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:
(3) 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.
(4) 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.
(5) 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.
(6) 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.
(7) 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 (8) 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.
(9) For the purpose of this article, a person shall be deemed to be habitual delinquent, if within a period of ten years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robo, hurto, estafa or falsification, he is
112 found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener.
Aggravating circumstances which are not considered for the purpose of increasing the penalty:
(1) Those that constitute a separate crime punishable by law.
(2) Those that are inherent in the crime committed:
(3) Included by law in defining the crime (4) Inherent in the crime but of necessity
they accompany the commission thereof Aggravating or mitigating circumstances that serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of the offender to whom such are attendant. These are those arising from:
(1) Moral attributes of the offender (2) His private relations with the offended
party
(3) Any other personal cause (4) Aggravating or mitigating
circumstances that affect the offenders only who had knowledge of them at the time of the execution of the act or their cooperation therein.
What are the legal effects of habitual delinquency?
Third conviction. The culprit is sentenced to the penalty for the crime committed and to the additional penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum period.
Fourth conviction. The penalty is that provided by law for the last crime and the additional penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods.
Fifth or additional conviction. The penalty is that provided by law for the last crime and the additional penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period.
Notes:
In no case shall the total of the 2 penalties imposed upon the offender exceed 30 years.
The law does not apply to crimes described in Art. 155.
The imposition of the additional penalty on habitual delinquents are CONSTITUTIONAL because such law is neither an EX POST FACTO LAW nor an additional punishment for future crimes. It is simply a punishment on future crimes on account of the criminal propensities of the accused.
The imposition of such additional penalties is mandatory and is not discretionary.
Habitual delinquency applies at any stage of the execution because subjectively, the offender reveals the same degree of depravity or perversity as the one who commits a consummated crime.
It applies to all participants because it reveals persistence in them of the inclination to wrongdoing and of the perversity of character that led them to commit the previous crime.
Cases where attending aggravating or mitigating circumstances are not considered in the imposition of penalties
1) Penalty that is single and indivisible 2) Felonies through negligence
3) When the penalty is a fine
4) When the penalty is prescribed by a special law.
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
113 deed there is present only one aggravating circumstance, the greater penalty shall be applied.
2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
3. When the commission of the act is attended by some mitigating 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.
Rules for the application of indivisible penalties:
1) Penalty is single and indivisible
The penalty shall be applied regardless of the presence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances.
Ex. reclusion perpetua or death
2) Penalty is composed of 2 indivisible penalties a) One aggravating circumstance present:
HIGHER penalty
b) No mitigating circumstances present:
LESSER penalty
c) Some mitigating circumstances present and no aggravating: LESSER penalty d) Mitigating and aggravating
circumstances offset each other a. Basis of penalty: number and
importance.
Rules for the application of DIVISIBLE PENALTIES (Article 64)
1. No aggravating and No mitigating: MEDIUM PERIOD
2. One mitigating: MINIMUM PERIOD 3. One aggravating: (but regardless of the
number of aggravating circumstances, the courts cannot exceed the penalty provided by law in its maximum period): MAXIMUM PERIOD
4. Mitigating and aggravating circumstances present:
to offset each other according to relative weight 5. Two or more mitigating and no aggravating:
one degree lower (has the effect of a privileged mitigating circumstance)
NOTE: Art. 64 does not apply to:
1) indivisible penalties
2) penalties prescribed by special laws 3) fines
4) crimes committed by negligence
Where the Penalty Is Not Composed of 3 Periods (Article 65)
a. Compute and determine first the 3 periods of the entire penalty.
b. The time included in the penalty prescribed should be divided into 3 equal portions, after subtracting the minimum (eliminate the 1 day) from the maximum of the penalty.
c. The minimum of the minimum period should be the minimum of the given penalty (including the 1 day).
d. The quotient should be added to the minimum prescribed
(eliminate the 1 day) and the total will represent the maxium of the minimum period.
Take the maximum of the minimum period, add 1 day and make it the minimum of medium period; then add
the quotient to the minimum (eliminate the 1 day) of the medium period and the total will represent
114
the maximum of the medium period.
Take the maximum of the medium period, add 1 day and make it the minimum of the maximum period;
then add the quotient to the minimum (eliminate the 1 day) of the maximum period and the total will represent the maximum of the maximum period.
Penalty to be imposed if the requisites of accident (Art. 12 par 4) are not all present (Article 67):
GRAVE FELONY: arresto mayor maximum period to prision correccional minimum period LESS GRAVE FELONY: arresto mayor minimum period and medium period
Penalty to be imposed when the crime committed is not wholly excusable (Article 69):
One or two degrees lowe , if the majority of the
conditions for justification
or exemption in the cases provided in Arts. 11 and 12 are present.
People v. Lacanilao (1988):
Incomplete fulfillment of duty is a privileged mitigating circumstance which not only cannot be offset by aggravating circumstances but also reduces the penalty by one or two degrees than that prescribed by law. The governing provision is Art. 69 of the RPC.
Special rules for certain situations
1. Complex Crimes
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.
The rule for complex crimes is to impose the penalty for the most serious offense in its MAXIMUM period.
Monteverde v. People (2002)
Monteverde was purportedly charged with the complex crime of estafa through falsification of a commercial document for allegedly falsifying
the document she had submitted to show that the money donated by PAGCOR was used and spent for lighting materials for her barangay.
Held:
Under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, a complex crime refers to:
1) the commission of at least two grave or less grave felonies that must both (or all) be the result of a single act, or 2) one offense must be a necessary means
for committing the other (or others).
Using the above guidelines, the acts cannot constitute a complex crime.
Specifically, the alleged actions showing falsification of a public and/or a commercial document were not necessary to commit estafa.
Neither were the two crimes the result of a single act.
People v. Gonzalez (Supra) Held:
The rules on the imposition of penalties for complex crimes under Art. 48 of the Revised Penal Code are not applicable in this case.
Art. 48 applies if a single act constitutes two or more grave and less grave felonies or when an offense is a necessary means of committing
115 another; in such a case, the penalty for the most serious offense shall be imposed in its maximum period.
Considering that the offenses committed by the act of the appellant of firing a single shot are:
one count of homicide, a grave felony, and two counts of slight physical injuries, a light felony, the rules on the imposition of penalties for complex crimes, which requires two or more grave and/or less grave felonies, will not apply.
People v. Comadre (2004):
The single act by appellant of detonating a hand grenade may quantitatively constitute a cluster of several separate and distinct offenses, yet these component criminal offenses should be considered only as a single crime in law on which a single penalty is imposed because the offender was impelled by a “single criminal impulse” which shows his lesser degree of perversity.
People v. Delos Santos (2001) Held:
Considering that the incident was not a product of a malicious intent but rather the result of a single act of reckless driving, Glenn should be held guilty of the complex crime of reckless imprudence resulting in multiple homicide with serious physical injuries and less serious physical injuries.
The slight physical injuries caused by Glenn to the ten other victims through reckless imprudence, would, had they been intentional, have constituted light felonies.
Being light felonies, which are not covered by Article 48, they should be treated and punished as separate offenses.
Separate informations should have, therefore, been filed.
People v. Velasquez (2000)
Velasquez, poked a toy gun and forced Karen to go with her at his grandmother’s house.
Out of fear and not knowing that the gun that Velasquez was holding is a mere toy, Karen went with Velasquez.
Velasquez then raped Karen twice.
The trial court convicted Velasquez of two counts of rape.
Held:
Considering that Velasquez forcibly abducted Karen and then raped her twice, he should be convicted of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape and simple rape.
The penalty for complex crimes is the penalty for the most serious crime which shall be imposed in its maximum period.
Rape is the more serious of the two crimes and is punishable with reclusion perpetua under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code and since reclusion perpetua is a single indivisible penalty, it shall be imposed as it is.
The subsequent rape committed by Velasquez can no longer be considered as a separate complex crime of forcible abduction with rape but only as a separate act of rape punishable by reclusion perpetua.
2. Crimes Different from That Intended
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
116 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.
Either the crime committed be more grave than the crime intended or the crime intended be more grave than the crime committed, the penalty to be imposed should be the penalty for the lesser felony in its MAXIMUM period.
Except: if the lesser felony constitutes an attempt or frustration of another felony.
Example: If the crime intended was homicide, but the crime committed was parricide, the penalty to be imposed is the penalty for homicide in its MAXIMUM period.
3. Impossible Crimes
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.
Depending upon the social danger and the degree of criminality shown by the offender, the penalty for impossible crimes is arresto mayor or fine of P200-P500.
4. Plural Crimes (supra)
Additional Penalty for Certain Accessories 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.
Absolute perpetual disqualification if the principal offender is guilty of a grave felony.
Absolute temporary disqualification if the principal offender is guilty of a less grave felony.
5. Where the Offender Is Below 18 Years 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.
117 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.
PD No. 603. ART. 192. Suspension of Sentence and Commitment of Youthful Offender.
If after hearing the evidence in the proper proceedings, the court should find that the youthful offender has committed the acts charged against him the court shall determine the imposable penalty, including any civil liability chargeable against him. However, instead of pronouncing judgment of conviction, the court shall suspend all further proceedings and shall commit such minor to the custody or care of the Department of Social Welfare, or to any training institution until he shall have reached twenty-one years of age or, for a shorter period as the court may deem proper, after considering the reports and recommendations of the Department of Social Welfare or the agency or responsible individual under whose care he has been committed.
The youthful offender shall be subject to visitation and supervision by a representative of the Department of Social Welfare or any duly licensed agency or such other officer as the court may designate subject to such conditions as it may prescribe.
Art. 68 applies to such minor if his application for suspension of sentence is disapproved or if while in the reformatory institution he becomes incorrigible in which case he shall be returned to the court for the imposition of the proper penalty.
If 9 to 15 years only with discernment: at least 2 degrees lower.
If 15 to 18 years old: penalty next lower
Except if the act is attended by two or more mitigating and no aggravating circumstance,
the penalty being divisible, a minor over 15 but under 18 years old may still get a penalty two degrees lower.
Art. 68 provides for two of the PRIVILEGED MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Indeterminate Sentence Law (RA 4103, as amended)
The Indeterminate Sentence is composed of:
1. A MAXIMUM taken from the penalty imposable under the penal code (considering attendant circumstances) 2. A MINIMUM taken from the penalty next
lower to that fixed in the code.
It is indeterminate in the sense that after
It is indeterminate in the sense that after