Penalties - Reviewer

Penalti es: Penalty, defined. Penalty is the suffering that is inflicted by the state for the transgression of the law. Concept of Penalty. Penalty in its general sense signifies pain; especially considered in the juridical sphere, it means suffering undergone, because of the action of human society, by one who commits a crime. Different Juridical Conditions of Penalty: 1. Must be productive of suffering, without however affecting the integrity of the human personality. 2. Must be commensurate with the offense – different crimes must be punished with different penalties. 3. Must be personal – no one should be punished for the crime of another. 4. Must be legal – it is the consequence of a judgment according to law. 5. Must be certain – no one may escape its effects. 6. Must be equal for all. 7. Must be correctional.

These are the juridical conditions of penalty according to the Classical School on which the RPC is based. What is the purpose of the State in punishing crimes? •

To secure justice – the State has an existence of its own to maintain, a conscience of its own to assert, and moral principles to be vindicated.

Theories justifying penalty: a) Prevention – state punishes the criminal prevent/suppress the danger arising from the crime.

to

b) Self-defense – the state punishes the criminal to protect society from the threat of the criminal. c) Reformation – the state punishes to criminal to correct and reform the latter. d) Exemplarity – the state punishes the criminal to make an example of him. e) Justice – the state punishes the criminal as an act of retributive justice. The penalty under the RPC has a three-fold purpose. a) Retribution or expiation commensurate to the crime.

–

because

penalty

is

b) Correction or reformation – as shown by the rules that regulate the execution of the penalties consisting in deprivation of liberty. c) Social defense – as exhibited by provisions that pertain to habitual offenders and repeat criminals. Constitutional restricttion on penalties. ARTICLE III – BILL OF RIGHTS Section 19. (1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.

(2) The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading punishment against any prisoner or detainee or the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law. Section 20. No person shall be imprisoned for debt or nonpayment of a poll tax. Section 21. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act. Section 22. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.

Revised Penal Code. Art. 21. Penalties that may be imposed. — No felony shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law prior to its commission. Revised Penal Code. Art. 22. Retroactive effect of penal laws. — Penal Laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the persons guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, although at the time of the publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same. Revised Penal Code.Art. 23. Effect of pardon by the offended party. — A pardon of the offended party does not extinguish criminal action except as provided in Article 344 of this Code; but civil liability with regard to the interest of the injured party is extinguished by his express waiver. Revised Penal Code.Art. 24. Measures of prevention or safety which are nor considered penalties. — The following shall not be considered as penalties: 1. The arrest and temporary detention of accused persons, as well as their detention by reason of insanity or imbecility, or illness requiring their confinement in a hospital.

2. The commitment of a minor to any of the institutions mentioned in Article 80 and for the purposes specified therein. 3. Suspension from the employment of public office during the trial or in order to institute proceedings. 4. Fines and other corrective measures which, in the exercise of their administrative disciplinary powers, superior officials may impose upon their subordinates. 5. Deprivation of rights and the reparations which the civil laws may establish in penal form.

CLASSIFICATION PENALTIES

OF

Revised Penal Code. Art. 25. Penalties which may be imposed. — The penalties which may be imposed according to this Code, and their different classes, are those included in the following:

Scale PRINCIPAL PENALTIES Capital punishment: Death. Afflictive penalties: Reclusion perpetua, Reclusion temporal, Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification, Perpetual or temporary special disqualification, Prision mayor. Correctional penalties: Prision correccional, Arresto mayor, Suspension, Destierro. Light penalties:

Arresto menor, Public censure.

Revised Penal Code. Art. 27. Reclusion perpetua. — Any person sentenced to any of the perpetual penalties shall be pardoned after undergoing the penalty for thirty years, unless such person by reason of his conduct or some other serious cause shall be considered by the Chief Executive as unworthy of pardon.

Penalties common to the three preceding classes: Fine, and Bond to keep the peace. ACCESSORY PENALTIES Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification, Perpetual or temporary special disqualification,

Reclusion temporal. — The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be from twelve years and one day to twenty years.

Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, the profession or calling.

Prision mayor and temporary disqualification. — The duration of the penalties of prision mayor and temporary disqualification shall be from six years and one day to twelve years, except when the penalty of disqualification is imposed as an accessory penalty, in which case its duration shall be that of the principal penalty.

Civil interdiction,

Prision correccional, suspension, and destierro. — The duration of the penalties of prision correccional, suspension and destierro shall be from six months and one day to six years, except when suspension is imposed as an accessory penalty, in which case, its duration shall be that of the principal penalty.

Indemnification, Forfeiture instruments offense,

or and

confiscation proceeds of

of the

Payment of costs. Revised Penal Code. Art. 26. When afflictive, correctional, or light penalty. — A fine, whether imposed as a single of as an alternative penalty, shall be considered an afflictive penalty, if it exceeds 6,000 pesos; a correctional penalty, if it does not exceed 6,000 pesos but is not less than 200 pesos; and a light penalty if it less than 200 pesos.

DURATION AND EFFECTS OF PENALTIES

Arresto mayor. — The duration of the penalty of arresto mayor shall be from one month and one day to six months. Arresto menor. — The duration of the penalty of arresto menor shall be from one day to thirty days. Bond to keep the peace. — The bond to keep the peace shall be required to cover such period of time as the court may determine. Revised Penal Code. Art. 28. Computation of penalties. — If the offender shall be in prison, the term of the duration of the temporary penalties shall be computed from the day on which the judgment of conviction shall have become final. If the offender be not in prison, the term of the duration of the penalty consisting of deprivation of liberty shall be computed from the day that the offender is placed at the disposal of the judicial authorities for the enforcement of the penalty. The duration of the other penalties shall be computed only from the day on which the defendant commences to serve his sentence.

Revised Penal Code. Art. 29. Period of preventive imprisonment deducted from term of imprisonment. — Offenders who have undergone preventive imprisonment shall be credited in the service of their sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty, with the full time during which they have undergone preventive imprisonment, if the detention prisoner agrees voluntarily in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, except in the following cases: 1. When they are recidivists or have been convicted previously twice or more times of any crime; and 2. When upon being summoned for the execution of their sentence they have failed to surrender voluntarily. If the detention prisoner does not agree to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, he shall be credited in the service of his sentence with four-fifths of the time during which he has undergone preventive imprisonment. (As amended by Republic Act 6127, June 17, 1970). Whenever an accused has undergone preventive imprisonment for a period equal to or more than the possible maximum imprisonment of the offense charged to which he may be sentenced and his case is not yet terminated, he shall be released immediately without prejudice to the continuation of the trial thereof or the proceeding on appeal, if the same is under review. In case the maximum penalty to which the accused may be sentenced is destierro, he shall be released after thirty (30) days of preventive imprisonment. (As amended by E.O. No. 214, July 10, 1988).

Effects of the penalties according to their respective nature Revised Penal Code. Art. 30. Effects of the penalties of perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification. — The penalties of perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification for public office shall produce the following effects:

1. The deprivation of the public offices and employments which the offender may have held even if conferred by popular election. 2. The deprivation of the right to vote in any election for any popular office or to be elected to such office. 3. The disqualification for the offices or public employments and for the exercise of any of the rights mentioned. In case of temporary disqualification, such disqualification as is comprised in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this article shall last during the term of the sentence. 4. The loss of all rights to retirement pay or other pension for any office formerly held. Revised Penal Code. Art. 31. Effect of the penalties of perpetual or temporary special disqualification. — The penalties of perpetual or temporal special disqualification for public office, profession or calling shall produce the following effects: 1. The deprivation of the office, employment, profession or calling affected; 2. The disqualification for holding similar offices or employments either perpetually or during the term of the sentence according to the extent of such disqualification. Revised Penal Code. Art. 32. Effect of the penalties of perpetual or temporary special disqualification for the exercise of the right of suffrage. — The perpetual or temporary special disqualification for the exercise of the right of suffrage shall deprive the offender perpetually or during the term of the sentence, according to the nature of said penalty, of the right to vote in any popular election for any public office or to be elected to such office. Moreover, the offender shall not be permitted to hold any public office during the period of his disqualification. Revised Penal Code. Art. 33. Effects of the penalties of suspension from any public office, profession or calling, or the right of suffrage. — The suspension from public office, profession or calling, and the exercise of the right of suffrage shall disqualify the offender from holding such office or exercising such profession or calling or right of suffrage during the term of the sentence.

The person suspended from holding public office shall not hold another having similar functions during the period of his suspension. Revised Penal Code. Art. 34. Civil interdiction. — Civil interdiction shall deprive the offender during the time of his sentence of the rights of parental authority, or guardianship, either as to the person or property of any ward, of marital authority, of the right to manage his property and of the right to dispose of such property by any act or any conveyance inter vivos. Revised Penal Code. Art. 35. Effects of bond to keep the peace. — It shall be the duty of any person sentenced to give bond to keep the peace, to present two sufficient sureties who shall undertake that such person will not commit the offense sought to be prevented, and that in case such offense be committed they will pay the amount determined by the court in the judgment, or otherwise to deposit such amount in the office of the clerk of the court to guarantee said undertaking. The court shall determine, according to its discretion, the period of duration of the bond. Should the person sentenced fail to give the bond as required he shall be detained for a period which shall in no case exceed six months, is he shall have been prosecuted for a grave or less grave felony, and shall not exceed thirty days, if for a light felony. Revised Penal Code. Art. 36. Pardon; its effect. — A pardon shall not work the restoration of the right to hold public office, or the right of suffrage, unless such rights be expressly restored by the terms of the pardon. A pardon shall in no case exempt the culprit from the payment of the civil indemnity imposed upon him by the sentence.

Revised Penal Code. Art. 37. Cost; What are included. — Costs shall include fees and indemnities in the course of the judicial proceedings, whether they be fixed or unalterable amounts previously determined by law or regulations in force, or amounts not subject to schedule.

Revised Penal Code. Art. 38. Pecuniary liabilities; Order of payment. — In case the property of the offender should not be sufficient for the payment of all his pecuniary liabilities, the same shall be met in the following order: 1. The reparation of the damage caused. 2. Indemnification of consequential damages. 3. The fine. 4. The cost of the proceedings. Revised Penal Code. Art. 39. Subsidiary penalty. — If the convict has no property with which to meet the fine mentioned in the paragraph 3 of the nest preceding article, he shall be subject to a subsidiary personal liability at the rate of one day for each eight pesos, subject to the following rules: 1. If the principal penalty imposed be prision correccional or arresto and fine, he shall remain under confinement until his fine referred to in the preceding paragraph is satisfied, but his subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed one-third of the term of the sentence, and in no case shall it continue for more than one year, and no fraction or part of a day shall be counted against the prisoner. 2. When the principal penalty imposed be only a fine, the subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed six months, if the culprit shall have been prosecuted for a grave or less grave felony, and shall not exceed fifteen days, if for a light felony. 3. When the principal imposed is higher than prision correccional, no subsidiary imprisonment shall be imposed upon the culprit. 4. If the principal penalty imposed is not to be executed by confinement in a penal institution, but such penalty is of fixed duration, the convict, during the period of time established in the preceding rules, shall continue to suffer the same deprivations as those of which the principal penalty consists.

5. The subsidiary personal liability which the convict may have suffered by reason of his insolvency shall not relieve him, from

the fine in case his financial circumstances should improve. (As amended by RA 5465, April 21, 1969).

Penalties in which other accessory penalties are inherent Revised Penal Code. Art. 40. Death; Its accessory penalties. — The death penalty, when it is not executed by reason of commutation or pardon shall carry with it that of perpetual absolute disqualification and that of civil interdiction during thirty years following the date sentence, unless such accessory penalties have been expressly remitted in the pardon. Revised Penal Code. Art. 41. Reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal; Their accessory penalties. — The penalties of reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal shall carry with them that of civil interdiction for life or during the period of the sentence as the case may be, and that of perpetual absolute disqualification which the offender shall suffer even though pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless the same shall have been expressly remitted in the pardon. Revised Penal Code. Art. 42. Prision mayor; Its accessory penalties. — The penalty of prision mayor, shall carry with it that of temporary absolute disqualification and that of perpetual special disqualification from the right of suffrage which the offender shall suffer although pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless the same shall have been expressly remitted in the pardon. Revised Penal Code. Art. 43. Prision correccional; Its accessory penalties. — The penalty of prision correccional shall carry with it that of suspension from public office, from the right to follow a profession or calling, and that of perpetual special disqualification from the right of suffrage, if the duration of said imprisonment shall exceed eighteen months. The offender shall suffer the disqualification provided in the article although pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless the same shall have been expressly remitted in the pardon.

Revised Penal Code. Art. 44. Arresto; Its accessory penalties. — The penalty of arresto shall carry with it that of suspension of the right too hold office and the right of suffrage during the term of the sentence.

Revised Penal Code. Art. 45. Confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds or instruments of the crime. — Every penalty imposed for the commission of a felony shall carry with it the forfeiture of the proceeds of the crime and the instruments or tools with which it was committed. Such proceeds and instruments or tools shall be confiscated and forfeited in favor of the Government, unless they be property of a third person not liable for the offense, but those articles which are not subject of lawful commerce shall be destroyed.

APPLICATION OF PENALTIES Revised Penal Code. Art. 46. Penalty to be imposed upon principals in general. — The penalty prescribed by law for the commission of a felony shall be imposed upon the principals in the commission of such felony. Whenever the law prescribes a penalty for a felony is general terms, it shall be understood as applicable to the consummated felony. Revised Penal Code. Art. 47. In what cases the death penalty shall not be imposed. — The death penalty shall be imposed in all

cases in which it must be imposed under existing laws, except in the following cases:

1. When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies. (compound crime)

1. When the guilty person be more than seventy years of age.

2. When an offense is a necessary means for committing the other. (complex crime proper)

2. When upon appeal or revision of the case by the Supreme court, all the members thereof are not unanimous in their voting as to the propriety of the imposition of the death penalty. For the imposition of said penalty or for the confirmation of a judgment of the inferior court imposing the death sentence, the Supreme Court shall render its decision per curiam, which shall be signed by all justices of said court, unless some member or members thereof shall have been disqualified from taking part in the consideration of the case, in which even the unanimous vote and signature of only the remaining justices shall be required.

Complex Crimes Revised Penal Code. Art. 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. At least two crimes must be commited. But it must be produced by a single act or the other be a necessary means for committing the other. A complex crime is only one crime. Because there is only one criminal intent, it is only one crime, and warrants one punishment. Two kinds of complex crimes:

(ordinarily, both just “complex crimes”) “When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies.” Requisites: 1. That only a single act is performed by the offender. 2. That the single act produces (1) two or more grave felonies, or (2) one or more grave and one or more less grave felonies, or (3) two or more less grave felonies. (in short, two or more felonies, grave or less grave, in any combination) Example: The single act of throwing a hand grenade producing murder and multiple attempted murders – the single act of throwing a hand grenade produced one death and multiple attempted murders. Held guilty for the complex crime of murder and attempted murder. Penalty imposed: death, murder being the more serious crime than attempted murder. Distinguished from: Several shots from a Thompson sub-machine gun causing several deaths, although caused by a single act of pressing the trigger, are considered several acts – the single act of pressing the trigger and not letting it go, is considered multiple acts because, for every bullet fired while the trigger is pressed is a decision to not let go of that trigger. Thus it is not a single act. Held guilty for each murder and sentenced seperately.

CRUCIAL POINT: WAS THERE JUST A SINGLE ACT? IF YES, THEN IT IS A COMPOUND CRIME “Two or more grave or less grave felonies.” Complex crimes should only have two or more grave felonies involved, if not, there is no complex crime.

Light felonies produced by the same act should be treated and punished as separate offenses or may be absorbed by the grave felony. 1. If there are only light felonies produced by a single act, there is no complex crime. Each crime is to be treated as a separate crime. 2. If there is a grave felony and a light felony produced by a single act, there is no complex crime. The light felony is just absorbed into the grave felony. Example of compound crime: 1. A shot a person B. C who was standing behind B got hit by the bullet that went through B. A is guilty of the complex crime of the whatever felonies produced in this case. 2. The act of raping a girl and causing her physical injuries which required medical attention for about 20 days. Rape with homicie is a special complex crime not covered by Art. 48.

are all individually liable of one offense, the complex crime of multiple homicide. THIS ONLY APPLIES WHEN THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO DETERMINE HOW MANY EACH OF THEM KILLED. When it is whithin the scope of possibility that the two victims were killed by one and the same missile. Again, when there is no evidence on how the two victims died, since their bodies were found in close proximity, and it is possible that they were killed by the same missile, the accused is guilty of the complex crime of double murder. Applicable to crimes through negligence. Because the RPC punishes felonies by dolo (deceit) and culpa (fault), Art. 48 also applie to felonies committed through negligence. Theft of a firearm and illegal possession of the same firearm do not form a complex crime – they are two distinct crimes.

Because there is a specific provision in the RPC penalizing rape with homicide (Art. 266-B).

Because the other is punished under the RPC and the other by a special law. Complex crimes must only comprise of felonies or crimes punished in the RPC.

No complex crime where one of the offense is penalized by a special law.

“When an offense is a necessary means for committing the other.”

If there is a special law penalizing a complex crime, there is actually no complex crime. Rather just the crime punished under that law.

Requisites: 1. That at least two offenses are committed

There is no complex crime of arson with homicide under Art. 48

2. That one or some of the offenses must be necessary to commit the other.

There is a special law providing one penalty for arson with homicide (RA 7659)

3. That both or all the offense must be punished under the same statute. (Thus when the crime involves an offense in the RPC and a special law, there is no complex crime.)

When in obedience to an order several accused simultaneously shot many persons, without evidence how many each killed, there is only a single offense,there being a single criminal impulse. A ordered B, C, and to shoot at a crowd, there being no evidence to determine how many each of B C and D killed, they

At least two offenses must be committed. Falsification of a public document (Art. 171) and malversation (Art . 217). A violated Art. 171 in order to acquire money from B which later misappriopriated, violating Art. 217. It

was necessary for A to violate Art. 171 in order to acquire the money which he misappriopriated, Art. 217.

conceal is not considered a “necessary means”, thus there is no complex crime.

The phrase “necessary “indispensable means”.

When the offender had in his possession the funds which he misappriopriated, the falsification of a public document involving said funds is a separate offense.

means”

does

not

mean

If this were the case, it would mean that one act is an ingredient of the other, and would not constitute a complex crime (because then, if for example, offense A is an indispensable ingredient of B, then all violations of B shall always coincide with offense A, thus, there is no complex crime.)

Same reason as above. Because the falsification was not committed to acquire the money, and was rather employed to conceal the fact that the money was misappriopriated, that act is that of concealment and not a “necessary means”.

When in the definition of a felony, one offense is a means to commit the other, there is no complex crime.

Illegal possession of firearm is not a necessary means to commit homicide.

In complex crime, when the offender executes various acts, he must have a single purpose.

Simple enough, there is no sense of necessity to illegally possess a firearm to commit a homicide. Also these offenses are punished in separate statutes.

If A falsified 27 documents to commit estafa, there is a complex crime, there being a singular purpose in the 27 falsifications, to commit estafa.

Illegal Possession of firearm, when considered a special aggravating circumstance.

If A falsified 27 documents, and just that. A is guilty with 27 counts of falsification.

But because of RA 8294, use of an unlicensed firearm to commit murder or homicide is now an aggravating circumstance.

Subsequent acts of intercourse, after forcible abduction with rape, are separate acts of rape.

Illegal possesion of firearm absorbed in rebellion.

A, assisted by B, C, and D kidnapped E and raped her. After, still while in captivity, E was raped again 16 times (4 times each) by the four of them. A, B, C and D are guilty of (1) forcible abduction with rape and (2) 16 counts of rape. The reason for this is because the first rape and the abduction were already consumated. Thus the latter rapes are no longer connected to the abduction and constituted separate offenses. No complex crime when trespass to dwelling is a direct means to commit a grave offense. Because in this case, the trespassing will be considered as an aggravating circumstance under Art. 14 (par. 18 or 19)

If firearm in question is the same firearm used in the furtherance of said rebellion. NOTE: NOT A COMPLEX CRIME. REBELLION JUST ABSORBS THE ILLEGAL POSSESSION. When two or more or acts are committed but (1) not by a single act or (2) one is not a necessary means for committing the other, there is no complex crime. Simple enough. The case above is not a complex crime because it doesn’t fall in the two categories of a complex crime: compound crime – multiple felonies, one act and complex crime proper – multiple felonies, multiple acts, but served as “necessary means”.

committed

There is no complex crime of rebellion with murder, arson, robbery, or other common crimes.

Concealment suggests that the crime has been consumated. Therefore an offense committed for the purpose of

If and only if these acts are committed in perpetration of said rebellion, these acts are absorbed by the rebellion, them being indispensable means or mere ingredients to that rebellion.

No complex crime, conceal the other.

when

one

offense

is

When two crimes produced by a single act are respectively within the jurisdiction of two courts of different jurisdiction, the court of higher jurisdiction shall try the complex crime. If A through a single act, produced two felonies, the complex crime of B and C, and B is the exclusive jurisdiction of court B1 and C of C1, if C1 has higher jurisdiction than B1, then C1 will try the complex crime, or vice versa, if B1 has higher jurisidtion than C1. The CFI (now, RTC) o Manila retained jurisdiction in a charge of abduction with rape, although the abduction, which was commenced in Manila, was not proven, and the rape which was committed in Cavite, was the only matter proved. The complex crime of forcible abduction with rape was charged in the complaint on the basis of which the case was tried. (note: in my understanding, if the court loses jurisdiction, then the ruling where the abduction was not proven will lose power, and the reason for taking away the jurisdiction in the first place will have no basis.) Art. 48 is intended to favor the culprit. Because, instead of being imposed two or more separate penalties, the criminal is sentenced only the penalty for the graver offense in its maximum period. The reason for this is because when two or more crimes are the result of a single act, the offender is deemed less perverse than when he commits the said crimes through separate and distinct acts. The penalty for complex crime is the penalty for the most serious crime, the same to be applied in its maximum period. The rule is if A is guilty of a complex crime of B and C. A shall be sentenced to the penalty of the more serious crime, either B or C, whichever is the case (determined by the severity of its penalty), in its maximum period. In the above example, if B and C have the same penalties, than the penalty in maximum period of one of them shall apply.

When the homicide, physical injuries, and the burning of a house are the result of one single act of negligence, there is only one penalty, but there are three civil liablilties. – it would seem the concept of a complext crime only mitigates criminal liablities, the civil libalities still stand. When the penalty for one of the crimes resultingfrom a single act is beyond the jurisdiction of the municipal court, there should be additional penalty for the other. When two felonies constituting a complex crime are punishable by a imprisonmentand fine, respectively, only the penalty of imprisonment should be imposed. The rule is if A is guilty of a complex crime of B and C. A shall be sentenced to the penalty of the more serious crime, either B or C, whichever is the case (determined by the severity of its penalty), in its maximum period. In the above example if, the penalty of B is a fine of P40,000, and the penalty for C is only 4 months, the penalty for C shall apply. Aside from the severity of penalty, the nature is also considered, it would seem that the rule on nature of penalty would supersede the rule on severity, in that, the rule on severity would only apply when the two penalties are of the same nature, i.e. jail time or fine. It is to be understood also, that prison time is always of a worse nature than a fine. JAIL TIME IS BAD. Art. 48 applies only to cases where the code does not provide a definite specific penalty for a complex crime. Art. 48 does not apply when the law provides one single penalty for speial complex crimes. If there is a provision in the RPC that punishes a specific complex crime, then art. 48 shall not apply. Instead, the penalty on that provision shall be followed. One information should be filed when a complex crime is committed. When the allegation is complex crime, one information alleging the complex crime should be filed, instead of several disjointed informations alleging separate offenses. When a complex crime is charged and one offense is not proven, the accused can be convicted of the other.

If one of the crimes being alleged in an information of a complex crime is not proven, it does not absolve the accused of the entire crime. Instead, he can still be convicted for the crime which can be proved, even if only one information is filed. Special Complex Crime of Murder or Homicide. Before RA 7659, kidnapping with murder must be qualified. If A kidnapped B with the intention of killing B, A is guilty of the complex crime of kidnapping with murder. If A kidnapped B, but did not intend to kill B, but nevertheless killed him as an afterthought, A is guilty of two crimes of kidnapping and murder, separately. After RA 7659, regardless of the qualifications, if A kidnapped B and subsequently killed, raped or subjected B to torture or dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty shall be imposed.

COMPLEX CRIMES – Case Digests (from ADAPT) ENRILE vs. SALAZAR 186 SCRA 217 Case #/Date: GR No 92613 06.05.1990 Ponente: Narvasa, J Parties: Juan Ponce Enrile, petitioner Judge Jaime Salazar, Senior State Prosecutor Aurelio Trampe, Prosecutor Ferdinand Abesamis, Asst. Prosecutor Eulogio Manquil, NBI Director Alfredo Lim and any person who have actual custody of Juan Ponce Enrile, respondents Facts: In the afternoon of 02.27.1990, Sen. Minority Flr. Leader Juan Ponce Enrile was arrested by law enforcement officers led by Alfredo Lim of NBI on the strength of a warrant for arrest issued by Judge Jaime Salazar of QC RTC due to the charge of the crime of rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder allegedly committed during the period of the failed coup attempt from 11.29 to 12.10.1990. He was taken to NGI headquarters in Taft and was not allowed to post bail. The following day he was brought to Camp Tomas Karingal in Quezon City. On the same day, Sen. Enrile through his counsel filed the petition for habeas corpus alleging that he was deprived of his constitutional rights.

His counsel, including the counsels of his co-accused spouses Panililio, argued that his case does not fall within the Hernandez ruling which is a complex crime, instead it is within the compound crime arising from a single act constituting 2 or more grave or less grave offenses referred to in the 1st paragraph of Art 48 of the RPC. Issues: • WON Hernandez ruling should be abandoned • WON to hold Hernandez ruling to offenses committed in furtherance of rebellion • WON to maintain Hernandez as applying to make rebellion absorb all other offenses in its course, whether or not necessary to its commission or in furtherance thereof • WON the petitioner was charged with a non-existing crime Decision: • The court held that Hernandez ruling should not be abandoned • Its substantive and logical bases have withstood all subsequent challenges and no new ones are presented here persuasive enough to warrant a complete reversal • The President in effect by legislative flat reinstated Hernandez as binding doctrine with the effect of law. • The court held that Hernandez ruling should be limited to offenses committed as a necessary means for the commission of rebellion and that • the ruling should not be interpreted as prohibiting the complexing of rebellion with other common crimes committed on the occasion, but not in furtherance, thereof. • It would be unfavorable to the offender when Art 48 was enacted for the purpose of favoring the culprit, not of sentencing him of a penalty more severe than that which would be proper if the several acts performed by him were punished separately • If one act constitutes two or more offenses, there can be no reason to inflict a punishment graver than that prescribed for each one of said offenses put together. • When two or more crimes are the result of a single act, the offender is deemed less perverse than when he commits said crimes thru separate and distinct acts.

•

The indictment should be read as charging the petitioner with simple rebellion

NAPOLIS vs. CA 43 SCRA 301 Case #/Date: GR No L-28865 02..28.1972 Ponente: Concepcion, CJ Parties: Nicanor Napolis, petitioner Court of Appeals and People of the Phils., respondents Nature: Appeal from the decision of the lower court convicting the petitioner for the crime of robbery in band Facts: At about 1 o‘clock in the morning of 10.01.1965, Mrs. Penaflor, heard the barkings of the dogs nearby indicating that strangers were around the vicinity. She woke up her husband, and her husband taking his .38 caliber pistol went downstairs, he then saw 4 men forcibly pushing and opening the gate, one of them holding a machine gun, fired at them. But he was hit on the head by one of the men, fell down and pretended to be dead. He was tied by the men, then the 4 went inside the house and asked for money from Mrs. Penaflor, who gave them P2000 and 2 rings worth P350. The men also took the revolver of Mr. Penaflor worth P150, tied the wife and their 2 children before fleeing the scene. Issues: • WON the crime committed is complex, and what penalty shall be imposed Decision: • The court held that when both – robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons and entering the dwelling – are present, the crime is a complex one calling for the imposition of the penalty for the most serious offense PEOPLE vs. TOLING 62 SCRA 17 Case: People v Toling Case #/Date: GR No L-27097 01.17.1975 Ponente: Aquino, J Parties: People of the Phils., plaintiff-appelle

Anotnio and Jose Toling, defendant-appellant Nature: Appeal from the decision of the CFI of Laguna for the crimes of multiple murder and attempted murder Facts: The twins, Antonio and Jose Toling, went to Manila to visit and get money from their children. Antonio got from his daughter and grandchild money amounting to P80 while Jose was not able to meet his children. On 01.08.1965, they boarded the night Bicol Express and in Coach 9, on their way home. Not long after the train resumed its regular speed, Antonio stood up and stabbed the man in front of him, then Jose stabbed the sleeping old woman in front of him. Amanda Mapa, seeing what happened stood up, carrying her child and tried to escape but she was also stabbed. As a result of what happened 12 people died- in the train or found in tracks of the train – and several people were injured due to the incident. A Constabulary Sergeant Rayel, was in another part of the train and upon learning of what happened, he went to the scene, he identified himself as a person of authority then saw Antonio stabbed himself. According to the twins, there were people who tried to rob them and stabbed them in the train. They just defended themselves from those people and admitted stabbing 2 man and stabbing Amanda Mapa. Decision: • The eight killings and the attempted murder were perpetrated by means of different acts. Hence, they cannot be regarded as constituting a complex crime under article 48 of the Revised Penal Code which refers to cases where "a single act constitutes two or more grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other". • On the 4 people who were found in the tracks of the train, the court held that the absence of eyewitness-testimony as to the jumping from the train of the four victims already named precludes the imputation of criminal responsibility to the appellants for the ghastly deaths of the said victims. PEOPLE vs. SALVILLA 184 SCRA 671 Case #/Date: GR No 86163 04.26.1990 Ponente: Melencio-Herrera, J Parties:

People of the Phils., plaintiff-appelle Bienvenido Salvilla, Reynaldo Canaseres, Ronaldo Canaseres, and Simplicio Canaseres, defendants-appellants Nature: Appeal from the judgment convicting the appellants from the complex crime of robbery with serious physical injuries and serious illegal detention Facts: On 04.12.1986, a robbery was staged by the 4 accused, armed withgunds and a hand grenade, at the New Iloilo Lumber Yard. When they entered the establishment they met the employee, Rodita Habiero, was made to go back to the office and announced a hold-up. Salvilla pointed a gun to the owner, Choco, and his two children, Mary and Mimie, and told the owner that all they needed was money. The owner gave him P20,000 and told them to leave since he already gave them the money. But the appellants did not leave, detained the 4 people and later that afternoon asked for P100k so that they would be released. At that time the police were already outside the premises and started negotiation. They told the appellants that only P50k could only be given because it was a Saturday and it was hard to raise money. The accused let the employee to get the money and upon taking the money let her leave the premises. After that, the accused still refused to let the hostages go so the police decided to launch an offensive and assault the place. Because of the incident, Mary was injured and her right leg has to be amputated. Decision: • The court held that hat a complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code has been committed such that the penalty for the more serious offense of Serious Illegal Detention (Art. 267, Revised Penal Code), or "reclusion perpetua to death," is to be imposed instead of the penalty prescribed for Robbery with Serious Physical Injuries (Art. 294 (3), which is reclusion temporal. • He court held that the crime of Serious Illegal Detention was such a necessary means as it was selected by the appellant and his co-accused to facilitate and carry out more effectively their evil design to stage a robbery. • Only one information was filed charging the complex offense • Forestall the capture v availed as a means of insuring the consummation of robbery

PEOPLE vs. VALDEZ 304 SCRA 611 Case #/Date: GR No 127633 03.11.1999 Ponente: Melo, J Parties: People of the Phils., plaintiff-appelle Rolando Valdez, accused-appellant Nature: Appeal from a decision of the RTC of Urdaneta, Pangasinan Facts: In the evening of 09.17.1995, the victims after discussing on how they would go to the wedding of a certain Jean Marie‘s cousin they rode in the tricycle and met the appellant Rolande Valdez and his companions who were armed with guns. Without warning they pointed their guns (carbine which is a single action gun) and fired at the victims (the Montanos). After uttering the words, they are already dead, they left the scene. Four of the victims died, Jean Marie Garcia, Ramon Garcia, Sandra Montano and Willie Acosta, while the others Willie Montano and Randy Tibule survived the attack. Decision: • The court held that the four crimes of murder resulted not from a single act but from several individual and distinct acts. The evidence indicates that there was more than one gunman involved and the act of each gunman is distinct from that of the other. There were also several empty bullet shells recovered from the scene of the crime which confirms that several shots were fired. Each act by each gunman pulling the trigger of their respective firearms, aiming each particular moment at different persons constitute distinct and individual acts which cannot give rise to the complex crime of multiple murder. Ratio: • Proof of the motive is necessary for conviction only when there is doubt as to the identity of the accused, not when accused has been positively identified as in the present case. • RA 8249. If firearm is used to commit homicide or murder it would only be considered as an aggravating circumstance. Law will not be given retroactive application

Continued Crime Plurality of Crimes.

Continued Crime. A continued (continuous or continuing) crime is a single crime consisting of a series of acts but all arising from one criminal resolution. Although there is a series of acts, there is only one one crime committed. Hence, only one penalty shall be imposed. Examples of continued crimes.

Plurality of crimes consists in the successive execution by the same individual of different criminal acts upon any of which no conviction has yet been declared.

1. When A misappriopriates several amounts collected by him, in different occassions, in a grand scheme, he is only guilty of one crime because of the singularity of the criminal purpose.

Kinds of plurality of crimes.

2. People vs De Leon (cited later)

1. Formal or Ideal (2 categories of these are those that fall under Art. 48 – only one criminal liability) 2. Real or Material – there are different crimes in law as well as in the conscience of the offender. In such cases, the offender shall be punished for each and every offense. Example of real or material plurality. A stabbed B with a knife. Then, A also stabbed C.

Plurality of crimes distinguished from recidivism. In recidivism, there must be conviction by final judgment of the first or prior offense. In plurality of crimes, there is no conviction of any of the crimes committed. Plural crimes of the formal or ideal type are divided into three groups. 1. When it falls under Art. 148. 2. When the law specifically fixes a single penalty for two or more offenses committed. 3. When the offender commits a continued crime.

3. Eight robberies as a component parts of a general plan – when there was a fiesta in certain barrio, the accused committed eight robberies, taking advantage of the fiesta. The robberies form part of one grand scheme, one criminal purpose. Not one continuing crime, but three separate crimes. The accused robbed three houses. There is no singular criminal purpose bacause the idea was to rob each house separately. NOTE: medyo malabo. I remember Barry’s example about him going to different classrooms and robbing each class. I don’t remember exactly what he said. But i guess the factor missing from this case is the link. In example one, there was one criminal intention, and was executed by abusing one position. In example 2, the accused stole two fighting cocks, belonging to two different people, but from one location. In example 3, there was grand scheme to take advantage of the fiesta to rob multiple location. In this case, there was no other link between the robberies other than a chronological link.

The series of acts born of a single criminal impulse may be perpetuated during along period of time. A, in the span of one year, wrote three letters to B, threatening t kill B and burn his house, and demanding money. When A was finally arrested, A was only guilty a singular crime, which arose from one criminal purpose. When two acts are deemed distinct from one another although proceeding from the same criminal impulse.

A is very angry at B. A verbally defamed B, after which he attacked and physcally assaulted B. Although both acts arose from one criminal impulse, slander and slight physical injuries are of different natures, the former against honor, the latter against persons. Hence prosecution for both crimes, will not place A in double jeopardy. NOTE: it would seem that the raison d’etre for the concept of continued crimes is to avoid double jeopardy. Looking at the examples, trying each offense contained in then continued crime would place the accused in double jeopardy. There’s also that bit about having only one criminal intention.

A continued crime is not a complex crime. Because the offender does not perform just a single act, neither are the acts done in perpetration serve as necessary means for another. The penalty for continued crime is not the same with complex crime. The penalty shall not be applied int the maximum period. There is no provision in the RPC or any other penal law defining and specifically penalizing a continuing crime. The principle is applied in connection with two or more crimes committed with a single intention. Distinguish real or material plurality from continued crime. Real or material plurality – each crime is done with a criminal purpose. i.e. crime 1 – criminal purpose 1, crime 2 – criminal purpose 2 . . . Continued crime – all crimes done with the same criminal purpose. i.e. crime 1 – criminal purpose 1, crime 2 – criminal purpose 1, crime 3 – criminal purpose 1, crime 4 – criminal purpose 1, crime 5 – criminal purpose 1

CONTINUED CRIMES – Case Digest (from ADAPT) PEOPLE vs. DE LEON 49 Phil. 437 Case #/Date: Nos. 25375 and 25376 10.08.1926 Ponente: Villamor, J Parties: People of the Phils., plaintiff-appelle Vicente De Leon Y Flora, defendant-appellant Nature: Appeal from a judgment of the CFI of Manila Facts: In the early morning of 12.12.1925, the accused, Vicente De Leon y Flora, entered the yard of a certain Vicente Magat‘s house and took 2 roosters – one belonging to a certain Diego Magat and the other to Ignacio Nicolas. Upon being arraigned he pleaded guilty but appealed to the CFI of Manila and pleaded not guilty. The trial court found him guilty of one crime of theft holding that the theft of the 2 roosters constituted but one crime. The Attorney-General raises a question and urges that the penalty for 2 crimes of theft be imposed upon the accused. Decision: • The court held that the act of taking the roosters in the same place on the same occasion cannot give rise to 2 crimes having an independent existence of their own because there are not 2 distinct appropriations nor 2 intentions that characterize 2 separate crimes. • It s not element of the crime of theft that the culprit know the owner of the thing stolen, requisite of the crime is the taking of property belonging to another with intent to gain, without the consent of the owner • The unity of the intention to take a thing belonging to another on one occasion and in the same place, constitutes the commission of only 1 crime of theft • The fact that the properties belong to different persons does not produce multiplicity of crimes which must be punished separately • The rule is: if several articles, stored in the same place, are taken by a single larcenous act, the mere fact that some of them belonged to one person and some to

another person does not dissolve the act into separate crimes.

Penalty for Crime Not Intended Revised Penal Code. Art. 49. Penalty to be imposed upon the principals when the crime committed is different from that intended. — In cases in which the felony committed is different from that which the offender intended to commit, the following rules shall be observed: 1. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be higher than that corresponding to the offense which the accused intended to commit, the penalty corresponding to the latter shall be imposed in its maximum period. 2. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be lower than that corresponding to the one which the accused intended to commit, the penalty for the former shall be imposed in its maximum period. 3. The rule established by the next preceding paragraph shall not be applicable if the acts committed by the guilty person shall also constitute an attempt or frustration of another crime, if the law prescribes a higher penalty for either of the latter offenses, in which case the penalty provided for the attempted or the frustrated crime shall be imposed in its maximum period.

Graduation Penalties

of

Revised Penal Code. Art. 50. Penalty to be imposed upon principals of a frustrated crime. — The penalty next lower in

degree than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon the principal in a frustrated felony. Revised Penal Code. Art. 51. Penalty to be imposed upon principals of attempted crimes. — A penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon the principals in an attempt to commit a felony. Revised Penal Code. Art. 52. Penalty to be imposed upon accomplices in consummated crime. — The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the consummated shall be imposed upon the accomplices in the commission of a consummated felony.

Revised Penal Code. Art. 53. Penalty to be imposed upon accessories to the commission of a consummated felony. — The penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon the accessories to the commission of a consummated felony. Revised Penal Code. Art. 54. Penalty to imposed upon accomplices in a frustrated crime. — The penalty next lower in degree than prescribed by law for the frustrated felony shall be imposed upon the accomplices in the commission of a frustrated felony. Revised Penal Code. Art. 55. Penalty to be imposed upon accessories of a frustrated crime. — The penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the frustrated felony shall be imposed upon the accessories to the commission of a frustrated felony. Revised Penal Code. Art. 56. Penalty to be imposed upon accomplices in an attempted crime. — The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for an attempt to commit a felony shall be imposed upon the accomplices in an attempt to commit the felony.

Revised Penal Code. Art. 57. Penalty to be imposed upon accessories of an attempted crime. — The penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the attempted felony shall be imposed upon the accessories to the attempt to commit a felony.

Consum ated

Frustrat ed

Attempt ed

Principal s

0

1

2

Accompli ces

1

2

3

Accessori es

2

3

4

In determining the proper penalty prescribed by law, consider always the degree of particitpation and the degree of consumation, then refer to the chart. After determining the proper sentence prescribed by law, the next step would be to appreciate the mitigating and aggravating circumstances and reduce or increase the penalty as the case may be. If the accused is a principal and the crime was consumated, thus 0 – represents the penallty prescribed by law in defining a crime. If the accused is a mere accomplice and the crime was merely attempted, thus 3, the penalty should be 3 degrees lower than that prescribed by law in defining a crime. What is a degree in relation to a penalty? A degree is one entire penalty i.e. reclusion perpetua, reclusion temporal, prision mayor – each of these is a degree.

What is a period of penalty? A period is one of the three equal portions of divisible penalty: minimum, medium and maximum. A period of a divisible penalty, when described by the Code as a penalty for a felony, is in itself a degree. If the penalty for a crime is prision mayor in its minimum period, the next penalty to it, one degree lower, would be prision correcional in its maximum period. Revised Penal Code. Art. 58. Additional penalty to be imposed upon certain accessories. — Those accessories falling within the terms of paragraphs 3 of Article 19 of this Code who should act with abuse of their public functions, shall suffer the additional penalty of absolute perpetual disqualification if the principal offender shall be guilty of a grave felony, and that of absolute temporary disqualification if he shall be guilty of a less grave felony.

Revised Penal Code. Art. 59. Penalty to be imposed in case of failure to commit the crime because the means employed or the aims sought are impossible. — When the person intending to commit an offense has already performed the acts for the execution of the same but nevertheless the crime was not produced by reason of the fact that the act intended was by its nature one of impossible accomplishment or because the means employed by such person are essentially inadequate to produce the result desired by him, the court, having in mind the social danger and the degree of criminality shown by the offender, shall impose upon him the penalty of arresto mayor or a fine from 200 to 500 pesos. Revised Penal Code. Art. 60. Exception to the rules established in Articles 50 to 57. — The provisions contained in Articles 50 to 57, inclusive, of this Code shall not be applicable to cases in which the law expressly prescribes the penalty provided for a

frustrated or attempted felony, accomplices or accessories.

or

to

be

imposed

upon

Revised Penal Code. Art. 61. Rules for graduating penalties. — For the purpose of graduating the penalties which, according to the provisions of Articles 50 to 57, inclusive, of this Code, are to be imposed upon persons guilty as principals of any frustrated or attempted felony, or as accomplices or accessories, the following rules shall be observed: 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. 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. 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. 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. Article 61 provides for the rules to be observed in lowering the penalty by one or two degrees. NOTE: Ok. Weird. It seems that penalties can only be lowered up to 2 degrees. Attemptedaccomplice, frustrated-accessory and attemped-accessory seems to not exist. Although barry did not mention it.

The lower penalty shall be taken from the graduated scale in Art. 71. 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

1-2 – indivisible 3-8 – divisble 1. First Rule: When the penalty is single and divisible.

When the penalty is indivisible, the immediate after it in Art. 71, is the lower penalty. 2. Second Rule When the penalties.

penalty

is

composed

of

two

indivisbile

When the penalty is composed of several periods If the penalty prescribe consists in 3 periods , corresponding to different divisble penalties, the next penalty lower in degree would be the next three periods down the scale. 5. Fifth Rule

The only case possible here is reclusion perpetua to death. In this case, the one immediately after the lower penalty of reclusion perpetua in Art. 71, which is reclusion temporal shall apply.

When the penalty has two periods.

When the penalty is composed of one or more divisible penalties to be imposed to their full extent.

When the penalty has one period.

For example reclusion perpetua in its fullest extent, one degree lower, is the one after reclusion perpetua in Art. 71. 3. Third Rule When the penalty is composed of two indivisible penalties and the maximum period of a divisible penalty. In the example, reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death. The next lower penalty would be the minimum and maximum of the divisible penalty, reclusion temporal and the maximum period of the one after it in Art 71, prision mayor. When the penalty is composed of one indivisble penalty and the maximum period of a divisible penalty Same rule As previous. Except with one indivisible penalty. Refer to chart. 4. Fourth Rule

If the penalty prescribed is two periods, the next lower degree would be the next two periods.

If the penalty prescribed is one period, then one degree lower is one period lower. Mitigating and aggravating circumstances are disregarded in the application of the rules for graduating penalties. Mitigating and aggravating circumstances have no role in Art. 61. Only after the proper graduated penalty is arrived at, are aggravating and mitigating circumstances are appreciated.

Effects of Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstances, etc. Revised Penal Code. Art. 62. Effect of the attendance of mitigating or aggravating circumstances and of habitual delinquency. — Mitigating or aggravating circumstances and habitual delinquency shall be taken into account for the purpose of diminishing or increasing the penalty in conformity with the following rules: 1. Aggravating circumstances which in themselves constitute a crime specially punishable by law or which are included by the law in defining a crime and prescribing the penalty therefor shall not be taken into account for the purpose of increasing the penalty. 2. The same rule shall apply with respect to any aggravating circumstance inherent in the crime to such a degree that it must of necessity accompany the commission thereof. 3. Aggravating or mitigating circumstances which arise from the moral attributes of the offender, or from his private relations with the offended party, or from any other personal cause, shall only serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of the principals, accomplices and accessories as to whom such circumstances are attendant. 4. The circumstances which consist in the material execution of the act, or in the means employed to accomplish it, shall serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of those persons only who had knowledge of them at the time of the execution of the act or their cooperation therein. 5. Habitual delinquency shall have the following effects:

(a) Upon a third conviction the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided by law for the last crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods; (b) Upon a fourth conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided for the last crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods; and (c) Upon a fifth or additional conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided for the last crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period. Notwithstanding the provisions of this article, the total of the two penalties to be imposed upon the offender, in conformity herewith, shall in no case exceed 30 years. For the purpose of this article, a person shall be deemed to be habitual delinquent, is within a period of ten years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robo, hurto, estafa or falsification, he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener. Revised Penal Code. Art. 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. Revised Penal Code. Art. 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 are not mitigating or aggravating circumstances: 1. When there are neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, they shall impose the penalty prescribed by law in its medium period. 2. When only a mitigating circumstances is present in the commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its minimum period. 3. When 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 may deem applicable, according to the number and nature of such circumstances. 6. Whatever may be the number and nature of the aggravating circumstances, the courts shall not impose a greater penalty than that prescribed by law, in its maximum period. 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 and lesser extent of the evil produced by the crime. Revised Penal Code. Art. 65. Rule in cases in which the penalty is not composed of three periods. — In cases in which the penalty prescribed by law is not composed of three periods, the courts shall apply the rules contained in the foregoing articles, dividing into three equal portions of time included in the penalty prescribed, and forming one period of each of the three portions. Revised Penal Code. Art. 66. Imposition of fines. — In imposing fines the courts may fix any amount within the limits established by law; in fixing the amount in each case attention shall be given, not only to the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, but more particularly to the wealth or means of the culprit. Revised Penal Code. Art. 67. Penalty to be imposed when not all the requisites of exemption of the fourth circumstance of Article 12 are present.— When all the conditions required in 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. Revised Penal Code. Art. 68. Penalty to be imposed upon a person under eighteen years of age. — When the offender is a minor under eighteen years and his case is one coming under the

provisions of the paragraphs next to the last of Article 80 of this Code, the following rules shall be observed: 1. Upon a person under fifteen but over nine years of age, who is not exempted from liability by reason of the court having declared that he acted with discernment, a discretionary penalty shall be imposed, but always lower by two degrees at least than that prescribed by law for the crime which he committed.

2. Reclusion perpetua, 3. Reclusion temporal, 4. Prision mayor, 5. Prision correccional, 6. Arresto mayor,

2. Upon a person over fifteen and under eighteen years of age the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be imposed, but always in the proper period.

7. Arresto menor,

Revised Penal Code. Art. 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.

9. Perpetual absolute disqualification,

Revised Penal Code. Art. 70. Successive service of sentence. — When the culprit has to serve two or more penalties, he shall serve them simultaneously if the nature of the penalties will so permit otherwise, the following rules shall be observed: In the imposition of the penalties, the order of their respective severity shall be followed so that they may be executed successively or as nearly as may be possible, should a pardon have been granted as to the penalty or penalties first imposed, or should they have been served out. For the purpose of applying the provisions of the next preceding paragraph the respective severity of the penalties shall be determined in accordance with the following scale: 1. Death,

8. Destierro,

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. Notwithstanding the provisions of the rule next preceding, the maximum duration of the convict's sentence shall not be more than three-fold the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed upon him. No other penalty to which he may be liable shall be inflicted after the sum total of those imposed equals the same maximum period. Such maximum period shall in no case exceed forty years. In applying the provisions of this rule the duration of perpetual penalties (pena perpetua) shall be computed at thirty years. (As amended). Revised Penal Code. Art. 71. Graduated scales. — In the case in which the law prescribed a penalty lower or higher by one or more degrees than another given penalty, the rules prescribed in Article 61 shall be observed in graduating such penalty. The lower or higher penalty shall be taken from the graduated scale in which is comprised the given penalty.

The courts, in applying such lower or higher penalty, shall observe the following 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,

Revised Penal Code. Art. 73. Presumption in regard to the imposition of accessory penalties. — Whenever the courts shall impose a penalty which, by provision of law, carries with it other penalties, according to the provisions of Articles 40, 41, 42, 43 and 44 of this Code, it must be understood that the accessory penalties are also imposed upon the convict. Revised Penal Code. Art. 74. Penalty higher than reclusion perpetua in certain cases. — In cases in which the law prescribes a penalty higher than another given penalty, without specially designating the name of the former, if such higher penalty should be that of death, the same penalty and the accessory penalties of Article 40, shall be considered as the next higher penalty. Revised Penal Code. Art. 75. Increasing or reducing the penalty of fine by one or more degrees. — Whenever it may be necessary to increase or reduce the penalty of fine by one or more degrees, it shall be increased or reduced, respectively, for each degree, by one-fourth of the maximum amount prescribed by law, without however, changing the minimum. The same rules shall be observed with regard of fines that do not consist of a fixed amount, but are made proportional. Revised Penal Code. Art. 76. Legal period of duration of divisible penalties. — The legal period of duration of divisible penalties shall be considered as divided into three parts, forming three periods, the minimum, the medium, and the maximum in the manner shown in the following table: TABLE SHOWING THE DURATION OF DIVISIBLE PENALTIES AND THE TIME INCLUDED IN EACH OF THEIR PERIODS

5. Fine. Revised Penal Code. Art. 72. Preference in the payment of the civil liabilities. — The civil liabilities of a person found guilty of two or more offenses shall be satisfied by following the chronological order of the dates of the judgments rendered against him, beginning with the first in order of time.

Penalties

Reclusion temporal

Time included in the penalty in its entirety

Time included in its minimum period

Time Time included included in in its its medium maximum period

From 12 years From 12 From 14 and 1 day to years and years, 8

From 17 years, 4

20 years.

Prision mayor,absolute disqualification and special temporary disqualification

months and 1 day to 17 years and 4 months.

months and 1 day to 20 years.

From 6 years and 1 day to 8 years.

From 8 years and 1 day to 10 years.

From 10 years and 1 day to 12 years.

From 2 years, 4 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months.

From 4 years, 2 months and 1 day to 6 years.

Revised Penal Code. Art. 77. When the penalty is a complex one composed of three distinct penalties. — In cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of three distinct penalties, each one shall form a period; the lightest of them shall be the minimum the next the medium, and the most severe the maximum period.

From 1 month From 1 to From 2 and 1 day to 2 months. months months. and 1 day to 4 months.

From 4 months and 1 day to 6 months.

Whenever the penalty prescribed does not have one of the forms specially provided for in this Code, the periods shall be distributed, applying by analogy the prescribed rules.

From 1 to 30 days.

From 21 to 30 days.

From 6 years and 1 day to 12 years.

Prision From 6 From 6 correccional,suspen months and 1 months sion anddestierro day to 6 and 1 day years. to 2 years and 4 months.

Arresto mayor

Arresto menor

number 2 and use that as the maximum of the medium period.

1 day to 14 years and 8 months.

From 1 to From 11 10 days. to 20 days.

How to compute for the time included in each period. 1. Substract the minimum from the maximum of the penalty.

5. Use the maximum period of the minimum period as the minimum of the maximum period. Finally, add again the answer to number and use that as the maximum of the maximum period. 6. (always add one day when writing down the minimum period.)

Revised Penal Code. Art. 78. When and how a penalty is to be executed. — No penalty shall be executed except by virtue of a final judgment. A penalty shall not be executed in any other form than that prescribed by law, nor with any other circumstances or incidents than those expressly authorized thereby.

3. Use the minimum of the penalty as the minimum of the minimum period. Add the add the answer to number 2 and use that as the maximum of the minimum period.

In addition to the provisions of the law, the special regulations prescribed for the government of the institutions in which the penalties are to be suffered shall be observed with regard to the character of the work to be performed, the time of its performance, and other incidents connected therewith, the relations of the convicts among themselves and other persons, the relief which they may receive, and their diet.

4. Use the maximum of the minimum period to get the minimum of the medium period. Again, add the answer to

The regulations shall make provision for the separation of the sexes in different institutions, or at least into different

2. Divide the difference by 3, if not divisible, convert to months then divide by 3.

departments and also for the correction and reform of the convicts. Revised Penal Code. Art. 79. Suspension of the execution and service of the penalties in case of insanity. — When a convict shall become insane or an imbecile after final sentence has been pronounced, the execution of said sentence shall be suspended only with regard to the personal penalty, the provisions of the second paragraph of circumstance number 1 of Article 12 being observed in the corresponding cases. If at any time the convict shall recover his reason, his sentence shall be executed, unless the penalty shall have prescribed in accordance with the provisions of this Code. The respective provisions of this section shall also be observed if the insanity or imbecility occurs while the convict is serving his sentence.

Indeterminate Sentence Law Check out Act. 4103 (as amended by Act. No. 4225) or the Indeterminate Sentence Law It is a law that mandates that the courts must determine two penalties, a minimum and a maximum. so that after serving the minimum, the convict may apply for parole. So even if there are offenses that are only punished by a penalty that does not have a minimum and a maximum, the court must determine that which is legally enforceable maximum penalty and a legally enforceable minimum penalty to sentence the convict.

Application of Penalties – Case Digests (from ADAPT) People vs. Ducosin

Facts: Valeriano Ducosin was convicted of the crime of frustrated murder of Rafael Yanguas, punishable by one degree lower than the prescribed penalty for murder, which is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death (lowered to prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in medium period). The plea of guilty was appreciated as a mitigating circumstance, which lowered the penalty to its minimum period. Therefore the range of the penalty was ten years and one day to twelve years of imprisonment, leaving to the discretion of the court the precise time to be served within range. The Supreme Court shall revise the penalty by applying Act 4103, the Indeterminate Sentence Law, which will prescribe a minimum and maximum penalty. Issue: Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, what should be the penalty? In other words, what should be the maximum and the minimum? Held: The maximum penalty imposed was ten years and one day to twelve years and the minimum was seven years. After serving the minimum sentence, the Board of Indeterminate Sentence should consider giving him parole. Ratio: According to section 1 of Act 4103, ―the Court shall order the accused to be imprisoned… to such a maximum as may, in view of attending circumstances, be properly imposed under the present rules of the said [Revised Penal] Code, to a minimum term which shall not be less than the minimum imprisonment period of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the code for the said offense. Given that frustrated murder, with the extenuating circumstance of guilty plea, should be punished by one degree lower than murder, and in its minimum period, the maximum imprisonment period should be within the range of that penalty (prision mayor in its maximum period or years and one day to twelve years). The minimum period should be within the range of the penalty immediately lower than prision mayor in its maximum period (prision mayor in its medium period, four years, two months and one day to ten years. Judgment modified. People vs. Formigones Facts: In the month of Nov. 1946, Abelardo was living on his farm in Camarines Sur w/ his wife, Julia Agricola & their 5 children. From there they transferred in the house of his halfbrother, Zacarias Formigones in the same municipality to find

employment as harvesters of palay. After a month, Julia was sitting at the head of the stairs of the house when Abelardo, w/o previous quarrel or provocation whatsoever, took his bolo from the wall of the house & stabbed his wife Julia, in the back, the blade penetrating the right lung & causing a severe hemorrhage resulting in her death. Abelardo then took his dead wife & laid her on the floor of the living room & then lay down beside her. In this position, he was found by the people who came in response to the shouts made by his eldest daughter, Irene Formigones. The motive was admittedly that of jealousy because according to his statement, he used to have quarrels with his wife for reason that he often saw her in the company of his brother, Zacarias; that he suspected the 2 were maintaining illicit relations because he noticed that his wife had become indifferent to him. During the preliminary investigation, the accused pleaded guilty. At the case in the CFI, he also pleaded guilty but didn‘t testify. His counsel presented the testimony of 2 guards of the provincial jail where Abelardo was confined to the effect that his conduct was rather strange & that he behaved like an insane person, at times he would remain silent, walk around stark naked, refuse to take a bath & wash his clothes etc... The appeal is based merely on the theory that the appellant is an IMBECILE & therefore exempt from criminal liability under RPC A12.

importance. The fact is that he believed her faithless. Furthermore, in his written statement, he readily admitted that he killed his wife, & at the trial he made no effort to deny of repudiate said written statements, thus saving the government all the trouble & expense of catching him & securing his conviction. But 2 mitigating circumstances are present: passion or obfuscation (having killed his wife in a jealous rage) & feeblemindedness. Judgment: In conclusion, appellant is found guilty of parricide & the lower court‘s judgment is hereby affirmed w/ the modification that appellant will be credited with half of any preventive imprisonment he has undergone (because of the 2 mitigating circumstances) People vs. Simon Facts: Oct. 22, 1988, Pampanga. Martin Simon was convicted of violating RA 6425 AII §4 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) through a NARCOM poser-buyer. It was appealed for reversal alleging it was a frame-up (testimonies & evidence proved otherwise) & evidence was inadmissible (held, because there was no counsel). Issue: WON correct penalty applied?

Issue: WON Abelardo is an imbecile at the time of the commission of the crime, thus exempted from criminal liability Held: No. He is not an imbecile. According Dr. Francisco Gomes, although he was feebleminded, he is not an imbecile as he could still distinguish between right & wrong & even feel remorse. In order that a person could be regarded as an imbecile w/in the meaning of RPC A12 so as to be exempt from criminal liability, he must be deprived completely of reason or discernment & freedom of will at the time of committing the crime. (Note that definition is same as insanity) As to the strange behavior of the accused during his confinement, assuming it was not feigned to stimulate insanity, it may be attributed either to his being feebleminded or eccentric, or to a morbid mental condition produced by remorse at having killed his wife. A man who could feel the pangs of jealousy & take violent measures to the extent of killing his wife who he suspected of being unfaithful to him, in the belief that in doing so, he was vindicating his honor, could hardly be regarded as an imbecile. WON the suspicions were justified, is of little or no

Held: No. Conviction modified. There was overlapping error in the law thus the SC had to harmonize conflicting provisions by providing for degrees of graduation. Rule: degrees applied depending on quantity then apply mitigating or aggravating circumstance. Least penalty should be prision correccional so as not to depreciate seriousness of crime. Justified in applying RPC provisions because law adopted penalties under RPC in their technical terms thus significations and effects will also apply. It rules in people v. Tsang Hin Wai that when special law grants discretion to SC to apply penalties, Code won‘t be held. Otherwise, SC should be guided by rules in RPC that being the expert in criminal law administration.

CICL – Children in Conflict with the Law

Republic Act No. 9344 AN ACT ESTABLISHING A COMPREHENSIVE JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE SYSTEM, CREATING THE JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE COUNCIL UNDER THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES Section 4. Definition of Terms. - The following terms as used in this Act shall be defined as follows: (c) "Child" refers to a person under the age of eighteen (18) years. (e) "Child in Conflict with the Law" refers to a child who is alleged as, accused of, or adjudged as, having committed an offense under Philippine laws.

DIGEST – Declarador vs Gubaton Missing Revised Penal Code. Art. 80. Suspension of sentence of minor delinquents. — Whenever a minor of either sex, under sixteen years of age at the date of the commission of a grave or less grave felony, is accused thereof, the court, after hearing the evidence in the proper proceedings, instead of pronouncing judgment of conviction, shall suspend all further proceedings and shall commit such minor to the custody or care of a public or private, benevolent or charitable institution, established under the law of the care, correction or education of orphaned, homeless, defective, and delinquent children, or to the custody or care of any other responsible person in any other place subject to visitation and supervision by the Director of Public Welfare or any of his agents or representatives, if there be any, or otherwise by the superintendent of public schools or his representatives, subject to such conditions as are prescribed hereinbelow until such minor shall have reached his majority age or for such less period as the court may deem proper.

The court, in committing said minor as provided above, shall take into consideration the religion of such minor, his parents or next of kin, in order to avoid his commitment to any private institution not under the control and supervision of the religious sect or denomination to which they belong. The Director of Public Welfare or his duly authorized representatives or agents, the superintendent of public schools or his representatives, or the person to whose custody or care the minor has been committed, shall submit to the court every four months and as often as required in special cases, a written report on the good or bad conduct of said minor and the moral and intellectual progress made by him. The suspension of the proceedings against a minor may be extended or shortened by the court on the recommendation of the Director of Public Welfare or his authorized representative or agents, or the superintendent of public schools or his representatives, according as to whether the conduct of such minor has been good or not and whether he has complied with the conditions imposed upon him, or not. The provisions of the first paragraph of this article shall not, however, be affected by those contained herein. If the minor has been committed to the custody or care of any of the institutions mentioned in the first paragraph of this article, with the approval of the Director of Public Welfare and subject to such conditions as this official in accordance with law may deem proper to impose, such minor may be allowed to stay elsewhere under the care of a responsible person. If the minor has behaved properly and has complied with the conditions imposed upon him during his confinement, in accordance with the provisions of this article, he shall be returned to the court in order that the same may order his final release. In case the minor fails to behave properly or to comply with the regulations of the institution to which he has been committed or with the conditions imposed upon him when he was committed to

the care of a responsible person, or in case he should be found incorrigible or his continued stay in such institution should be inadvisable, he shall be returned to the court in order that the same may render the judgment corresponding to the crime committed by him. The expenses for the maintenance of a minor delinquent confined in the institution to which he has been committed, shall be borne totally or partially by his parents or relatives or those persons liable to support him, if they are able to do so, in the discretion of the court; Provided, That in case his parents or relatives or those persons liable to support him have not been ordered to pay said expenses or are found indigent and cannot pay said expenses, the municipality in which the offense was committed shall pay one-third of said expenses; the province to which the municipality belongs shall pay one-third; and the remaining one-third shall be borne by the National Government: Provided, however, That whenever the Secretary of Finance certifies that a municipality is not able to pay its share in the expenses above mentioned, such share which is not paid by said municipality shall be borne by the National Government. Chartered cities shall pay two-thirds of said expenses; and in case a chartered city cannot pay said expenses, the internal revenue allotments which may be due to said city shall be withheld and applied in settlement of said indebtedness in accordance with section five hundred and eighty-eight of the Administrative Code.

Death Penalty Check out RA 9344 and RA 7659. Too long for here.

NOTE: from what I remember from Barry’s class, he doesn’t like death penalty.

People vs Echagaray Facts: Echegaray was convicted of raping his 10-year old daughter in 1996. He was sentenced to death. He appealed, stating the ff reasons: 1) mixed factual and legal matters: a) he was already pardoned by the offended party and her mother b) dates of commission of crimes was unclear, resulted to inadequate defense c) guilt not proved beyond reasonable doubt d) he was not the father of the offended party, therefore death was not the proper sentence e) trial court was biased and unfair 2) incompetent counsel 3) RA 7659 is unconstitutional per se: a) offense didn‘t result to death b) death penalty is cruel and unusual Criteria for death penalty: 1. Congress should so provide such reimposition of the death penalty; 2. There are compelling reasons; and 3. These involve heinous crimes. Heinous crime: An act or series of acts which, by the flagrantly violent manner in which the same was committed or by the reason of its inherent viciousness, shows a patent disregard and mockery of the law, public peace and order, or public morals. It is an offense whose essential and inherent viciousness and atrocity are repugnant and outrageous to a civilized society and hence, shock the moral self of a people. Issues: 1) W/N the death penalty is imposed without compelling reasons 2) W/N the death penalty imposed in rape is violative of the constitutional proscription against cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment 3) W/N the death penalty is a cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment for the crime of rape mainly because the latter, unlike murder, does not involve the taking of life. Held/Ratio: 1) NO.

The right of a person is not only to live but to live a quality life, and this means that the rest of society is obligated to respect his or her individual personality, the integrity and the sanctity of his or her own physical body, and the value he or she puts in his or her own spiritual, psychological, material and social preferences and needs. We believe, however, that the elements of heinousness and compulsion are inseparable and are, in fact, interspersed with each other. Because the subject crimes are either so revolting and debasing as to violate the most minimum of the human standards of decency or its effects, repercussions, implications and consequences so destructive, destabilizing, debilitating, or aggravating in the context of our socio-political and economic agenda as a developing nation, these crimes must be frustrated, curtailed and altogether eradicated. There can be no ifs or buts in the face of evil, and we cannot afford to wait until we rub elbows with it before grasping it by the ears and thrashing it to its demission. 2) NO. Art III Section 19. (1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua. Furman, thus, did not outlaw the death penalty because it was cruel and unusual per se. While the U.S. Supreme Court nullified all discretionary death penalty statutes in Furman, it did so because the discretion which these statutes vested in the trial judges and sentencing juries was uncontrolled and without any parameters, guidelines, or standards intended to lessen, if not altogether eliminate, the intervention of personal biases, prejudices and discriminatory acts on the part of the trial judges and sentencing juries. Consequently, in the aftermath of Furman, when most of the states re-enacted their death penalty statutes now bearing the procedural checks that were required by the U.S. Supreme Court, said court affirmed the constitutionality of the new death penalty statutes in the cases of Gregg v. Georgia, Jurek v. Texas, and Profitt v. Florida. 3) NO. Such a premise is in fact an ennobling of the biblical notion of retributive justice of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth".

The death penalty is imposed in heinous crimes because the perpetrators thereof have committed unforgivably execrable acts that have so deeply dehumanized a person or criminal acts with severely destructive effects on the national efforts to lift the masses from abject poverty through organized governmental strategies based on a disciplined and honest citizenry, and because they have so caused irreparable and substantial injury to both their victim and the society and a repetition of their acts would pose actual threat to the safety of individuals and the survival of government, they must be permanently prevented from doing so. Short of homicide, it is the 'ultimate violation of self.' Revised Penal Code. Art. 81. When and how the death penalty is to be executed. — The death sentence shall be executed with reference to any other and shall consist in putting the person under sentence to death by electrocution. The death sentence shall be executed under the authority of the Director of Prisons, endeavoring so far as possible to mitigate the sufferings of the person under sentence during electrocution as well as during the proceedings prior to the execution. If the person under sentence so desires, he anaesthetized at the moment of the electrocution.

shall

be

Revised Penal Code. Art. 82. Notification and execution of the sentence and assistance to the culprit. — The court shall designate a working day for the execution but not the hour thereof; and such designation shall not be communicated to the offender before sunrise of said day, and the execution shall not take place until after the expiration of at least eight hours following the notification, but before sunset. During the interval between the notification and the execution, the culprit shall, in so far as possible, be furnished such assistance as he may request in order to be attended in his last moments by priests or ministers of the religion he professes and to consult lawyers, as well as in order to make a will and confer with members of his family or persons in charge of the management of his business, of the administration of his property, or of the care of his descendants.

Missing Digests:

CALLINS vs. COLLINS STATE vs. MAKWANYANE Revised Penal Code. Art. 83. Suspension of the execution of the death sentence. — The death sentence shall not be inflicted upon a woman within the three years next following the date of the sentence or while she is pregnant, nor upon any person over seventy years of age. In this last case, the death sentence shall be commuted to the penalty of reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties provided in Article 40. Revised Penal Code. Art. 84. Place of execution and persons who may witness the same. — The execution shall take place in the penitentiary of Bilibid in a space closed to the public view and shall be witnessed only by the priests assisting the offender and by his lawyers, and by his relatives, not exceeding six, if he so request, by the physician and the necessary personnel of the penal establishment, and by such persons as the Director of Prisons may authorize. Revised Penal Code. Art. 85. Provisions relative to the corpse of the person executed and its burial. — Unless claimed by his family, the corpse of the culprit shall, upon the completion of the legal proceedings subsequent to the execution, be turned over to the institute of learning or scientific research first applying for it, for the purpose of study and investigation, provided that such institute shall take charge of the decent burial of the remains. Otherwise, the Director of Prisons shall order the burial of the body of the culprit at government expense, granting permission to be present thereat to the members of the family of the culprit and the friends of the latter. In no case shall the burial of the body of a person sentenced to death be held with pomp. Revised Penal Code. Art. 86. Reclusion perpetua, reclusion temporal, prision mayor, prision correccional and arresto mayor. — The penalties of reclusion perpetua, reclusion temporal, prision mayor, prision correccional and arresto mayor, shall be executed

and served in the places and penal establishments provided by the Administrative Code in force or which may be provided by law in the future. Revised Penal Code. Art. 87. Destierro. — Any person sentenced to destierro shall not be permitted to enter the place or places designated in the sentence, nor within the radius therein specified, which shall be not more than 250 and not less than 25 kilometers from the place designated. Revised Penal Code. Art. 88. Arresto menor. — The penalty of arresto menor shall be served in the municipal jail, or in the house of the defendant himself under the surveillance of an officer of the law, when the court so provides in its decision, taking into consideration the health of the offender and other reasons which may seem satisfactory to it.