- regarding a penalty provided in the RPC – the same applies to the consummated stage and for the principal UNLESS specifically provided otherwise.
- regarding the penalty for accomplices and accessories for the attempted and frustrated stages will either be 1, 2 or 3 degrees lower than the principal in the consummated stage.
71. Graduated Scales
SCALE NO. 1 1. Death,
2. Reclusion perpetua, 3. Reclusion temporal, 4. Prision mayor, 5. Prision correccional, 6. Arresto mayor, 7. Destierro, 8. Arresto menor, 9. Public censure, 10. Fine.
SCALE NO. 2
1. Perpetual absolute disqualification, 2. Temporal absolute disqualification
3. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, the right to follow a profession or calling,
4. Public censure, 5. Fine.
Cf. 70. Service 1. Death,
2. Reclusion perpetua, 3. Reclusion temporal, 4. Prision mayor, 5. Prision correccional, 6. Arresto mayor, 7. Arresto menor, 8. Destierro,
9. Perpetual absolute disqualification,
10 Temporal absolute disqualification.
11. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, the right to follow a profession or calling, and
12. Public censure.
NOTE: (Sir Te discussed this in class)
RPC 70 and RPC 71 differ with regard to the order of destierro and arresto menor.
RPC 70 (SUCCESIVE SERVICE OF SENTENCES)
RPC 71 (ACTUAL GRAVITY OF PENALTIES)
Scale to be used when imprisonment is involved
Does not involve imprisonment
Service of sentence is be successive
People v. Formigones
A man declared feebleminded by the Court had suddenly, without any provocation, stabbed his wife in the back. The penalty for parricide is reclusion perpetua to death. The Court did not find any aggravating circumstances (ruled out treachery) and found two mitigating circumstances (illness/physical defect and powerful impulse). The Court also applied RPC 63: For felonies committed when the penalty contains two indivisible penalties AND when there is MC and no AC, the lesser penalty shall apply.
b.) Principals, Accomplices, Accessories in Consummated, Frustrated and Attempted Felonies
B. Principals, Accomplices, Accessories in Consummated, Frustrated and Attempted Felonies
RPC 46, 50-57, 60-61
Participation/Stage Consummated Frustrated Attempt
Principal X 1 2
Accomplice 1 2 3
Accessory 2 3 4
*summary of the RPC 50-57 re: number of degrees lower, depending on circumstance – Sir Te
60. Exception
Basically tells us that RPC 50-57 will not apply to cases where the law expressly prescribes a penalty for an frustrated or attempted felony, or a penalty for accomplices or accessories.
61. Rules for graduating penalties
1. When the penalty prescribed for the felony is single and indivisible, the penalty next lower in degrees shall be that immediately following that indivisible penalty in the respective graduated scale prescribed in Article 71 of this Code.
Ex. Reclusion perpetua will become reclusion temporal.
2. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of two indivisible penalties, or of one or more divisible penalties to be impose to their full extent, the penalty next lower in degree shall be that immediately following the lesser of the penalties prescribed in the respective graduated scale.
Ex. Reclusion perpetua to Death will become reclusion temporal
3. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of one or two indivisible penalties and the maximum period of another divisible penalty, the penalty next lower in degree shall be composed of the medium and minimum periods of the proper divisible penalty and the maximum periods of the proper divisible penalty and the maximum period of that immediately following in said respective graduated scale.
Ex. A penalty of RT max to death will be lowered to PM max to RP med
4. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of several periods, corresponding to different divisible penalties, the penalty next lower in degree shall be composed of the period immediately following the minimum prescribed and of the two next following, which shall be taken from the penalty prescribed, if possible; otherwise from the penalty immediately following in the above mentioned respective graduated scale.
5. When the law prescribes a penalty for a crime in some manner not especially provided for in the four preceding rules, the courts, proceeding by analogy, shall impose corresponding penalties upon those guilty as principals of the frustrated felony, or of attempt to commit the same, and upon accomplices and accessories.
People v. Campuhan
The mother of a 4-year old girl catches the appellant in the act of raping her daughter. The act was declared attempted statutory rape of a minor below 7. The penalty for statutory rape is reclusion perpetua to death. Considering that it is attempted, the penalty would thus be 2 degrees lower, making it reclusion temporal. The Court also applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law (will be explained later!); in the absence of AC or MC, the final penalty would be reclusion temporal in its medium period.
C.) Effects of Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstances RPC 62-64, 67, 69, 71
62 Effect of the attendance of mitigating or aggravating circumstances and of habitual delinquency. (Simplified) - MC, AC and habitual delinquency diminish or decrease the penalty, depending on the following:
1.) AC in themselves that constitute a crime specially punishable by law or are included in the law in defining a crime or;
2.) are inherent in the crime are absorbed into the crime are not to increase the penalty anymore.
3.) AC or MC that arise from the moral attributes of the offender, his private relations with the offended party or any other personal cause serve to increase or decrease the liability ONLY of the offender to whom such circumstances are attendant.
4.) AC or MC will only affect those who had knowledge of them at the time of the execution of the act, especially if these were material in the accomplishment of the crime.
5.) Effects of Habitual Delinquency: (a.k.a. the confusing provision!)
a. Additional penalty upon the 3rd conviction will be prision correctional in its medium and maximum periods.
b. Additional penalty upon the 4th conviction will be prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods
c. Additional penalty upon the 5th (or more) conviction will be prision mayor in its maximum period and reclusion temporal in its minimum period
It must be noted that the total of the two penalties cannot exceed 30 years.
A person shall be deemed a habitual delinquent “if within a period of ten years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious
physical injuries, robo, hurto, estafa or falsification, he is found guilty of any said crime as a third time or oftener.”
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 and there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied. 3. When the commission of the act is attended by some mitigating circumstances 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 court 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.
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 penalty or composed of three different penalties, each one of which forms a period in accordance with the provisions of Articles 76 and 77, the court shall observe for the application of the penalty the following rules, according to whether there are or not mitigating or aggravating circumstances:
1. Where 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 maximum period.
4. 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.
5. 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 deems applicable, according to the number and nature of such circumstances.
6. Whatever may be the number and nature of the aggravating circumstances, the court shall not impose a greater penalty than that prescribed by law, in its maximum period.
7. Within the limits of each period, the court 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.
67. Penalty to be imposed when not all the requisites of exemption of the fourth circumstance of Article 12 (accident) are present. – When all the conditions required in circumstances 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
69. Penalty to be imposed when the crime committed is not wholly excusable. — A penalty lower by one or two degrees than that prescribed by law shall be imposed if the deed is not wholly excusable by reason of the lack of some of the conditions required to justify the same or to exempt from criminal liability in the several cases mentioned in Article 11 and 12, provided that the majority of such conditions be present. The courts shall impose the penalty in the period which may be deemed proper, in view of the number and nature of the conditions of exemption present or lacking.
71. Graduated Scales (see 3 pages back)
ii.) Lacanilao v. CA
A police officer was found guilty of homicide but with the MC of incomplete justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty. The CA penalized the accused based on RPC 64, sentencing him to RT min period. The SC said the CA erred, and that RPC 69 applies. The incomplete justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty is a privileged MC, which means that it cannot be offset by any AC and it reduces the penalty by 1-2 degrees. The indeterminate penalty is now from prision correctional (2y,4m,1s) to prision mayor (8y,1d)
D. Special Rules COMPLEX CRIMES
RPC 48
Penalty for complex crimes — When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period
Compound Crime: Single act constitutes 2 or more grave or less grave felonies
Complex Crime Proper: Offense is a necessary means for committing the other
Penalty: for the most serious crime shall be imposed, max period
a complex crime, although 2 or more crimes are actually committed constitute only one crime in the eyes of the law as well as in the conscience of the offender
offender has only one criminal intent Requisites of a complex crime
That at least 2 offenses are committed
One or some of the offenses must be necessary to commit the other
That both or all the offenses must be punished under the same statute People v. Hernandez
Offense: crime of rebellion (Art 134), one crime only thus no complex crime
(even though in committing rebellion, the accused committed murder, arson and robbery)
Discussion of Article 48
o Constitutes only crime according to the law
o To favor the accused and not to implement a penalty graver than the aggregate penalty of the offense
o This is because when 2 or more crimes are the result of a single act, the offender is deemed less perverse than when he commits said crimes through separate and distinct acts
o One offense is a necessary means for the commission of the other, the evil intent is one and is lesser than when the 2 offenses are unrelated to each other, because in such event, he is twice guilty of having harbored criminal designs
o In this case at bar, if the other offenses would be complexed with rebellion (thereby making it a complex crime), it would be unfavorable to the accused because the extreme penalty would be imposed even in the absence of any aggravating circumstance, if it won’t be complexed, then absent ay
aggravating circumstance, the extreme penalty could not be imposed upon him. Thus, this goes against why Art 48 was created. What the court did is to absorb all the crimes committed in the occasion of committing rebellion to rebellion itself.
The policy of statues on rebellion is to consider all acts committed in furtherance thereof as specified in Art 143 and 135 of the Revised Penal Code
Murders, Arsons and Robberies described therein are mere ingredients of the crime of rebellion allegedly committed by said defendants as means necessary for the perpetration of said offense of rebellion
Thus the offense is only simple rebellion, not the complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder, arsons and robberies
Rebellion shouldn’t be merged with any other offense committed on the occasion thereof, either as a means necessary to its commission or as an unintended effect of an activity that constitutes rebellion
The maximum penalty imposable is 12 years of prision mayor People v. Geronimo
Not every act of violence is to be deemed absorbed in the crime of rebellion solely because it happens to be committed simultaneously with or in the course of the rebellion
\If the killing, robbing, were done for private purposes or profit without any political motivation, the crime would be separately punishable, thus in this case, the accused is separately convicted with murder and not a complex crime of rebellion with murder
But even then, the individual misdeed could not be taken with the rebellion to constitute a complex crime, for the constitutive acts and intent would be unrelated to each other. He would then be liable for 2 separate acts
All crimes committed in the occasion of rebellion, as a means necessary to commit rebellion or in connection therewith, the accused could only be punished of simple rebellion
This case reiterates the Hernandez ruling
Sentenced to prision mayor of 8 years for rebellion considering his plea of guilt as a mitigating circumstance
For murder, applying the ISL, not less than 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor and not more than 18 years of reclusion temporal
Ponce Enrile v. Salazar
Hernandez doctrine prohibits complexing of rebellion with any other offense
However there’s a n appeal that the Hernandez doctrine doesn’t apply in this case because even though the accused committed murders and other common crimes on the occasion of rebellion but in it wasn’t in furtherance of rebellion
Court rules though that all rebellion should absorb all the crimes committed whether in furtherance to rebellion or as an unintended effect of an activity that constitutes rebellion
People v. Bulaong (see CARAANG)
The accused is convicted of 8 complex crimes of forcible abduction with rape aggravated by the use of motor vehicle and mitigated by voluntary surrender to the authorities and sentencing him to 8 reclusion perpetuas, instead of death, out of compassion for Bulaong considering he is married with five minor children
SC held that the trial court erred in imposing 8 reclusion perpetua. Bulaong committed the continuing complex offense of forcible abduction with rape (only one count of the complex offense of forcible abduction with rape even though he committed rape 8 times)
As the rape was committed with the use of a deadly weapon and the crime is complex, the death penalty should be imposed
However, for lack of necessary votes, the same is commuted to reclusion perpetua Napolis v. CA
Accused broke a wall, entered with deadly weapon an inhabited house and stole there valuable effects is punishable under Art 299 of the RPC with reclusion temporal
There is a complex crime under Art 48 thus the penalty will be reclusion temporal in its maximum period owing to the aggravating circumstances of nighttime
People v. Toling (no complex crime here! TRAIN/TWINs)
The 8 killings and the attempted murder were perpetrated by means of different acts. They can’t be regarded as constituting a complex crime under Art 48 which refers to cases were a single act constitutes 2 or more grave felonies or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other
No mitigating and aggravating circumstance, the penalty imposed should be reclusion perpetua in its medium period
A separate penalty for attempted murder should be imposed on the appellants People v. Escober (naïve security guard)
Accused is charged with special complex crime of robbery with homicide
Whenever a homicide has been committed as a consequence of or on the occasion of a robbery, all those who took part as principals in the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, although they did not take part in the homicide unless they did something to prevent the homicide
Whenever homicide is committed as a consequence of or on the occasion of robbery, all those who took part as principals in the commission of the robbery are also guilty as principals in the special complex crime of robbery with homicide although they didn’t take part in the homicide
Thus, although one of the accused participated as a look-out only, and did not help in the killing, he can’t evade the responsibility for the homicide
Penalty: reclusion perpetua People v. Silongan
The accused are members of the MILF and MNLF; they committed the crime of kidnapping with serious illegal detention (Art 267)
However the Hernandez doctrine can’t be used because it does not follow that just because they are members of the MILF or MNLF means that kidnapping is in furtherance of rebellion. It wasn’t proven, likewise, that the crime committed is politically motivated.
It was established that the kidnapping was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom
Under Art 63, penalty is death, an indivisible penalty thus the mitigating circumstance of illiteracy couldn’t be made to apply
People v. Caraang (rape a lot!)
In the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape, when there are 2 victims, the accused would be guilty of 2 counts of such crime
There’s no violation of the consti right of appellant against double jeopardy
The complex crime of forcible abduction with rape is when there is carnal knowledge of the abducted women and when force or intimidation is used
However there can only be one complex crime of forcible abduction with rape committed against each victim. The crime of forcible abduction was necessary only for the first rape. Any subsequent rape of the same victim is simply rape and can no
However there can only be one complex crime of forcible abduction with rape committed against each victim. The crime of forcible abduction was necessary only for the first rape. Any subsequent rape of the same victim is simply rape and can no