NENGASCA, PAMM | 2019-2020 | CRIMINAL LAW 1

ARTICLE 9. Grave Felonies, Less Grave Felonies higher or highest of the penalties must be a
and Light Felonies. — Grave felonies are those correctional penalty.
to which the law attaches the capital
punishment or penalties which in any of their If the penalty prescribed is composed of two
periods are afflictive, in accordance with article or more periods corresponding to different divisible
25 of this Code. penalties, the higher or maximum period must be
that of correctional penalty.
Less grave felonies are those which the law
punishes with penalties which in their If the penalty is composed of two periods of
maximum period are correctional, in a correctional penalty or of two periods
accordance with the above-mentioned article. corresponding to different correctional penalties, like
destierro and arresto mayor, the offense for which it
Light felonies are those infractions of law for is prescribed is a less grave felony.
the commission of which the penalty of arresto
menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos or The following are correctional penalties:
both, is provided. 1. Prision correccional,
2. Arresto mayor,
3. Suspension,
Classification of felonies according to their 4. Destierro.
gravity.
When the Code provides a fine of exactly
The gravity of the felonies is determined by P200.00 for the commission of a felony, it is a light
the penalties attached to them by law. felony.
1. Grave Felonies If the amount of the fine provided by the
2. Less Grave Felonies Code is more than P200.00, then it is a less grave
3. Light Felonies felony, because according to Art. 26, a fine not
exceeding P6,000.00 is a correctional penalty.
IMPORTANT WORDS AND PHRASES.
If the amount of the fine provided by the
"To which the law attaches the capital punishment." Code is more than P6,000.00, it is a grave felony,
Capital punishment is death penalty. because according to Art. 26, a fine exceeding
P6,000.00 is an afflictive penalty.
"Or penalties which in any of their periods are
afflictive." Article 26 versus Article 9
When the penalty prescribed for the offense
is composed of two or more distinct penalties, the Although Art. 26 provides that a fine not
higher or highest of the penalties must be an less than P200.00 is a correctional penalty, Art. 9
afflictive penalty. which defines light felonies should prevail, because
the latter (Art. 9) classifies felonies according to their
If the penalty prescribed is composed of two gravity, while the former (Art. 26) classifies the fine
or more periods corresponding to different divisible according to the amount thereof.
penalties, the higher or maximum period must be
that of an afflictive penalty. A felony punishable by a fine not exceeding
P200.00 and censure (Art. 365, paragraph 4) is a
If the penalty is composed of two periods of light felony, because public censure, like arresto
an afflictive penalty or of two periods corresponding menor, is a light penalty.
to different afflictive penalties, the offense for which
it is prescribed is a grave felony. Summary of classifications of felonies under
the RPC:
The afflictive penalties in accordance with Art. 25 of
this Code are: a. Under Article 3
i. Felonies by Act
1. Reclusion perpetua, ii. Felonies by Omission
2. Reclusion temporal, b. According to the manner of commission
3. Perpetual or temporary absolute i. Intentional Felonies
disqualification, ii. Culpable Felonies
4. Perpetual or temporary special c. According to the Stages of Execution
disqualification, i. Attempted Felony
5. Prision mayor. ii. Frustrated Felony
iii. Consummated Felony
"Penalties which in their maximum period are
correctional."
When the penalty prescribed for the offense
is composed of two or more distinct penalties, the

1
NENGASCA, PAMM | 2019-2020 | CRIMINAL LAW 1

ARTICLE 10. Offenses Not Subject to the
Provisions of this Code. — Offenses which are
or in the future may be punishable under
special laws are not subject to the provisions of
this Code. This Code shall be supplementary to
such laws, unless the latter should specially
provide the contrary.
The term "imprisonment" and not "prision
correccional" should be used in reference to the
penalty for the crime of illegal possession of firearms
and other crimes punished by special laws, because
the term "prision correccional," "prision mayor," or
"arresto mayor" is peculiar to penalties for crimes
punished by the Revised Penal Code.

Offenses under special laws, not subject to the

The two clauses of Art. 10, reconciled. provisions of this Code relating to attempted
and frustrated crimes.
Article 10 is composed of two clauses.
The attempted or the frustrated stage of the
The first clause should be understood to execution of an offense penalized by a special law is
mean only that the Penal Code is not intended to not punishable, unless the special law provides a
supersede special penal laws. penalty therefor. (U.S. vs. Lopez Basa, 8 Phil. 89)
Said clause only restates the elemental rule The ruling in the case of U.S. vs. Basa,
of statutory construction that special legal provisions supra, is still good, notwithstanding [in spite of] the
prevail over general ones. case of Navarra vs. People where it is stated that the
prohibition against the interest in municipal contracts
The second clause contains the soul of the includes all the steps taken to consummate the
article. The main idea and purpose of the article is contract, that is, frustrated and attempted stages are
embodied in the provision that the "Code shall be included.
supplementary" to special laws, unless the latter
should specially provide the contrary.
US vs Basa US vs Navarra
IMPORTANT WORDS AND PHRASES.
In the Basa case, the In the Navarra case,
"Special laws." written proposal of the exchange of the
Councilor Basa, offering property of the husband
Defined in U.S. vs. Serapio, 23 Phil. 584, as to furnish street lamps of a woman councilor
a penal law which punishes acts not denned and to the municipality, at and that of the
penalized by the Penal Code. the price named municipality ​was
therein, ​was not approved by the
Special law is a statute enacted by the accepted by the municipal council.
Legislative branch, penal in character, which is not municipal council​, it The provisions of the
an amendment to the Revised Penal Code. being a violation of the Administrative Code
law, prohibiting public charged to have been
The provisions of the Revised Penal Code on officers from becoming violated by the
penalties cannot be applied to offenses interested in any councilor do not require
punishable under special laws. transaction in which it that the contract be
is their official duty to approved by the
Articles that cannot be applied to special laws: intervene. provincial governor.

● Art. 6 relative to attempted and frustrated The proposal, not The transaction in
stages of execution having been accepted which the councilor
by the municipal became interested
● Arts. 18 and 19 regarding accomplices and council, ​the offense having been approved
accessories was only in the by the municipal
attempted stage. council, ​the offense
● Arts. 50 to 57 which provide that the was consummated.
penalty for the principal in an attempted
felony is two degrees and in a frustrated
felony one degree lower than the penalty for The special law has to fix penalties for
the consummated felony, that the penalty attempted and frustrated crime.
for the accomplice is one degree lower and
for the accessory two degrees lower than The special law does not provide for a
that for the consummated felony penalty one or two degrees lower than that provided
for the consummated stage.
● Arts. 13 and 14 which provide for mitigating
and aggravating circumstances The special law has to fix a penalty for the
attempt and a penalty for the frustration of the crime
● Art. 64 which provides for the rules for the defined by it, in order that the crime may be
application of penalties with three periods punished in case its commission reached only the
attempted or frustrated stage of execution.

2
NENGASCA, PAMM | 2019-2020 | CRIMINAL LAW 1
When a special law covers the mere attempt to
commit the crime defined by it, the attempted
stage is punishable by the same penalty
provided by that law.
(People vs. Jolliffe, 105 Phil. 677)
When the accused was about to board a
plane of the Pan American World Airways, four pieces
of gold bullion were found tied to his body. He was
charged with ​a violation of Republic Act No. 265.
Held: Section 4 of Circular No. 21, issued in
accordance with the provisions of Republic Act No.
265, provides that "any person desiring to export
gold in any form x x x must obtain a license from the
Central Bank x x x."
This section explicitly applies to "any person
desiring to export gold" and hence, it contemplates
the situation existing prior to the consummation of
the exportation. Indeed, its purpose would be
defeated if the penal sanction were deferred until
after the article in question had left the Philippines,
for jurisdiction over it and over the guilty party
would be lost thereby.
Art. 10, R.P.C. is not applicable to punish an
accomplice under the special law.
The offense involved is punished by Com.
Act No. 466, Sec. 174. The penalty imposed is
clearly intended only for the "person who is found in
possession" of the prohibited article.
It would be a legal impossibility to
determine what penalty is to be imposed upon a
mere accomplice. The combined provisions of both
the Revised Penal Code and the National Internal
Revenue Code do not provide any such penalty or at
least lay down the basis or the manner of its
determination.
The rule is and has always been ​nullum
crimen nulla poena sine lege​. Hence, even if
appellant is conceded to have performed acts which
would make of him an accomplice, ​it would
nevertheless be impossible to impose any
penalty upon him because of the demonstrated
inapplicability of the principles of the Revised
Penal Code on accomplices to the case at bar.
(Dissenting opinion, People vs. Padaong, 10 C.A.
Rep. 979)
Plea of guilty is not mitigating in illegal
possession of firearms, punished by special
law.
The plea of guilty as mitigating
circumstance under the Revised Penal Code (Art. 13,
par. 7) is not available to offenses punishable under
special laws. (People vs. Noble, 77 Phil. 1086)
The provisions of the Revised Penal Code,
relative to the application of the circumstances
modifying the criminal liability of the accused are not
applicable to special laws. (People vs. Respecia, 107
Phil. 995)
Art. 64 of the Revised Penal Code
prescribing the rules for the graduation of penalties
containing three periods when mitigating and/or
aggravating circumstances attended the commission
of the crime, was held inapplicable to offenses
penalized by special laws, ​because the penalty
prescribed by special law is usually
indeterminate and does not contain three
periods. ​(People vs. Ramos, 44 O.G. 3288; People
vs. Gonzales, 82 Phil. 307)
"Supplementary"
The word "supplementary" means supplying
what is lacking; additional.
Some provisions of the Penal Code
(especially with the addition of the second sentence
of Art. 10), ​are perfectly applicable to special
laws.
The Supreme Court has extended some provisions of
the Penal Code to special penal laws, such as:
● The provisions of Article 22 with reference
to the retroactive effect of penal laws if they
favor the accused (People vs. Parel, 44 Phil.
437);
● Those of Article 17 with reference to
participation of principals in the commission
of the crime (U.S. vs. Ponte, 20 Phil. 379);
● Those of Article 39 with reference to
subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency to pay the fine (People vs.
Abedes, 268 SCRA 619); and
● Those of Article 45 with reference to the
confiscation of the instruments used in the
commission of the crime.
Indemnity and subsidiary imprisonment in the
Revised Penal Code applied to violation of
Motor Vehicle Law.
People vs. Moreno
(60 Phil. 712)
Facts: The accused drove a car in a reckless manner,
and in going around a curve leading to a concrete
bridge, he violently struck the railing of the bridge
and crushed the left side of the car.
The person who was seated on the left side of the
car received injuries from which he died the same
day. ​The accused was convicted of homicide
thru reckless imprudence and violation of the
Motor Vehicle Law (Act No. 3992).
That special law has no provision regarding
indemnity to heirs of the deceased and subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency.
3
NENGASCA, PAMM | 2019-2020 | CRIMINAL LAW 1

In Articles 39 and 100 of the Revised Penal Code,
indemnity to heirs and subsidiary imprisonment are,
respectively, provided.
Held: Articles 39 and 100 of the Revised Penal Code
are supplementary to the Motor Vehicle Law.
Art. 39 of the Code applied to Rep. Act No. 145.
The appellant who was found guilty of a violation of
Rep. Act No. 145, penalizing unlawful solicitation of,
or contract for, fees relative to claim for benefits
under statutes of the U.S. being administered by the
U.S. Veterans Administration, was sentenced to
suffer subsidiary imprisonment (Art. 39) should he
fail to pay to the offended party the indemnity
awarded to the latter. (People vs. Lardizabal)
"Unless the latter should specially provide the
contrary."
Under Art. 10 of the Revised Penal Code it
has supplementary application to all special laws,
unless the latter should specially provide the
contrary, and Commonwealth Act No. 465 makes no
provision that it exclusively applies to all
falsifications of residence certificates.
Special laws amending the Revised Penal Code
are subject to its provisions.
P.D. No. 533 ​[THE ANTI-CATTLE RUSTLING
LAW OF 1974] ​is not a special law, entirely
distinct from and unrelated to the Revised
Penal Code.

Art. 39 of the Code applied to Act No. 4003.
Appellant's contention that the trial court
committed error in ordering him to serve subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency in the payment of
fine for the reason that Act No. 4003, which prohibits
fishing with the use of explosives, fails to provide for
such subsidiary imprisonment and that being a
special law, it is not subject to the provisions of the
Revised Penal Code, is untenable.
Articles 100 (civil liability) and 39
(subsidiary penalty) are applicable to offenses under
special laws (People vs. Dizon [unrep.], 97 Phil.
1007). (People vs. Cubelo)
From the nature of the penalty imposed
which is in terms of the classification and duration of
penalties as prescribed in the Revised Penal Code,
which is not for penalties as are ordinarily imposed in
special laws, ​the intent seems clear that P.D. No.
533 shall be deemed as an amendment of the
Revised Penal Code, with respect to the offense
of theft of large cattle (Art. 310)​, or otherwise to
be subject to applicable provisions thereof such as
Article 104 of the Revised Penal Code on civil liability
of the offender, a provision which is not found in the
decree, but which could not have been intended to
be discarded or eliminated by the decree.

No accessory penalty, unless the special law

provides therefor.

Article 12, paragraph 3, of the Revised Penal

Code, applied to minor over nine but less than
fifteen years old who violated a special law.

People vs. Navarro

(C.A., 51 O.G. 4062)

Facts: A girl, 13 years, 11 months, and 3 days old,

was prosecuted for selling cocoa P0.11 more than
the selling price fixed by the government. The
prosecution failed to establish that she acted with
discernment.

Held: The state has the burden of proving that the

minor acted with discernment, otherwise, such minor
shall be adjudged to be criminally irresponsible solely
by reason of her age showing lack of intelligence.
Article 12, paragraph 3, of the Revised Penal Code
applied.

The accused was prosecuted under a special

law. ​Intent is immaterial in crimes mala
prohibita.

Even in crimes mala prohibita, the

prohibited act must be voluntarily committed. The
offender must act with intelligence. In said case, the
accused acted without intelligence.