !e&ised Penal Code. 's

to penalties* special complex crime* only one penalty is

specifically prescribed for all the component crimes

which are regarded as one indi&isible offense. %he

component crimes are not regarded as distinct crimes and

so the penalty for the most serious crime is not the

penalty to be imposed nor in its maximum period. "t isthe penalty specifically pro&ided for the special complex

crime that shall be applied according to the rules on

imposition of the penalty.

D#-"%O CO%"U'DO* or CO%"UOU$ C!"M#* is

a term used to denote as only one crime a series of

felonious acts arising from a single criminal resolution* not

susceptible of di&ision* which are carried out in the same

place and at about the same time* and &iolating one and the

same penal pro&ision. %he acts done must be impelled by

one criminal intent or purpose* such that each act merelyconstitutes a partial execution of a particular crime*

&iolating one and the same penal pro&ision. "t in&ol&es aconcurrence of felonious acts &iolating a common right* a

common penal pro&ision* and "mpelled by a single

criminal impulse (People vs. Ledesma, 73 SCRA 77).

Complex Crime; Aberratio ictus vs. error in personae(14)Distinguish aberratio ictus from error in personae.SUGGESTED ANSWER:

28of 86

'berratio ictus or mista0e in the blow occurs when a

felonious act missed the person against whom it was

directed and hit instead somebody who was not the

intended &ictim. #rror in personae* or mista0e in identity

occurs when the felonious act was directed at the person

intended* but who turned out to be somebody else.

'berratio ictus brings about at least two 123 felonious

conse4uence* ie. the attempted felony on the intended

&ictim who was not hit and the felony on the unintended&ictim who was hit. ' complex crime of the first formunder 'rt. ()* !PC generally result. "n error in personae

only one crime is committed

Complex Crime; Aberratio !ctus" #rror !n $ersonae %$raeter !ntentionem (1)

5hat do you understand by aberratio ictus: error in

personae6 and praeter intentionem7 Do they alter the

criminal liability of an accused7 #xplain. 1(83SUGGESTED ANSWER:

'B#!!'%"O "C%U$ or mista0e in the blow occurs

when the offender deli&ered the blow at his intended

&ictim but missed* and instead such blow landed on an

unintended &ictim. %he situation generally brings aboutcomplex crimes where from a single act* two or moregra&e or less gra&e felonies resulted* namely the attempt

against the intended &ictim and the conse4uence on the

unintended &ictim. 's complex crimes* the penalty for

the more serious crime shall be the one imposed and in

the maximum period. "t is only when the resulting

felonies are only light that complex crimes do not result

and the penalties are to be imposed distinctly for each

resulting crime.

#!!O! " P#!$O'# or mista0e in identity occurs

when the offender actually hit the person to whom the

blow was directed but turned out to be different from

and not the &ictim intended. %he criminal liability of theoffender is not affected* unless the mista0e in identity

resulted to a crime different from what the offenderintended to commit* in which case the lesser penalty

between the crime intended and the crime committed

shall be imposed but in the maximum period (Art. 49,

RFC).

P!'#%#! "%#%"O#M or where the conse4uence

went beyond that intended or expected. %his is a

mitigating circumstance 1'rt. 9. par. * !PC3 when

there is a notorious disparity between the act or means

employed by the offender and the resulting felony* i*e.*the resulting felony could not be reasonably anticipated

or foreseen by the of fender from the act or means

employed by him.

Complex Crime; Aberratio !ctus; Attempted &urder 'itomicide (2000)

Despite the massi&e ad&ertising campaign in mediaagainst firecrac0ers and gun;firing during the ew /eara bought ten boxes of superlolo and pla;pla in Bocaue* Bulacan. Before midnight of

December 9* 9???* =onas and =a>a started their


celebration by ha&ing a drin0ing spree at =onaa* can be charged with the complex crime

of attempted murder with homicide because a single act

caused a less gra&e and a gra&e felony 1'rt. (). !PC3.

'ttempted murder is a less gra&e felony* whileconsummated homicide is a gra&e felony: both are

punishable by afflicti&e penalties.

Complex Crime; Doctrine o* Aberratio !ctus; +otApplicable (1,)

't the height of an altercation* Pedrito shot Paulo but

missed* hitting %iburcio instead* resulting in the death of

the latter. Pedrito* in&o0ing the doctrine of aberratio

ictus* claims exemption from criminal liability. "f youwere the >udge* how would you decide the case7SUGGESTED ANSWER:

"f " were the =udge* " will con&ict Pedrito and find himguilty of the complex crime of ,omicide with

'ttempted ,omicide. %he single act of firing at Paulo

resulted in the commission of two felonies* one gra&e

1homicide3 and the other less gra&e 1attempted

homicide3 thus falling s4uarely under 'rt. ()* !PC6

hence* the penalty would be for the more serious crime

1homicideA in its maximum period 19 years ( months

and 9 day to 2 years3.'berratio ictus 1mista0e in the blow3 could not be used

as a defense as it is not an exempting circumstance.

Pedrito is liable under the principle of 'rt. (* !PC*

which ma0es a person criminally liable for all the natural

and logical conse4uences of his felonious act

29of 86

Complex Crimes; Coup d-etat % rebellion % sedition(200)

93 Can there be a complex crime of coup dority for the imposition

of the death penalty is not obtained. (3 5hen the person

is con&icted of a capital crime but before execution

becomes insane. @3 5hen the accused is a woman while

she is pregnant or within one year after deli&ery. #xplain

your answer or choice briefly. 1@83

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

'. Understanding the word FinflictedF to mean theimposition of the death penalty* not its execution* thecircumstance in which the death penalty cannot be

inflicted is no. 2: Fwhen the guilty person is more than

years of ageF 1'rt. (* !e&ised Penal Code3. "nstead*

the penalty shall be commuted to reclusion perpetua*

with the accessory penalties pro&ided in 'rticle (* !EC.

"n circumstance no. 9 when the guilty person is at least

9) years of age at the time of the commission of the


crime* the death penalty can be imposed since the

offender is already of legal age when he committed the

crime.

Circumstance no. no longer operates* considering the

decision of the Supreme Court in People vs. Eren

!ateo (".R. #47$7%&%7, 'ul 7, **4)pro&iding an

intermediate re&iew for such cases where the penaltyimposed is death* reclusion perpetua or life

imprisonment before they are ele&ated to the $upreme

Court."n circumtances nos. ( G @* the death penalty can beimposed if prescribed by the law &iolated although its

execution shall be suspended when the con&ict becomes

insane before it could be executed and while he is

insane.-i0ewise* the death penalty can be imposed upon awoman but its execution shall be suspended during her

pregnancy and for one year after her deli&ery.ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

%he word F"E-"C%#DF is found only in 'rt. ) to theeffect that the death penalty may not be F"E-"C%#DF

upon a pregnant woman* such penalty is to be suspended."f F"E-"C%#DF is to be construed as F##CU%"OF*

then o. @ is the choice.

Deat $enalt/; uali*ied 3ape; 3euisites (2004)

H was con&icted of raping %C* his niece* and he was

sentenced to death. "t was alleged in the information that

the &ictim was a minor below se&en years old* and her

mother testified that she was only six years and ten

months old* which her aunt corroborated on the witness

stand. %he information also alleged that the accused was

the &ictimudgment at the time of appro&al of this 'ct6 and 93

those whose sentence imposes penalties which do not

in&ol&e imprisonment* li0e destierro.

$enalties6 7ine or !mprisonment vs. Subsidiar/!mprisonment (2005)

# and M are con&icted of a penal law that imposes a

penalty of fine or imprisonment or both fine and

imprisonment. %he >udge sentenced them to pay the fine*>ointly and se&erally* with subsidiary imprisonment in

case of insol&ency. "s the penalty proper7 #xplain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

%he penalty is not proper. %he two accused must

separately pay the fine* which is their penalty. $olidary

liability applies only to ci&il liabilities.ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

O* because in penal law when there are se&eral

offenders* the court in the exercise of its discretion shall

determine what shall be the share of each offender

depending upon the degree of participation as principal*

accomplice or accessory. "f within each class of

offender* there are more of them* such as more than oneprincipal or more than one accomplice or accessory* the

liability in each class of offender shall be subsidiary.'nyone of the may be re4uired to pay the ci&il liability

pertaining to such offender without pre>udice to reco&ery

from those whose share ha&e been paid by another.

0a& the 1ud!e i"pose an alternati2e penalt& of fine

or i"prison"ent$ Eplain 3/%SUGGESTED ANSWER:

33of 86

o. ' fine* whether imposed as a single or as an

alternati&e penalty* should not and cannot be reduced or

con&erted into a prison term. %here is no rule for

transmutation of the amount of a fine into a term of

imprisonment. (People v. 2a0u0u, ".R. o. L&4+#7 !a

+, #9%9)

$enalties6 $ecuniar/ $enalties vs. $ecuniar/ iabilities(2005)

Distinguish pecuniary penalties from pecuniaryliabilities. 1283SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Pecuniary liabilities do not include restitution* but

include reparation of damages caused* the

indemnification for conse4uential damages* as well asfines and cost of the proceedings.

Pecuniary penalties include fines and cost of the

proceedings.

$enalties; Complex Crime o* #sta*a (18)

' was con&icted of the complex crime of estafa through

falsification of public document. $ince the amount"n&ol&ed did not exceed P2.* the penalty prescribed

by law for estafa is arresto mayor in its medium and

maximum periods. %he penalty prescribed by law for

falsification of public document is prision mayor plus

fine not to exceed P@*.. "mpose the proper prison

penalty.SUGGESTED ANSWER:

%he proper penalty is '/ !'# 5"%," prision

correccional 1six 1L3 months and one 193 day to six 1L3

years3 as M""MUM* to '/ !'# within prisionmayor maximum 1ten 193 years and one 193 day to

twel&e 1923 years3 as M'"MUM. %his is in accordance

with People us* onIales* Phil* @(?* where "t was

ruled that for the purpose of determining the penalty nextlower in degree* the penalty that should be considered as

a starting point is the whole of prision mayor* it being the

penalty prescribed by law* and not prision mayor in its

maximum period* which is only the penalty actually

applied because of 'rticle () of the !e&ised Penal Code.

%he penalty next lower in degree therefor is prisioncorreccional and it is within the range of this penalty that

the minimum should be ta0en.

$enalties; 7actors to Consider (11)

"magine that you are a =udge trying a case* and based onthe e&idence presented and the applicable law* you ha&e

decided on the guilt of two 123 accused. "ndicate the fi&e

1@3 steps you would follow to determine the exactpenalty to be imposed. $tated differently* what are the

factors you must consider to arri&e at the correct

penalty7SUGGESTED ANSWER:9 the crime committed6

2 $tage of execution and degree of participation6 Determine the penalty6

( Consider the modifying circumstances6@ Determine whether "ndeterminate $entence

-aw is applicable or not.


2/27

Criminal Law Bar Examination Q & A (1994-2006) 34of 86

$enalties; omicide '9 &odi*/in Circumstance (15)

,omer was con&icted of homicide. %he trial court

appreciated the following modifying circumstances: the

aggra&ating circumstance of nocturnity* and themitigating circumstances of passion and obfuscation* no

intent to commit so gra&e a wrong* illiteracy and

&oluntary surrender. %he imposable penalty for homicide

is reclusion temporal the range of which is twel&e 1923years and one 193 day to twenty 123 years. %a0ing into

account the attendant aggra&ating and mitigating

circumstances* and applying the "ndeterminate $entence

-aw* determine the proper penalty to be imposed on theaccused.SUGGESTED ANSWER:

"t appears that there is one aggra&ating circumstance

1nocturnity3* and four mitigating circumstances 1passion

and obfuscation* no intent to commit so gra&e a wrong as

that committed and &oluntary surrender3. Par. (* 'rt. L(

should be applied. ,ence there will be off;setting of

modifying circumstances* which will now result in the

excess of three mitigating circumstances. %his will

therefore >ustify in reducing the penalty to the minimumperiod.

%he existence of an aggra&ating circumstance* albeit

there are four aggra&ating* will not >ustify the lowering

of the penalty to the next lower degree under paragraph

@ of said 'rticle* as this is applicable only if %,#!# "$

O '!'H'%" C"!CUM$%'C# present.$ince the crime committed is ,omicide and the penalty

therefor is reclusion temporal* the M'"MUM sentenceunder the "ndeterminate $entence -aw should be the

minimum of the penalty* which is 92 years and 9 day to

9( years and ) months. %he M""MUM penalty will

thus be the penalty next lower in degree* which is

prision mayor in its full extent 1L years and 9 day to 92

years3. #rgo* the proper penalty would be L years and 9

day* as minimum* to 92 years and 9 day* as maximum. "

belie&e that because of the remaining mitigatingcircumstances after the off;setting it would be &ery

logical to impose the minimum of the M""MUM

sentence under the "$- and the minimum of the

M'"MUM sentence.$enalties; &itiatin Circumstances '9out AravatinCircumstance (18)'ssume in the preceding problem that there were two

mitigating circumstances and no aggra&ating circumstance.

"mpose the proper prison penalty.SUGGESTED ANSWER:

%here being two 123 mitigating circumstances withoutany aggra&ating circumstance* the proper prison penalty

is arresto mayor 1in any of its periods* ie. ranging from

one193 month and one 193 day to six 1L3 months3 as

M""MUM to prision correccional in its maximum

period four 1(3 years* two 123 months* and one 193 day to

six 1L3 years as M'"MUM. Under 'rt. L(* par. @ of the!e&ised Penal Code* when a penalty contains three

periods* each one of which forms a period in accordance

with 'rticle L and of the same Code* and there are

two or more mitigating circumstances and no aggra&ating

circumstances* the penalty next lower in degree should be

imposed. Eor purposes of the "ndeterminate $entence

-aw* the penalty next lower in degree should be

determined without regard as to whether the basic penalty

pro&ided by the !e&ised Penal Code should be applied in

its maximum or minimum period as circumstances

modifying liability may re4uire. %he penalty next lower

in degree to prision correccional. %herefore* aspre&iously stated* the minimum should be within therange of arresto mayor and the maximum is within the

range of prision correctional in its maximum period.

$enalties; $arricide '9 &itiatin Circumstance (18)

' and B pleaded guilty to the crime of parricide. %he

court found three mitigating circumstances* namely* plea

of guilty* lac0 of "nstruction and lac0 of intent to commit

so gra&e a wrong as that committed. %he prescribed

penalty for parricide is reclusion perpetua to death.

"mpose the proper principal penalty.SUGGESTED ANSWER:

%he proper penalty is reclusion perpetua. #&en if thereare two or more mitigating circumstances* a court cannot

lower the penalty by one degree 1'rt. L. par. * !e&ised

Penal Code6 People &s. Eormigones* ) Phil. L)@3. "n

U.$. &s. !elador L Phil. @?* where the crime

committed was parricide with the two 123 mitigating

circumstances of illiteracy and lac0 of intention tocommit so gra&e a wrong* and with no aggra&ating

circumstance* the $upreme Court held that the proper*

penalty to be imposed is reclusion perpetua.

$enalties; $reventive !mprisonment (14)

93 5hen is there pre&enti&e imprisonment7 23 5hen is

the accused credited with the full time of his pre&enti&e

imprisonment* and when is he credited with (+@thereof7SUGGESTED ANSWER:

93 %here is pre&enti&e imprisonment when Ja3 anoffender is detained while the criminal case against him

is being heard* either because the crime committed is a

capital offense and not bailable* or e&en if the crime

committed was bailable* the offender could not post the

re4uired bail for his pro&isional liberty.

23 'n accused is credited with the full time of his

pre&enti&e imprisonment if he &oluntarily agreed in

writing to abide by the rules of the institution imposedupon its prisoners* pro&ided that:

a3 the penalty imposed on him for the crimecommitted consists of a depri&ation of liberty6

b3 he is not dis4ualified from such credit for beinga recidi&ist* or for ha&ing been pre&iouslycon&icted for two or more times of any crime*or for ha&ing failed to surrender &oluntarily forthe execution of the sentence upon being sosummoned 1'rt. 2?* !PC3.


5here the accused howe&er did not agree he would only

be credited with (+@ of the time he had undergone

pre&enti&e imprisonment.

$enalties; 3eclusion $erpetua (3A) +o. 85 (2005)

Under 'rticle 2 of the !e&ised Penal Code* as amendedby !epublic 'ct 1!'3 o. ?@?* reclusion perpetua shall

be from 2 years and 9 day to ( years. Does this mean

that reclusion perpetua is now a di&isible penalty7

#xplain. 1283SUGGESTED ANSWER:

o* because the $upreme Court has repeatedly called the

attention of the Bench and the Bar to the fact that the

penalties of reclusion perpetua and life imprisonment are

not synonymous and should be applied correctly and as

may be specified by the applicable law. !eclusion

perpetua has a specific duration of 2 years and 9 day to( years 1'rt. 23 and accessory penalties 1'rt. (93*

while life imprisonment has no definite term or accessory

penalties. 'lso* life imprisonment is imposable on crimes

punished by special laws* and not on felonies in the Code(People vs. 2e "uman, ".R. os. +#3%+&%$, 'an. , #993

People vs. Estrella, ".R. os. 9+*$&*7, April %, #993People vs. Alvero,".R. o. 73#9, 'une 3*,#993 People vs. Lapiroso, ".R. o.

#+*7, Fe1. +, #999).see Criminal La5 Conspe0tus, pa6e

#+$-$enalties; 3eclusion $erpetua vs. i*e !mprisonment(14)Differentiate reclusion perpetua from life imprisonment.SUGGESTED ANSWER:

!#C-U$"O P#!P#%U' is that penalty pro&ided for

in the !e&ised Penal Code for crimes defined in andpenaliIed therein except for some crimes defined by

special laws which impose reclusion perpetua* such as

&iolations of !epublic 'ct L(2@* as amended by

!epublic 'ct L@? or of PD 9)L6 while -"E#

"MP!"$OM#% is a penalty usually pro&ided for inspecial laws. !eclusion perpetua has a duration of

twenty 123 years and one 193 day to forty J(K years

under !epublic 'ct L@?* while life imprisonment hasno duration6 reclusion perpetua may be reduced by one

or two degrees6 reclusion perpetuates accessory penalties

while life imprisonment does not ha&e any accessory

penalties (People vs. a6uio, #9$ SCRA 4+9, People vs.

Panellos, *+ SCRA +4$).$enalties; 3eclusion $erpetua vs. i*e !mprisonment(2001)

'fter trial* =udge =uan -aya of the Manila !%C found

Ben>amin arcia guilty of Murder* the &ictim ha&ing

sustained se&eral bullet wounds in his body so that he

died despite medical assistance gi&en in the Ospital ngManila. Because the weapon used by Ben>amin was

unlicensed and the 4ualifying circumstance of treachery

was found to be present. =udge -aya rendered hisdecision con&icting Ben>amin and sentencing him to

Freclusion perpetua or life imprisonmentF.

're Freclusion perpetuaF and life imprisonment the same

and can be imposed interchangeably as in the foregoing

sentence7 Or are they totally different7 $tate your

reasons. 183

35of 86

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

%he penalty of reclusion perpetua and the penalty of life

"mprisonment are totally different from each other andtherefore* should not be used interchangeably.

!eclusion perpetua is a penalty prescribed by the

!e&ised Penal Code* with a fixed duration of

imprisonment from 2 years and 9 day to ( years* and

carries it with accessory penalties.

-ife imprisonment* on the other hand* is a penalty

prescribed by special laws* with no fixed duration of

imprisonment and without any accessory penalty.

$robation a'6 $roper $eriod (2005)

Maganda was charged with &iolation of the Bouncing

Chec0s -aw 1BP 223 punishable by imprisonment of not

less than days but not more than 9 year or a fine of not

less than but not more than double the amount of the

chec0* which fine shall not exceed P2*.* or both.

%he court con&icted her of the crime and sentenced her to

pay a fine of P@*. with subsidiary imprisonment in

case of insol&ency* and to pay the pri&ate complainantthe amount of the chec0. Maganda was unable to pay the

fine but filed a petition for probation. %he court granted

the petition sub>ect to the condition* among others* that

she should not change her residence without the courtNs

prior appro&al.

a3 5hat is the proper period of probation7SUGGESTED ANSWER:

%he period shall not be less than twice the total number

of days of subsidiary imprisonment. Under 'ct o.

92* subsidiary imprisonment for &iolations of special

laws shall not exceed L months at the rate of one day ofimprisonment for e&ery E2.@. ,ence* the proper period

of probation should not be less than 1L months nor morethan 92 months. $ince P@*. fine is more than the

maximum subsidiary imprisonment of L months at P2.@

a day.

b3 $upposing before the Order of Discharge was issued

by the court but after the lapse of the period of probation*Maganda transferred residence without prior appro&al of

the court. May the court re&o0e the Order of Probation

and order her to ser&e the subsidiary imprisonment7

#xplain.SUGGESTED ANSWER:

/es. %he Court may re&o0e her probation. Probation is

not coterminous with its period. %here must first be

issued by the court an order of final discharge based onthe report and recommendation of the probation officer.

Only then can the case of the probationer be terminated.(ala v. !artine, ".R. o. $73*#, 'anuar 9, #99*, 0itin6

Se0. #$ o P.2. o. 9$%)

$robation a'; :arred b/ Appeal (14)

On Eebruary * 9?)L* !oberto was con&icted of arson

through rec0less imprudence and sentenced to pay a fine

of P9@*.* with subsidiary imprisonment in case of

insol&ency by the !egional %rial Court of ueIon City.


On Eebruary 9* 9?)L* he appealed to the Court of

'ppeals. $e&eral months later* he filed a motion to

withdraw the appeal on the ground that he is applying for

probation. On May * 9?)* the Court of 'ppeals granted

the motion and considered the appeal withdrawn.

On =une 9* 9?)* the records of the case were remanded

to the trial court. !oberto filed a FMotion for ProbationF

praying that execution of his sentence be suspended* and

that a probation officer be ordered to conduct an

"n&estigation and to submit a report on his probation.

%he >udge denied the motion on the ground that pursuant

to Presidential Decree o. 9??* which too0 effect on

=uly 9L*9?)L* no application for probation shall beentertained or granted if the defendant has perfected an

appeal from the >udgment of con&iction. "s the denial of

!oberto


3/27

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

9. "f " were the >udge* " will deny the application for

probation. %he accused is not entitled to probation as

$ec. ? of the Probation -aw* PD O. ?L)* as amended*

specifically mentions that those who Fare sentenced toser&e a maximum term of imprisonment of more than

six yearsF are not entitled to the benefits of the law.

2. %he law and >urisprudence are to the effect that appealby the accused from a sentence of con&iction forfeits his

right to probation.(Se0. 4, P2 o. 9$%. as amended 1 P2#99* ernardo us. ala6ot Fran0is0o vs. CA Llamado vs.CA 2e la Cru vs. 'ud6e Calle8o, CA 0ase).

:;is is t;e se0ond 0onse0utive ear t;at t;is

t is t;e sin0ere 1elie o

t;e Committee t;at t;ere is a need to re&

e?amine t;e do0trine. Firstl, mu0; as t;ea00used 5anted to appl or pro1ation ;e is

pros0ri1ed rom doin6 so as t;e ma?imum

penalt is /: PR/A:>/ALE. Se0ondl,

5;en t;e ma?imum penalt 5as redu0ed to one

5;i0; allo5s pro1ation it is 1ut air and 8ust to

6rant ;im t;at ri6;t 1e0ause it is apparent t;at

t;e trial 8ud6e 0ommitted an error and or

5;i0; t;e a00used s;ould not 1e made to suer.'udi0ial tri1unals in t;is 8urisdi0tion are not

onl 0ourts o la5 1ut also o et is su66ested, t;ereore, t;at an

e?aminee ans5erin6 in t;is tenor s;ould 1e0redited 5it; some points.

$robation a'; 3it; :arred b/ Appeal (200)=uan was con&icted of the !egional %rial Court of a crime

and sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for a

minimum of eight years. ,e appealed both his con&ictionand the penalty imposed upon him to the Court of

'ppeals. %he appellate court ultimately sustained =uanudgment of con&iction of the trialcourt* and therefore* cannot apply for probation anymore.

$ection ( of the Probation -aw* as amended*

37

of 86mandates that no application for probation shall beentertained or granted if the accused has perfected an

appeal from the >udgment of con&iction.

Suspension o* Sentence; Adults9&inors (200,)

%here are at least instances or situations in criminalcases wherein the accused* either as an adult or as a

minor* can apply for and+or be granted a suspended

sentence. #numerate at least @ of them. 1@83SUGGESTED ANSWER:

9. $uspension of sentence of minor under P.D.

L as amended by !.'. ?((.2. $uspension of sentence of minor abo&e 9@ but

below 9) years of age at the time of trial under !.'.

?((.. $uspension of sentence of minor abo&e 9@ but

below 9) years of age at the commission of the offense*

while acting with discernment.(. $uspension of sentence by reason of insanity

1'rt. ?* !e&ised Penal Code3.@. $uspension of sentence for first offense of a

minor &iolating !=H. ?9L@. 1$ec. 23

L. $uspension of sentence under the probationlaw. 1P.D. ?L)3. $uspension of death sentence of a pregnant

woman. 1'rt. )* !e&ised Penal Code3


4/27

(/:A EE R.A. 9344 is outside t;e 0overa6e o t;e

e?amination)

Suspension o* Sentence; &inors (200)

' was 2 months below 9) years of age when he

committed the crime. ,e was charged with the crime

months later. ,e was 2 when he was finally con&ictedand sentenced. "nstead of preparing to ser&e a >ail term*

he sought a suspension of the sentence on the ground

that he was a >u&enile offender $hould he be entitled to

a suspension of sentence7 !easons. (8SUGGESTED ANSWER:

o* ' is not entitled to a suspension of the sentence

because he is no longer a minor at the time of

promulgation of the sentence. Eor purposes of

suspension of sentence* the offender


5/27

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

9 . 'll are liable for the special complex crime of

robbery with homicide....

2. o* because the benefits of suspension of sentence is

not a&ailable where the youthful offender has been

con&icted of an offense punishable by life imprisonment

or death* pursuant to P.D. o. L* 'rt. 9?2* %he

complex crime of robbery with homicide is punishableby reclusion perpetua to death under 'rt. 2?( 193* !EC

JPeople vs. "alit. 3* SCRA 4%$).

EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL

LIABILITY

Amnest/ vs. $D 11,0 (200,)

Can former D$5D $ecretary Din0y $oliman apply for

amnesty7 ,ow about columnist !andy Da&id7 1/ou are

supposed to 0now the crimes or offenses ascribed to

them as published in almost all newspapers for the past

se&eral months.3 12.@83SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Proclamation 99L* which amended Proclamation 2(*

applies only to offenses committed prior to 9???. %hus*

their applications shall be ineffectual and useless.

eneral -im and eneral uerubin of the $cout!angers and Philippine Marines* respecti&ely* were

changed with conduct unbecoming an officer and agentleman under the 'rticles of 5ar. Can they apply for

amnesty7 12.@83SUGGESTED ANSWER:

38of 86

Proclamation 99L* which amended Proclamation 2(*

applies only to offenses committed prior to 9???. %hus*

their applications shall be ineffectual and useless.

Amnest/; Crimes Covered (200,)

Under Presidential Proclamation o. 2(* amendingPresidential Proclamation o. (* certain crimes are

co&ered by the grant of amnesty. ame at least @ of these

crimes. 12.@83SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Crimes co&ered under Presidential Proclamation o.2(:9. Coup

d


6/27

#xtinction; Criminal % Civil iabilities; #**ects; Deat o*accused pendin appeal (2004)

' was con&icted of rec0less imprudence resulting in

homicide. %he trial court sentenced him to a prison term

as well as to pay P9@* as ci&il indemnity anddamages. 5hile his appeal was pending* ' met a fatal

accident. ,e left a young widow* 2 children* and a

million;peso estate. 5hat is the effect* if any* of his

death on his criminal as well as ci&il liability7 #xplain

briefly. 1@83SUGGESTED ANSWER:

%he death of ' while his appeal from the >udgment of

the trial court is pending* extinguishes his criminal

liability. %he ci&il liability insofar as it arises from the

crime and reco&erable under the !e&ised Penal Code isalso extinguished6 but indemnity and damages may be

reco&ered in a ci&il action if predicated on a source of

obligation under 'rt. 99@* Ci&il Code* such as law*

contracts* 4uasi;contracts and 4uasi;delicts* but not on

the basis of delicts. (People v. aotas, 3$ SCRA 39 ).

Ci&il indemnity and damages under the !e&ised Penal

Code are reco&erable only if the accused had been

con&icted with finality before he died.

#xtinction; Criminal % Civil iabilities; #**ects; Deat o***ended $art/ (2000)


Eor defrauding -orna* 'lma was charged before the

Municipal %rial Court of Malolos* Bulacan. 'fter a

protracted trial* 'lma was con&icted. 5hile the case was

pending appeal in the !egional %rial Court of the same

pro&ince* -orna who was then suffering from breast

cancer* died. 'lma manifested to the court that with

-orna


7/27

Penalty prescribed to a crime is lowered by degrees in the following cases:

(1) When the crime is only attempted or frustrated.

If it is frustrated, penalty is one degree lower than that prescribed by law.

If it is attempted, penalty is two degrees lower than that prescribed by law.

His is so because the penalty prescribed by law for a crime refers to the consummated stage.

() When the offender is an accomplice or accessory only

Penalty is one degree lower in the case of an accomplice.

Penalty is two degrees lower in the case of an accessory.

!his is so because the penalty prescribed by law for a gi"en crime refers to the consummated stage.

(#) When there is a pri"ilege mitigating circumstance in fa"or of the offender, it will lower the penalty byone or two degrees than that prescribed by law depending on what the particular pro"ision of the$e"ised Penal %ode states.

(&) When the penalty prescribed for the crime committed is a di"isible penalty and there are two or moreordinary mitigating circumstances and no aggra"ating circumstances whatsoe"er, the penalty ne't lowerin degree shall be the one imposed.

() Whene"er the pro"ision of the $e"ised Penal %ode specifically lowers the penalty by one or two degreesthan what is ordinarily prescribed for the crime committed.

Penalty commonly imposed by the $e"ised Penal %ode may be by way of imprisonment or by way of fine or,to a limited e'tent, by way of destierro or dis*ualification, whether absolute or special.

In the matter of lowering the penalty by degree, the reference is +rticle 1. It is necessary to -now thechronology under +rticle 1 by simply -nowing the scale. !a-e note that destierro comes after arrestomayor so the penalty one degree lower than arresto mayor is not arresto menor, but destierro. emori/ethe scale in +rticle 1.

In +rticle #, with respect to the range of each penalty, the range of arresto menor follows arresto mayor,since arresto menor is one to #0 days or one month, while arresto mayor is one month and one day to si'months. n the other hand, the duration of destierro is the same as prision correccional which is si' monthsand one day to si' years. 2ut be this as it is, under +rticle 1, in the scale of penalties graduated accordingto degrees, arresto mayor is higher than diestierro.

In homicide under +rticle &3, the penalty is reclusion temporal. ne degree lower, if homicide isfrustrated, or there is an accomplice participating in homicide, is prision mayor, and two degrees lower isprision correccional.

!his is true if the penalty prescribed by the $e"ised Penal %ode is a whole di"isible penalty 4 one degree or degrees lower will also be punished as a whole. 2ut generally, the penalties prescribed by the $e"isedPenal %ode are only in periods, li-e prision correccional minimum, or prision correccional minimum tomedium.

+lthough the penalty is prescribed by the $e"ised Penal %ode as a period, such penalty should beunderstood as a degree in itself and the following rules shall go"ern:

(1) When the penalty prescribed by the $eised %ode is made up of a period, li-e prisioncorreccional medium, the penalty one degree lower is prision correccional minimum, and the penaltytwo degrees lower is arresto mayor ma'imum. In other words, each degree will be made up of only oneperiod because the penalty prescribed is also made up only of one period.

() When the penalty prescribed by the %ode is made up of two periods of a gi"en penalty, e"erytime such penalty is lowered by one degree you ha"e to go down also by two periods.


8/27

Illustration:

If the penalty prescribed for the crime is prision correccional medium to ma'imum, the penalty onedegree lower will be arresto mayor ma'imum to prision correccional minimum, and the penalty anotherdegree lower will be arresto mayor minimum to medium. 5"ery degree will be composed of twoperiods.

(#) When the penalty prescribed by the $e"ised Penal %ode is made up fo three periods of differentpenalties, e"ery time you go down one degree lower, you ha"e to go down by three periods.

Illustration:

!he penalty prescribed by the $e"ised Penal %ode is prision mayor ma'imum to reclusion temporalmedium, the penalty one degree lower is prision correccional ma'imum to prision mayor medium.+nother degree lower will be arresto mayor ma'imum to prision correccional medium.

!hese rules ha"e nothing to do with mitigating or aggra"ating circumstances. !hese rules refer to thelowering of penalty by one or two degrees. +s to how mitigating or aggra"ating circumstances may affectthe penalty, the rules are found in +rticles # and &. +rticle # go"erns when the penalty prescribed bythe $e"ised Penal %ode is di"isible. When the penalty is indi"isible, no matter how many ordinary mitigatingcircumstances there are, the prescribed penalty is ne"er lowered by degree. It ta-es a pri"ileged mitigating

circumstance to lower such penalty by degree. n the other hand, when the penalty prescribed by the$e"ised Penal %ode is di"isible, such penalty shall be lowered by one degree only but imposed in the properperiod, when there are two or more ordinary mitigating circumstance and there is no aggra"atingcircumstance whatsoe"er.

Article 75 - Fines

With respect to the penalty of fine, if the finehas to be lowered by degree either because the felony committed is only attempted or frustrated orbecause there is an accomplice or an accessory participation, the fine is lowered by deducting 6 of thema'imum amount of the fine from such ma'imum without changing the minimum amount prescribed bylaw.

Illustration:

If the penalty prescribed is a fine ranging from P00.00 to P00.00, but the felony is frustrated so that thepenalty should be imposed one degree lower, 6 of P00.00, shall be deducted therefrom. !his is done bydeducting P1.00 from P00.00, lea"ing a difference of P#.00. !he penalty one degree lower is P#.00.!o go another degree lower, P1.00 shall again be deducted from P#.00 and that would lea"e adifference of P0.00. Hence, the penalty another degree lower is a fine ranging from P00.00 to P0.00.If at all, the fine has to be lowered further, it cannot go lower than P00.00. 7o, the fine will be imposed atP00.00. !his rule applies when the fine has to be lowered by degree.

Article 66

In so far as ordinary mitigating or aggra"ating circumstance would affect the penalty which is in the form ofa fine, +rticle of the $e"ised Penal %ode shall go"ern. 8nder this article, it is discretionary upon thecourt to apply the fine ta-ing into consideration the financial means of the offender to pay the same. Inother words, it is not only the mitigating and9or aggra"ating circumstances that the court shall ta-e intoconsideration, but primarily, the financial capability of the offender to pay the fine. or the same crime, thepenalty upon an accused who I poor may be less than the penalty upon an accused committing the samecrime but who is wealthy.

or instance, when there are two offenders who are co;conspirators to a crime, and their penalty consists ofa fine only, and one of them is wealthy while the other is a pauper, the court may impose a higher penaltyupon the wealthy person and a lower fine for the pauper.


9/27

Penalty for murder under the $e"ised Penal %ode is reclusion temporal ma'imum to death. 7o, the penaltywould be reclusion temporal ma'imum 4 reclusion perpetua 4 death. !his penalty made up of three periods.

The Three-Fold Rule

Under this rule, when a convict is to serve successive penalties, he will not actually serve the penalties

imposed by law. Instead, the most severe of the penalties imposed on him shall be multiplied by three andthe period will be the only term of the penalty to be served by him. However, in no case should the penaltyexceed 40 years.

!his rule is intended for the benefit of the con"ict and so, you will only apply this pro"ided the sum total ofall the penalties imposed would be greater than the product of the most se"ere penalty multiplied by threebut in no case will the penalties to be ser"ed by the con"ict be more than &0 years.

+lthough this rule is -nown as the !hree;old $ule, you cannot actually apply this if the con"ict is to ser"eonly three successi"e penalties. !he !hree;old $ule can only be applied if the con"ict I to ser"e four ormore sentences successi"ely. If the sentences would be ser"ed simultaneously, the !hree;old $ule doesnot go"ern.

!he chronology of the penalties as pro"ided in +rticle 0 of the $e"ised Penal %ode shall be followed.It is in the ser"ice of the penalty, not in the imposition of the penalty, that the !hree;old $ule is to be

applied. !he !hree;old $ule will apply whether the sentences are the product of one information in onecourt, whether the sentences are promulgated in one day or whether the sentences are promulgated bydifferent courts on different days. What is material is that the con"ict shall ser"e more than threesuccessi"e sentences.

or purposes of the !hree;fold $ule, e"en perpetual penalties are ta-en into account. 7o not only penaltieswith fi'ed duration, e"en penalties without any fi'ed duration or indi"isible penalties are ta-en into account.or purposes of the !hree;old $ule, indi"isible penalties are gi"en e*ui"alent of #0 years. If the penalty isperpetual dis*ualification, it will be gi"en and e*ui"alent duration of #0 years, so that if he will ha"e to sufferse"eral perpetual dis*ualification, under the !hree;old $ule, you ta-e the most se"ere and multiply it bythree. !he !hree;old $ule does not apply to the penalty prescribed but to the penalty imposed asdetermined by the court.

Illustration:

Penalties imposed are 4

ne prision correccional 4 minimum 4 years and & months

ne arresto mayor 4 1 month and 1 day to months

ne prision mayor 4 years and 1 day to 1years

udge, what penalty would you impose, for purposes of imposing the penalty, the court is not atliberty to apply the !hree;old $ule, whate"er the sum total of penalty for each crime committed, e"en if itwould amount to 1,000 years or more. It is only when the con"ict is ser"ing sentence that the prisonauthorities should determine how long he should stay in >ail.

Illustration:

+ distinct engineer was sentenced by the court to a term of 31& years in prison.


10/27

+ person was sentenced to three death sentences. 7ignificance: If e"er granted pardon for 1 crime, thetwo remaining penalties must still be e'ecuted.

!his rule will apply only if sentences are to be ser"ed successi"ely.

ACT NO. 4013 (IN!T!R"INAT! #!NT!NC! $A%&' A# A"!N!

!hree things to -now about the Indeterminate 7entence ?aw:(1) Its purpose@() Instances when it does not apply@ and(#) How it operates

Indeterminate 7entence ?aw go"erns whether the crime is punishable under the $e"ised Penal %ode or aspecial ?aw. It is not limited to "iolations of the $e"ised Penal %ode.

It applies only when the penalty ser"ed is imprisonment. If not by imprisonment, then it does not apply.

ur)ose

!he purpose of the Indeterminate 7entence

law is to a"oid prolonged imprisonment, because it is pro"en to be more destructi"e than constructi"e to theoffender. 7o, the purpose of the Indeterminate 7entence ?aw in shortening the possible detention of thecon"ict in >ail is to sa"e "aluable human resources. I other words, if the "aluable human resources wereallowed prolonged confinement in >ail, they would deteriorate. Purpose is to preser"e economic usefulnessfor these people for ha"ing committed a crime 4 to reform them rather than to deteriorate them and, at thesame time, sa"ing the go"ernment e'penses of maintaining the con"icts on a prolonged confinement in >ail.

If the crime is a "iolation of the $e"ised Penal %ode, the court will impose a sentence that has a minimumand ma'imum. !he ma'imum of the indeterminate sentence will be arri"ed at by ta-ing into account theattendant mitigating and9or aggra"ating circumstances according to +rticle & of the $e"ised penal %ode.In arri"ing at the minimum of the indeterminate sentence, the court will ta-e into account the penaltyprescribed for the crime and go one degree lower. Within the range of one degree lower, the court will fi'the minimum for the indeterminate sentence, and within the range of the penalty arri"ed at as thema'imum in the indeterminate sentence, the court will fi' the ma'imum of the sentence. If there is apri"ilege mitigating circumstance which has been ta-en in consideration in fi'ing the ma'imum of the

indeterminate sentence, the minimum shall be based on the penalty as reduced by the pri"ilege mitigatingcircumstance within the range of the penalty ne't lower in degree.

If the crime is a "iolation of a special law, in fi'ing the ma'imum of the indeterminate sentence, the courtwill impose the penalty within the range of the penalty prescribed by the special law, as long as it will note'ceed the limit of the penalty. In fi'ing the minimum, the court can fi' a penalty anywhere within therange of penalty prescribed by the special law, as long as it will not be less than the minimum limit of thepenalty under said law. =o mitigating and aggra"ating circumstances are ta-en into account.

!he minimum and the ma'imum referred to in the Indeterminate 7entence ?aw are not periods. 7o, do notsay, ma'imum or minimum period. or the purposes of the indeterminate 7entence ?aw, use the termminimum to refer to the duration of the sentence which the con"ict shall ser"e as a minimum, and when wesay ma'imum, for purposes of I7?+W, we refer to the ma'imum limit of the duration that the con"ict maybe held in >ail. We are not referring to any period of the penalty as enumerated in +rticle 1.

%ourts are re*uired to fi' a minimum and a ma'imum of the sentence that they are to impose upon anoffender when found guilty of the crime charged. 7o, whene"er the Indeterminate 7entence ?aw isapplicable, there is always a minimum and ma'imum of the sentence that the con"ict shall ser"e. If thecrime is punished by the $e"ised Penal %ode, the law pro"ides that the ma'imum shall be arri"ed at byconsidering the mitigating and aggra"ating circumstances in the commission of the crime according to theproper rules of the $e"ised Penal %ode. !o fi' the ma'imum, consider the mitigating and aggra"atingcircumstances according to the rules found in +rticle &. !his means 4

(1) Penalties prescribed by the law for the crime committed shall be imposed in the medium period if nomitigating or aggra"ating circumstance@


11/27

() If there is aggra"ating circumstance, no mitigating, penalty shall be imposed in the ma'imum@

(#) If there is mitigating circumstance, no aggra"ating, penalty shall be in the minimum@

(&) If there are se"eral mitigating and aggra"ating circumstances, they shall offset against each other.Whate"er remains, apply the rules.

() If there are two or more mitigating circumstance and no aggra"ating circumstance, penalty ne't lowerin degree shall be the one imposed.

$ule under +rt & shall apply in determining the ma'imum but not in determining the minimum.

In determining the applicable penalty according to the Indeterminate 7entence ?aw, there is no need tomention the number of years, months and days@ it is enough that the name of the penalty is mentionedwhile the Indeterminate 7entence ?aw. !he attendant mitigating and9or aggra"ating circumstances in thecommission of the crime are ta-en into consideration only when the ma'imum of the penalty is to be fi'ed.2ut in so far as the minimum is concerned, the basis of the penalty prescribed by the $e"ised Penal %ode,and go one degree lower than that. 2ut penalty one degree lower shall be applied in the same manner thatthe ma'imum is also fi'ed based only on ordinary mitigating circumstances. !his is true only if themitigating circumstance ta-en into account is only an ordinary mitigating circumstance. If the mitigatingcircumstance is pri"ileged, you cannot follow the law in so far as fi'ing the minimum of the indeterminatesentence is concerned@ otherwise, it may happen that the ma'imum of the indeterminate sentence is lower

than its minimum.

In one 7upreme %ourt ruling, it was held that for purposes of applying the Indeterminate 7entence ?aw, thepenalty prescribed by the $e"ised Penal %ode and not that which may be imposed by court. !his ruling,howe"er, is ob"iously erroneous. !his is so because such an interpretation runs contrary to the rule of proreo, which pro"ides that the penal laws should always be construed an applied in a manner liberal or lenientto the offender. !herefore, the rule is, in applying the Indeterminate 7entence ?aw, it is that penaltyarri"ed at by the court after applying the mitigating and aggra"ating circumstances that should be the basis.

%rimes punished under special law carry only one penalty@ there are no degree or periods. oreo"er,crimes under special law do not consider mitigating or aggra"ating circumstance present in the commissionof the crime. 7o in the case of statutory offense, no mitigating and no aggra"ating circumstances will beta-en into account. Aust the same, courts are re*uired in imposing the penalty upon the offender to fi' aminimum that the con"ict should ser"e, and to set a ma'imum as the limit of that sentence. 8nder the law,when the crime is punished under a special law, the court may fi' any penalty as the ma'imum without

e'ceeding the penalty prescribed by special law for the crime committed. In the same manner, courts aregi"en discretion to fi' a minimum anywhere within the range of the penalty prescribed by special law, aslong as it will not be lower than the penalty prescribed.


12/27


13/27

+lthough a person may be eligible for probation, the moment he perfects an appeal from the >udgment ofcon"iction, he cannot a"ail of probation anymore. 7o the benefit of probation must be in"o-ed at theearliest instance after con"iction. He should not wait up to the time when he interposes an appeal or thesentence has become final and e'ecutory. !he idea is that probation has to be in"o-ed at the earliestopportunity.

+n application for probation is e'clusi"ely within the >urisdiction of the trial court that renders the >udgment.or the offender to apply in such court, he should not appeal such >udgment.

If the offender would appeal the con"iction of the trial court and the appellate court reduced the penalty tosay, less than si' years, that con"ict can still file an application for probation, because the earliestopportunity for him to a"ail of probation came only after >udgment by the appellate court.Whether a con"ict who is otherwise *ualified for probation may be gi"e the benefit of probation or not, thecourts are always re*uired to conduct a hearing. If the court denied the application for probation withoutthe benefit of the hearing, where as the applicant is not dis*ualified under the pro"ision of the Probation?aw, but only based on the report of the probation officer, the denial is correctible by certiorari, because it isan act of the court in e'cess of >urisdiction or without >urisdiction, the order denying the applicationtherefore is null and "oid.

Probation is intended to promote the correction and rehabilitation of an offender by pro"iding him with

indi"iduali/ed treatment@ to pro"ide an opportunity for the reformation of a penitent offender which mightbe less probable if he were to ser"e a prison sentence@ to pre"ent the commission of offenses@ to decongestour >ails@ and to sa"e the go"ernment much needed finance for maintaining con"icts in >ail.

Probation is only a pri"ilege. 7o e"en if the offender may not be dis*ualified of probation, yet the courtbelie"es that because of the crime committed it was not ad"isable to gi"e probation because it woulddepreciate the effect of the crime, the court may refuse or deny an application for probation.

oreo"er, the


14/27

+: =o. Auan can no longer apply for probation because he appealed from the >udgment of con"iction of thetrial court. 7ec. & of the Probation ?aw mandates that no application for probation shall be entertained orgranted if the accused has perfected an appeal from a >udgment of con"iction.

Probation shall be denied if the court finds:

(1) !hat the offender is in need of correctional treatment that can be pro"ided most effecti"ely by hiscommitment to an institution@

() !hat there is undue ris- that during the period of probation the offender will commit another crime@or

(#) Probation will depreciate the seriousness of the crime.

!he probation law imposes two -inds of conditions:(1) andatory conditions@ and() ect ot this two restrictions: (1) the conditions imposed should not be undulyrestricti"e of the probationer, and () such condition should not be incompatible with the freedom ofconscience of the probationer.

!9TINCTION OF CRI"INA$ $IA2I$IT:

+lways pro"ide two classifications when answering this *uestion.

%riminal liability is totally e'tinguished as follows:

(1) 2y the death of the con"ict as to personal penalties@ and as to pecuniary penalties, liabilitytherefore is e'tinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final >udgment.

() 2y ser"ice of sentence@

(#) 2y amnesty which completely e'tinguished the penalty and all its effects@

(&) 2y absolute pardon@

() 2y prescription of the crime@


15/27

() 2y prescription of the penalty@

() 2y the marriage of the offended women as in the crimes of rape, abduction, seduction and actsof lasci"iousness.

%riminal liability is partially e'tinguished as follows:

(1) 2y conditional pardon@

() 2y commutation of sentence@

(#) r good conduct, allowances which the culprit may earn while he is ser"ing sentence@

(&) Parole@ and

() Probation.

Totl etinction o; criinl liilit8

+mong the grounds for total e'tinction as well as those for partial e'tinction, you cannot find among themthe election to public office. In one case, a public official was charged before the 7andiganbayan for"iolation of +nti;Graft and %orrupt Practices +ct.


16/27

Illustration:

When the crime carries with it moral turpitude, the offender e"en if granted pardon shall still remaindis*ualified from those falling in cases where moral turpitude is a bar.

Pedro was prosecuted and con"icted of the crime of robbery and was sentenced to si' years imprisonmentor prision correccional. +fter ser"ing sentence for three years, he was granted absolute pardon. !en yearslater, Pedro was again prosecuted and con"icted of the crime of theft, a crime embraced in the same title,this time he shall be a recidi"ist. n the other hand, if he has ser"ed all si' years of the first sentence, andhis name was included in the list of all those granted absolute pardon, pardon shall relie"e him of the effectsof the crime, and therefore e"en if he commits theft again, he shall not be considered a recidi"ist.

In "onsnto


17/27

%an + be prosecuted for murder despite the lapse of yearsC $eason briefly.

+: es, + can be prosecuted for murder despite the lapse of years, because the crime has not yetprescribed and legally, its prescripti"e period has not e"en commenced to run.

!he period of prescription of a crime shall commence to run only from the day on which the crime has been

disco"ered by the offended party, the authorities or their agents (+rticle 31, $P%). W, a pri"ate person whosaw the -illing but ne"er disclosed it, is not the offended party nor has the crime been disco"ered by theauthorities or their agents.

E%ommission of the crime is publicF 4 !his does not mean alone that the crime was within public -nowledgeor committed in public.Illustration:

In the crime of falsification of a document that was registered in the proper registry of the go"ernment li-ethe $egistry of Property or the $egistry of ect to 7ummary Procedure, the prescription of the crime will be suspended onlywhen the information is already filed with the trial court. It is not the filing of the complaint, but the filing ofthe information in the trial which will suspend the prescription of the crime.


18/27

n the prescription of the penalty, the period will only commence to run when the con"ict has begun toser"e the sentence. +ctually, the penalty will prescribe from the moment the con"ict e"ades the ser"ice ofthe sentence. 7o if an accused was con"icted in the trial court, and the con"iction becomes final ande'ecutory, so this fellow was arrested to ser"e the sentence, on the way to the penitentiary, the "ehiclecarrying him collided with another "ehicle and o"erturned, thus enabling the prisoner to escape, no matterhow long such con"ict has been a fugiti"e from >ustice, the penalty imposed by the trial court will ne"erprescribe because he has not yet commenced the ser"ice of his sentence. or the penalty to prescribe, he

must be brought to untinlupa, boo-ed thee, placed inside the cell and thereafter he escapes.

Whether it is prescription of crime or prescription of penalty, if the sub>ect could lea"e the Philippines and goto a country with whom the Philippines has no e'tradition treaty, the prescripti"e period of the crime orpenalty shall remain suspended whene"er he is out of the country.

When the offender lea"es for a country to which the Philippines has an e'tradition treaty, the running of theprescripti"e period will go on e"en if the offender lea"es Philippine territory for that country. Presently thePhilippines has an e'tradition treaty with !aiwan, Indonesia, %anada, +ustralia, 87+ and 7wit/erland. 7o ifthe offender goes to any of these countries, the prescripti"e period still continues to run.

In the case of the prescription of the penalty, the moment the con"ict commits another crime while he isfugiti"e from >ustice, prescripti"e period of the penalty shall be suspended and shall not run in themeantime. !he crime committed does not include the initial e"asion of ser"ice of sentence that the con"ict

must perform before the penalty shall begin to prescribe, so that the initial crime of e"asion of ser"ice ofsentence does not suspend the prescription of penalty, it is the commission of other crime, after the con"icthas e"aded the ser"ice of penalty that will suspend such period.

"rri=e

In the case of marriage, do not say that it is applicable for the crimes under +rticle #&&. It is only true inthe crimes of rape, abduction, seduction and acts of lasci"iousness. ust toe"ade punishment for the crime committed because the offender will be compounding the wrong he hascommitted.

rtil etinction o; criinl liilit8

>ood conduct llonce

!his includes the allowance for loyalty under +rticle 3D, in relation to +rticle 1D. + con"ict who escapes theplace of confinement on the occasion of disorder resulting from a conflagration, earth*ua-e or similarcatastrophe or during a mutiny in which he has not participated and he returned within &D hours after theproclamation that the calamity had already passed, such con"ict shall be gi"en credit of 19 of the originalsentence from that allowance for his loyalty of coming bac-. !hose who did not lea"e the penitentiary undersuch circumstances do not get such allowance for loyalty. +rticle 1D refers only to those who lea"e andreturn.


19/27

role

!his correspondingly e'tinguishes ser"ice of sentence up to the ma'imum of the indeterminate sentence.!his is the partial e'tinction referred to, so that if the con"ict was ne"er gi"en parole, no partial e'tinction.

CIudgment creditor for an obligation, the buyer of the property at such e'ecution sale isprotected by law. !he offended party cannot di"est him thereof. 7o the offended party may only resort toreparation of the damage done from the offender.

7ome belie"ed that this ci"il liability is true only in crimes against property, this is not correct. $egardless ofthe crime committed, if the property is illegally ta-en from the offended party during the commission of thecrime, the court may direct the offender to restore or restitute such property to the offended party. It canonly be done if the property is brought within the >urisdiction of that court.

or e'ample, in a case where the offender committed rape, during the rape, the offender got on of theearnings of the "ictim. When apprehended, the offender was prosecuted for rape and theft. When theoffender was as-ed why he got on of the earnings of the "ictim, the offender disclosed that he too- one ofthe earnings in order to ha"e a sou"enir of the se'ual intercourse. 7upreme %ourt ruled that the crimecommitted is not theft and rape but rape and un>ust "e'ation for the ta-ing of the earning. !he latter crimeis not a crime against property, this is a crime against personal security and liberty under !itle IK of 2oo- II

of the $P%. +nd yet, the offender was re*uired to restore or restitute the earning to the offended woman.

Property will ha"e to be restored to the offended party e"en this would re*uire the ta-ing of the propertywas di"ested from the offended party pursuant to the commission of the crime, the one who too- the sameor accepted the same would be doing so without the benefit of the >ust title. 7o e"en if the property mayha"e been bought by the third person, the same may be ta-en from him and restored to the offended partywithout an obligation on the part of the offended party to pay him whate"er he paid.

!he right to reco"er what he has paid will be against the offender who sold it ot him. n the other hand, ifthe crime was theft or robbery, the one who recei"ed the personal property becomes a fence, he is not onlyre*uired to restitute the personal property but he incurs criminal liability in "iolation of the +nti;encing ?aw.

If the property cannot be restituted anymore, then the damage must be repaired, re*uiring the offender topay the "alue thereof, as determined by the court. !hat "alue includes the sentimental "alue to theoffended party, not only the replacement cost. In most cases, the sentimental "alue is higher than the

replacement "alue. 2ut if what would be restored is brand new, then there will be an allowance fordepreciation, otherwise, the offended party is allowed to enrich himself at the e'pense of the offender. 7othere will be a corresponding depreciation and the offended party may e"en be re*uired to pay something>ust to co"er the difference of the "alue of what was restored to him.

!he obligation of the offender transcends to his heirs, e"en if the offender dies, pro"ided he died after>udgment became final, the heirs shall assume the burden of the ci"il liability, but this is only to the e'tentthat they inherit property from the deceased, if they do not inherit, they cannot inherit the obligations.


20/27


21/27

(1) !he employer must be engaged in business or in trade or industry while the accused was hisemployee

() +t the time the crime was committed, the employee;employer relationship must be e'istingbetween the two@

(#) !he employee must ha"e been found guilty of the crime charged and accordingly held ci"illy

liable@

(&) !he writ of e'ecution for the satisfaction of the ci"il liability was returned unsatisfied becausethe accused;employee does not ha"e enough property to pay the ci"il liability.

When these re*uisites concur, the employer will be subsidiarily, ci"illy liable for the full amount that hisemployee was ad>udged ci"illy liable. It is already settled in >urisprudence that there is no need to file a ci"ilaction against the employer in order to enforce the subsidiary ci"il liability for the crime committed by hisemployee, it is enough that the writ of e'ecution is returned unsatisfied. !here is no denial of due processof law because the liability of the employer is subsidiary and not primary. He will only be liable if hisemployee does not ha"e the property to pay his ci"il liability, since it is the law itself that, pro"ides that suchsubsidiary liability e'ists and ignorance of the law is not an e'cuse.

%i"il liability of the offender is e'tinguished in the same manner as ci"il obligation is e'tinguished but this isnot absolutely true. 8nder ci"il law, a ci"il obligation is e'tinguished upon loss of the thing due when the

things in"ol"ed is specific. !his is not a ground applicable to e'tinction of ci"il liability in criminal case if thething due is lost, the offender shall repair the damages caused.

When there are se"eral offenders, the court in the e'ercise of its discretion shall determine what shall be theshare f each offender depending upon the degree of participation 4 as principal, accomplice or accessory. Ifwithin each class of offender, there are more of them, such as more than one principal or more than oneaccomplice or accessory, the liability in each class of offender shall be subsidiary. +nyone of them may bere*uired to pay the ci"il liability pertaining to such offender without pre>udice to reco"ery from those whoseshare ha"e been paid by another.

If all the principals are insol"ent, the obligation shall de"ol"e upon the accomplice(s) or accessory(s). 2utwhoe"er pays shall ha"e the right of co"ering the share of the obligation from those who did not pay but areci"illy liable.

!o relate with +rticle #D, when there is an order or preference of pecuniary (monetary) liability, therefore,

restitution is not included here.

!o relate with +rticle #D, when there is an order or preference of pecuniary (monetary) liability, therefore,restitution is not included here.

!here is not subsidiary penalty for non;payment of ci"il liability.

7ubsidiary ci"il liability is imposed in the following:

(1) In case of a felony committed under the compulsion of an irresistible force. !he person whoemployed the irresistible force is subsidiarily liable@

() In case of a felony committed under an impulse of an e*ual or greater in>ury.

!he person who generated such an impulse is subsidiarily liable.

!he owners of ta"erns, inns, motels, hotels, where the crime is committed within their establishment due tononcompliance with general police regulations, if the offender who is primarily liable cannot pay, theproprietor, or owner is subsidiarily liable.

elonies committed by employees, pupils, ser"ants in the course of their employment, schooling orhousehold chores. !he employer, master, teacher is subsidiarily liable ci"illy, while the offender is primarilyliable.


22/27


23/27

!he compound crime and the comple' crime are treated in +rticle &D of the $e"ised Penal %ode. 2ut in sucharticle, a compound crime is also designated as a comple' crime, but Ecomple' crimesF are limited only to asituation where the resulting felonies are gra"e and9or less gra"e.

Whereas in a compound crime, there is no limit as to the gra"ity of the resulting crimes as long as a singleact brings about two or more crimes. 7trictly spea-ing, compound crimes are not limited to gra"e lessgra"e felonies but co"ers all single act that results in two or more crimes.

Illustration:

+ person threw a hand grenade and the people started scampering. When the hand grenade e'ploded, noon was seriously wounded all were mere wounded. It was held that this is a compound crime, although theresulting felonies are only slight.

Illustration of a situation where the term EnecessaryF in comple' crime should not be understood asindispensable:

+betting committed during the encounter between rebels and go"ernment troops such that the homicidecommitted cannot be comple'ed with rebellion. !his is because they are indispensable part of rebellion.(%a"eat: rtega says rebellion can be comple'ed with common crimes in discussion on $ebellion)

!he comple' crime lies actually in the first form under +rticle 1&D.

!he first form of the comple' crime is actually a compound crime, is one where a single act constitutes twoor more gra"e and9or less gra"e felonies. !he basis in comple'ing or compounding the crime is the act. 7othat when an offender performed more than one act, although similar, if they result in separate crimes,there is no comple' crime at all, instead, the offender shall be prosecuted for as many crimes as arecommitted under separate information.

When the single act brings about two or more crimes, the offender is punished with only one penalty,although in the ma'imum period, because he acted only with single criminal impulse. !he presumption isthat, since there is only one criminal impulse and correctly, only one penalty should be imposed.

%on"ersely, when there are se"eral acts performed, the assumption is that each act is impelled by a distinctcriminal impulse, a separate penalty. Howe"er, it may happen that the offender is impelled only by a singlecriminal impulse in committing a series of acts that brought about more than one crime, considering that%riminal ?aw, if there is only one criminal impulse which brought about the commission of the crime, the

offender should be penali/ed only once.

!here are in fact cases decided by the 7upreme %ourt where the offender has performed as series of actsbut the acts appeared to be impelled by one and the same impulse, the ruling is that a comple' crime iscommitted. In this case it is not the singleness of the act but the singlessness of the impulse that has beenconsidered. !here are cases where the 7upreme %ourt held that the crime committed is comple' e"enthough the offender performed not a single act but a series of acts. !he only reason is that the series ofacts are impelled by a single criminal impulse.

B: + learned two days ago that 2 recei"ed dollar bills worth L10,000 from his daughter wor-ing in the 87.With the intention of robbing 2, + entered 2s house at midnight, armed with a -nife used to gain entry andbegan *uietly searching the drawers and other li-ely receptacles for cash. While doing that, 2 awo-e, rushedout of his room and grappled with + for the possession of the -nife. + stabbed 2 to death, found the latterswallet beneath the pillow, which was bulging with the dollar bills he was loo-ing for. + too- the bills and leftthe house. What crime9s was9were committedC

+: !he crime committed was robbery with homicide, a composite crime. +s primordial criminal intent is tocommit a robbery and in the course of the robbery, 2 was -illed. 2oth robbery and the -illing were

Question n! Ans"e#


24/27

consummated, thus gi"ing rise to the special comple' crime of robbery with homicide. !he primary criminalintent being to commit a robbery, any -illing on the EoccasionF of the robbery, though not by reason thereof,is considered a component of the crime of robbery with homicide as a single indi"isible offense.

CONTINB! AN CONTINBIN> CRI"!#

In criminal law, when a series of acts are perpetrated in pursuance of a single criminal impulse, there iswhat is called a continued crime. In criminal procedure for purposes of "enue, this is referred to as acontinuing crime.

!he term Econtinuing crimesF as sometimes used in lieu of the term Econtinued crimesF, howe"er, althoughboth terms are analogous, they are not really used with the same import. E%ontinuing crimeF is the termused in criminal procedure to denote that a certain crime may be prosecuted and tried not only before thecourt of the place where it was originally committed or began, but also before the court of the place wherethe crime was continued. Hence, the term Econtinuing crimeF is used in criminal procedure when any of thematerial ingredients of the crime was committed in different places.

+ Econtinued crimeF is one where the offender performs a series of acts "iolating one and the same penalpro"ision committed at the same place and about the same time for the same criminal purpose, regardlessof a series of acts done, it is regarded in law as one.

In eo)le *. de $eon, where the accused too- fi"e roosters from one and the same chic-en coop, althoughthe roosters were owned by different persons, it was held that there is only one crime of theft committedbecause the accused acted out of a single criminal impulse only. Howe"er performing a series of acts butthis is one and the same intent 7upreme %ourt ruled that only one crime is committed under oneinformation.

In eo)le *. $s, the accused constabulary soldiers were ordered to march with se"eral muslims fromone barrio to another place. !hese soldiers feared that on the way some of the uslims may escape. 7o?awas ordered the men to tie the uslims by the hand connecting one with the other, so on one would runaway. When the hands of the uslims were tied, one of them protested, he did not want to be includedamong those who were tied because he was a Ha>>ii, so the Ha>>i remonstrated and there was commotion. +tthe height of the commotion, ?awas ordered his men to fire, and the soldiers mechanically fired. 5le"enwere -illed and se"eral others were wounded. !he *uestion of whether the constabulary soldiers should beprosecuted for the -illing of each under a separate information has reached the 7upreme %ourt. !he

7upreme %ourt ruled that the accused should be prosecuted only in one information, because a comple'crime of multiple homicide was committed by them.

In another case, a band of robbers came across a compound where a sugar mill is located. !he wor-ers ofsaid mill ha"e their *uarters within the compound. !he band of robbers ransac-ed the different *uarterstherein. It was held that there is only one crime committed 4 multiple robbery, not because of +rticle &Dbut because this is a continued crime. When the robbers entered the compound, they were mo"ed by asingle criminal intent. =ot because there were se"eral *uarter robbed. !his becomes a comple' crime.

!he definition in +rticle &D is not honored because the accused did not perform a single act. !here were aseries of acts, but the decision in the ?awas case is correct. !he confusion lies in this. While +rticle &Dspea-s of a comple' crime where a single act constitutes two or more gra"e or less gra"e offenses, e"enthose cases when the act is not a single but a series of acts resulting to two or more gra"e and less gra"efelonies, the 7upreme %ourt considered this a comple' crime when the act is the product of one singlecriminal impulse.

If confronted with a problem, use the standard or condition that it refers not only to the singleness of the actwhich brought two or more gra"e and9less gra"e felonies. !he 7upreme %ourt has e'tended this class ofcomple' crime to those cases when the offender performed not a single act but a series of acts as long as itis the product of a single criminal impulse.

ou cannot find an article in the $e"ised Penal %ode with respect to the continued crime or continuing crime.!he nearest article is +rticle &D. 7uch situation is also brought under the operation of +rticle &D.


25/27

In People ". Garcia, the accused were con"icts who were members of a certain gang and they conspired to-ill the other gang. 7ome of the accused -illed their "ictims in one place within the same penitentiary, some-illed the others in another place within the same penitentiary. !he 7upreme %ourt ruled that all accusedshould be punished under one information because they acted in conspiracy. !he act of one is the act of all.2ecause there were se"eral "ictims -illed and some were mortally wounded, the accused should be held forthe comple' crime of multiple homicide with multiple frustrated homicide. !here is a comple' crime not onlywhen there is a single act but a series of acts. It is correct that when the offender acted in conspiracy, this

crime is considered as one and prosecuted under one information. +lthough in this case, the offenders didnot only -ills one person but -illed different persons, so it is clear that in -illing of one "ictim or the -illing ofanother "ictim, another act out of this is done simultaneously. 7upreme %ourt considered this as comple'.+lthough the -illings did not result from one single act.

In criminal procedure, it is prohibited to charge more than one offense in an information, e'cept when thecrimes is one information constitute a comple' crime or a special comple' crime.

7o whene"er the 7upreme %ourt concludes that the criminal should be punished only once, because theyacted in conspiracy or under the same criminal impulse, it is necessary to embody these crimes under onesingle information. It is necessary to consider them as comple' crimes e"en if the essence of the crimedoes not fit the definition of +rt &D, because there is no other pro"ision in the $P%.


26/27

does not apply, referring to the comple' crime proper because this applies or refers only to a deliberatecommission of one offense to commit another offense.

Howe"er, a light felony may result from criminal negligence or imprudence, together with other gra"e or lessgra"e felonies resulting therefrom and the 7upreme %ourt held that all felonies resulting from criminalnegligence should be made sub>ect of one information only. !he reason being that, there is only oneinformation and prosecution only. therwise, it would be tantamount to splitting the criminal negligencesimilar to splitting a cause of action which is prohibited in ci"il cases.

+lthough under +rticle &D, a light felony should not be included in a comple' crime, yet by "irtue of thisruling of the 7upreme %ourt, the light felony shall be included in the same information charging the offenderwith gra"e and9or less gra"e felonies resulting from the negligence of rec-less imprudence and this runscounter to the pro"ision of +rticle &D. 7o while the 7upreme %ourt ruled that the light felony resulting fromthe same criminal negligence should be comple'ed with the other felonies because that would be a blatant"iolation of +rticle &D, instead the 7upreme %ourt stated that an additional penalty should be imposed forthe light felony. !his would mean two penalties to be imposed, one for the comple' crime and one for thelight felony. It cannot separate the light felony because it appears that the culpa is crime itself and youcannot split the crime.

+pplying the concept of the Econtinued crimeF, the following cases ha"e been treated as constituting onecrime only:

(1) !he theft of 1# cows belonging to two different persons committed by the accused at the sameplace and period of time (eo)le *. Tulos, Phil. #0)@

() !he theft of si' roosters belonging to two different owners from the same coop and at the sameperiod of time (eo)le *. rnill)@

(#) !he illegal charging of fees for ser"ice rendered by a lawyer e"ery time he collected "eteransbenefits on behalf of a client who agreed that attorneys fees shall be paid out of such benefits (eo)le*. #un, 10 7%$+ 1). !he collections of legal fees were impelled by the same moti"e, that ofcollecting fees for ser"ices rendered, and all acts of collection were made under the same criminalimpulse.

n the other hand, the 7upreme %ourt declined to apply the concept in the following cases:

(1) !wo 5stafa cases, one which was committed during the period from Aanuary 13 to ury to one party only 4 the go"ernment@ and (#) they were done inthe same day. !he concept of delito continuado has been applied to crimes under special laws since in


27/27

+rticle 10, the $e"ised Penal %ode shall be supplementary to special laws, unless the latter pro"ides thecontrary.

CRIM. TIPS

Documents