In General
Penalty is the punishment imposed by lawful authority upon a person who commits an unlawful, deliberate or negligent act. (People vs. Moran, 44 Phil. 431)
Article 21 of the Revised Penal Code provides that no felony shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law prior to its commission but the law can not impose cruel and unusual punishment as the Constitution prohibits it. In a judgment of conviction for any crime, the court should specify the appropriate name of the penalty provided for the Revised Penal Code or in special laws. (People vs. Aquino, 186 SCRA 851)
Classification of Penalties
Article 21 of the Revised Penal Code provides that felony shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law prior to its commission but the law can not impose cruel and unusual punishment as the Constitution prohibits it. In a judgment of conviction for any crime, the court should specify the appropriate name of the penalty provided for in the Revised Penal Code or in special laws. (People vs. Aquino, 186 SCRA 851)
Classification of Penalties
Art. 25 categories penalties into Principal penalties which death is the capital punishment; reclusion perpetua, reclusion temporal, perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification, perpetual or temporary special disqualification and prison mayor which are considered Afflictive penalties;
prision correctional, arresto mayor, suspension and destierro which are Correccional penalties; aresto menor and public censure which are Light penalties; and Accessory penalties which are perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification, perpetual or temporary special disqualification, suspencion from public office, civil interdiction, indemnification, forfeiture or confiscation of instruments and proceeds of the offense, and the payment of costs.
Principal penalties are those expressly imposed by the court while Accessory penalties are those that are deemed included in the principal penalties imposed.
In the order of severity and for the purpose of successive service sentences, the penalties have the following scale:
1. Death 2. Reclusion
3. Reclusion Temporal 4. Prison Mayor
5. Prision Carreccional 6. Arresto Mayor
7. Arresto Menor 8. Destierro
9. Perpetual Absolute Disqualification 10. Temporary Absolute Disqualification
11. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, the right to follow profession or calling
12. Public censure
The maximum duration however of the convict’s sentence shall not be more than threefold the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed. Said maximum period shall in no case exceed forty (40) years. (Art. 70)
With respect to Reclusion Perpetua and Life Imprisonment which more often than not become somehow confusing, the following are their differences:
1. Reclusion Perpetua is imposed by the Revised Penal Code while Life Imprisonment is by Special Law;
2. Reclusion Perpetua entails imprisonment for only thirty (30) years after which the convict becomes eligible for pardon while Life Imprisonment does not appear to have any definite extent or duration; and
3. Reclusion Perpetua carries Accessory penalties, while it is not so in Life Imprisonment. (People vs. Abapo, 239 SCRA 373)
For the purpose of graduating the penalties in the light of the mitigating and aggravating circumstances present in the commission of the offense, the courts shall observe the following graduated scales:
SCALE NO. 1 SCALE NO. 2
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. Perpetual absolute disqualification 2. Temporary absolute
disqualification
3. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, and the right to follow a profession or calling 4. Public censure
5. Fine (Art. 71)
A fine, however, whether imposed as a single or as an alternative penalty, shall be considered afflictive if it exceeds six thousand (P6,000.00); correctional penalty, if it does not exceed six thousand (P6,000.00) but not less than two hundred (P200.00), and light if it be less than two hundred (P200.00).
Duration or Penalties
Article 27 specifies the duration of penalties. This was amended by Section 21 of R.A. No. 7659 which provides:
Section 21. Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code, is hereby amended to read as follows:
Art. 27. Reclusion Perpetua. – The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be from twenty (20) years and one (1) day to forty (40) years.
Reclusion Temporal. – The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be from twelve (12) years and one day to twenty (20) years.
Prison Mayor and temporary disqualification. – The duration of the penalties of prison mayor and temporary disqualification shall be from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) 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.
Prison correccional, suspension and destierro. – The duration of the penalties of prision correccional, suspension, and destierro shall be from six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years, except when suspension is imposed as an accessory penalty, in which case, its duration shall be that of the principal penalty.
Arresto mayor. – The duration of the penalty of arresto mayor shall be from one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months.
Arresto menor. – The duration of the penalty of arresto menor shall be from one (1) day to thirty (30) days.
x x x
Reclusion Perpetua, despite its “defined duration” in R.A. No. 7659 – twenty (20) years and one (1) day to forty (40) years – is still to be classified as an indivisible penalty (People vs. Lucas, 232 SCRA 537), and should be imposed in its entire duration in accordance with Art. 63 of the Revised Penal Code. (People vs. Magallano, 266 SCRA 305)
Preventive and Subsidiary Imprisonment
Preventive imprisonment is the incarceration undergone by a person accused of a crime which is not bailable, or even if bailable, can not afford to post the bond. During the trial of his case, he is detained in jail. He is known as detention prisoner.
Subsidiary imprisonment, on the other hand, is the personal penalty prescribed by law in substitution of the payment of fine embodied in the decision when the same can not be satisfied because of the culprit’s insolvency. (People vs. Jarumayan, 52 O.G. 248)
Whenever as 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 or the proceedings on appeal. (Art. 29, RPC)
So that, if the trial of A for Attempted Homicide is still going on for more than six (6) years, and he has been detained from the beginning of the trial for failure or inability to post bail bond, he shall be ordered immediately released, for the crime is punishable by prision correccional (Art. 249 in relation to Articles 6 and 51), and the range of this penalty is six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years only. (Art. 27) But the trial shall proceed so that in case of acquittal, he will have no criminal record. In case of conviction, he will not be imprisoned anymore.
The preventive imprisonment undergone by the accuse shall be credited fully, to be subtracted from his sentenced, if he agrees in writing to abide by the disciplinary rules imposed on convicted prisoners; otherwise, only four-fifths of the time during which he has undergone preventive imprisonment shall be deducted.
The following are exceptions however:
1. If the convict is a recidivist or has been previous convicted twice or more of any crime;
2. When upon being summoned for the execution of his sentenced, he shall have failed to surrender voluntarily. (Art. 29, RPC)
There is no subsidiary imprisonment if the penalty is more thatn six (6) years.
Moreover the subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed one third (1/3) of the principal penalty or one (1) year which ever is lesser.
Application of Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstances
The court must first consider whether the penalties imposable are Divisible or Indivisible. Indivisible penalties are those which have no fixed duration like death, reclusion perpetua, perpetual absolute or special disqualification, and public censure;
while Divisible penalties are those having fixed duration and case be divided into three (3) periods.
In case the law prescribes two indivisible penalties, like reclusion perpetua
to death (the penalty for Infanticide, Parricide, Murder, etc.), the presence of one mitigating circumstance would result in the application of the lesser penalty, while the presence of an aggravating circumstance would mean the application of the greater penalty. If there is no mitigating and no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied. If there be present both mitigating and aggravating circumstance, the court shall reasonably allow them to offset one another. (Art. 63)
When the penalty is single indivisible, like the penalty for Piracy under Article 122 as amended by Sec. 3, R.A. No. 7659 – which is reclusion perpetua, such penalty shall be applied regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance such as minority, in which case, the penalty may be reduced by a degree. Such is also the rule in case of two (2) indivisible penalties like reclusion perpetua to death. If the mitigating circumstance in attendance is privilege mitigating, the penalty shall be lowered by one degree. Thus, when the crime proven is Murder, (the penalty is reclusion perpetua to death under Art. 248, Revised Penal Code as amended by Sec. 6 of R.A. No. 7659), and the accused is a minor below sixteen (16) years old, the penalty shall be reclusion temporal.
When the penalty is divisible and there is neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstance, the penalty shall be applied in medium period. If there is one ordinary mitigating circumstance it shall be applied in it minimum period, and if there is one (1) aggravating circumstance, the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period. If the mitigating circumstance present is privileged one, the reduction of the penalty shall be by degree, not only by period. If there are both mitigating and aggravating circumstance, the court shall reasonably offset them according to their relative weight. (Art. 64)
If the commission of the crime was attended by both mitigating and aggravating circumstances, the rules (Art. 62) are as follows:
1. Aggravating circumstances which in themselves constitute a crime specially punishable by law or which are included by the law in defining a crime shall not be taken into account for the purpose of increasing the penalty.
Example: “By means of fire” (Art. 14, par. 12) shall not be considered in the crime of Arson. That the crime was committed in the dwelling of the offended party (Art. 14, par. 3) shall not aggravate the liability of the offender convicted of Trespass to Dwelling.
So also, “by means of poison” (Art. 14, par. 12) will not be considered to increase the liability in Murder qualified by using poison.
2. Aggravating circumstances which are inherent in the crime to such a degree that they must of necessity accompany the crime shall not increase the penalty.
Example: Abuse of confidence (Art. 14, par. 4) shall no longer be considered Qualified Theft with grave abuse of confidence to increase the penalty.
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 personal cause shall serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of the culprit to whom they are attendant.
Example: X, Y, and Z, conspiring with each other, killed W who is X’s brother-in-law. Z committed it with evident premeditation while Y is a recidivist. The aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation applies only to Z, the fact that the victim is X’s brother-in-law would affect the liability only of X while recidivism which is personal to Y shall increase the liability of Y only.
However, the mitigating circumstance of abandonment by the husband provided for in adultery under Art. 333 applies to both the wife and her lover because their act is only one, judicially speaking. (People vs. Avelino, et. al., [C.A.] 40 O.G.
194)
4. The circumstance which consist in the material execution of the act or in the means employed to accomplish it shall aggravate or mitigate the liability of those who had knowledge of them at the time of the execution of the act.
Example: A, B, and C agreed to kill X and so armed with guns they proceeded to the house of the latter whereupon A told B and C that he would just stay in the yard to prevent any relative of X from helping the victim. When B and C entered the room of X, and saw him sleeping, it was C who shot him. The treachery that attended the commission of the crime shall also affect B and not only C treacherously killed X in his sleep because B had knowledge of the employment of the treacherous act being present actually during the shooting. A’s liability is not aggravated by treachery as he had no knowledge of it, being in the yard.
So also, A, B and C agreed to kill X and in a drinking spree, A saw the opportunity and put poison in the glass of X. B saw (X should be substituted by A) pouring the poison while C did not see it and was unaware of it. X died after taking the poisonous drink. The aggravating circumstance of “by means of poison” affects only A and B.
Other Effects of Penalty
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 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. (Art. 45)
This forfeiture or confiscation of instruments and proceeds of the offense is provided for as an accessory penalty under Article 25. If A stole the gun of B who is duly licensed to possess it, and used it in killing C, the gun will no longer be confiscated in favor of the government but would be returned to C. if the proceeds or tools can not be subject of lawful transaction like marijuana or shabu, then they shall be ordered burned or destroyed.
Complex Crimes and Their Penalties (Delito Compuesto)
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, to be applied in its maximum period. (Art. 48)
Art. 48 is not applicable in case of special complex crimes specifically provided for in Revised Penal Code like Robbery with Homicide or Rape or with Arson (Sec. 9, R.A. No. 7659 amending par. 1 of Article 294), or Rape with Homicide (Sec. 11, R.A.
No. 7659 amending Article 335) and applies only when no specific penalty is stated in the law.
Art. 48 speaks of two (2) types of complex crimes: (1) when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, otherwise known as compound crime, and (2) when an offense is a necessary means of committing the other, which is the complex crime proper.
An example of No. 1 – that is, compound crime, is when A with a revolver shot B, missing him but the bullet hit X who is A’s father. A committed the crime of Attempted Homicide with Parricide. Or, when in recklessly driving his car, Y hit the car of W which in turn hit the car of A, the damages suffered by the two (2) cars resulting in grave or less grave felonies (not merely light).
An example of No. 2 – that is, complex crime proper, is when the Municipal Treasurer, who received ten thousand (P10,000.00) from a taxpayer, placed in the duplicate original of the receipt the amount of one thousand (P1000.00) and then misappropriated the difference of nine thousand ((P9,000.00) is guilty of Malversation through Falsification of a Public Document because Falsification is necessary means to commit Malversation.
It is however, Estafa through Falsification of Public Document, not Malversation of Public Funds through Falsification of Public Document, when a casual employee of the Bureau of Lands encashed a treasury warrant by affixing his signature thereon, when in fact the treasury warrant is not payable to him. He is not an accountable officer.
(Sambiniano vs. Court of Appeals, et. al., 249 SCRA 24)
The accused, who, through intimidation, brought out the victim from her house to a nearby school building where he raped her is guilty of the complex crime of Forcible Abduction with Rape. (People vs. Grefiel, 215 SCRA 596)
In complex crimes, one offense should not be punishable under another law. Both must be a violation of the Revised Penal Code. Thus, while Illegal Possession of Firearm could be argued as a necessary means to commit Murder or Homicide, there is no complex crime committed because one crime is punishable under a special law while the other is by Revised Penal Code.
While one can be convicted only of rebellion where the murders, robberies and kidnapping were committed as a means to or in furtherance of the rebellion, offenses which were not committed in furtherance of the rebellion but for personal reasons or other motives, are to be punished separately even if committed simultaneously with the rebellious acts. (People vs. Oliva, 344 SCRA 435)
Continuing Crime (Delito Continuado)
A single crime consisting of a series of acts arising from one criminal resolution or intent not susceptible of division. (Philippine Law Dictionary by Moreno)
In People vs. Encila, 76 O.G. 5824, it was defined as a continuous, unlawful act or series of acts set on foot by a single impulse and operated by an unintermittent force however long a time it may occupy.
When the actor, there being unity of purpose and of right violated, commits diverse acts, each of which, although of a delictual character, merely constitutes a partial execution of a single particular delict, such concurrence of delictual acts is called “delito continuado.” (Gamboa vs. Court of Appeals, 68 SCRA 314)
The taking of several cows belonging to different owners while admittedly committed through several acts was held to be punished only as one crime when done or perpetrated during the same occasion.
Where, however, in a train, the accused-twins ran amuck killing eight (8) persons and wounding one during that occasion, it was held that the eight murders and one attempted murder were committed qualified by treachery. (People vs. Toling, 62 SCRA 17)
Indeterminate Sentence Law
(Act 4103 as amended by Act No. 4225)
Section 1. Hereafter, in imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by the Revised Penal Code, or its amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which, shall be that which, in view of the
attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the said Code, and the minimum of which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense; and if the offense is punished by any other law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same.
Since the opening sentence of this law says: “xxx in imposing a prison term xxx”
this Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable to destierro. So that if a concubine is found guilty under Article 334, the court shall impose a straight penalty of not less than six (6) months and one (1) day nor more than six (6) years as this is the range of destierro provided for in Article 27. The Judge thus can sentence a concubine to a straight prison term of six (6) months and one day, or ten (10) months, or one (1) year, or five (5) years, etc.
How to Apply the Indeterminate Sentence Law
To cite a specific example: If A who is only seventeen (17) years old was found guilty of Homicide with a mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, the court shall first determine the applicable penalty by applying the mitigating circumstance present.
Since the accused is only seventeen (17) years old, he is entitled to a mitigating circumstance of minority which is a privileged one. Thus, the penalty of reclusion
Since the accused is only seventeen (17) years old, he is entitled to a mitigating circumstance of minority which is a privileged one. Thus, the penalty of reclusion