PENALTIES:

COMPUTATION WITH
THE INDETERMINATE
SENTENCE LAW
Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra
 COVERAGE

• Revised Penal Code, Title Three, Articles 21 to 88

 Exclude the following provisions:

 Article 80 (repealed by Republic Act No. 9344)

 Articles 81 to 85 (because Republic Act No. 9346

expressly prohibits the imposition of death penalty)

 Note that Republic Act No. 9344 amended Article 68

• Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act No. 4103, as

amended by Act No. 4225 and Republic Act No. 4203)
Article 21, RPC
Penalties that may be imposed.
- No felony shall be punishable by
any penalty not prescribed by law
prior to its commission.
NULLUM CRIMEN
NULLA POENA
SINE LEGE
 Classification
(RPC, Article 25, in relation to Article 9)

• Article 25 classifies penalties into:

A. PRINCIPAL PENALTIES (those expressly

specified in the judgment of conviction); and

B. ACCESSORY PENALTIES (those deemed

included in the principal penalty and do not have
to be expressly specified in the judgment of
conviction)
 Classification
(RPC, Article 25, in relation to Article 9)

• PRINCIPAL PENALTIES may further be classified

according to gravity, to wit:

a. Capital Penalty (i.e., death);

b. Afflictive Penalties (i.e., reclusion perpetua,

reclusion temporal, perpetual or temporary
absolute disqualification, perpetual or temporary
special disqualification, prision mayor);

c. Correctional Penalties (i.e., prision

correccional, arresto mayor, suspension,
destierro);
 Classification
(RPC, Article 25, in relation to Article 9)

• PRINCIPAL PENALTIES may further be classified

according to gravity, to wit:

d. Light Penalties (i.e., arresto menor, public

censure); and

e. Penalties common to afflictive, correctional

and light penalties (i.e., fine, bond to keep the
peace).
 Classification
(RPC, Article 25, in relation to Article 9)

• PRINCIPAL PENALTIES may further be classified

according to gravity.

* This classification corresponds to the classification

of the felonies in Article 9, into grave, less grave
and light.

Art. 9. Grave felonies, less grave felonies

and light felonies. — GRAVE FELONIES are those
to which the law attaches the capital punishment or
penalties which in any of their periods are
afflictive, in accordance with Art. 25 of this Code.
 Classification
(RPC, Article 25, in relation to Article 9)

• PRINCIPAL PENALTIES may further be classified

according to gravity.

LESS GRAVE FELONIES are those which the

law punishes with penalties which in their maximum period
are correctional, in accordance with the above-mentioned
article.

LIGHT FELONIES are those infractions of law for

the commission of which a penalty of arrest menor or a
fine not exceeding 40,000.00 pesos or both, is
provided.
 Classification
(RPC, Article 25, in relation to Article 9)

• PRINCIPAL PENALTIES may also be classified

according to divisibility, to wit:

a. INDIVISIBLE PENALTIES – those that have no

fixed duration and therefore cannot be divided into
periods, such as:

 Death
 Reclusion Perpetua
(Under R.A. No. 7659, amending Article 27, RPC, the
duration of reclusion perpetua is fixed at 20 years and 1
day to 40 years. However, in People v. Lucas [G.R. Nos.
108172-73, 9 January 1995), the Supreme Court ruled that
reclusion perpetua shall remain an indivisible
penalty)
 Perpetual absolute or special disqualification
 Public Censure
 Classification
(RPC, Article 25, in relation to Article 9)

• PRINCIPAL PENALTIES may also be classified

according to divisibility, to wit:

a. INDIVISIBLE PENALTIES

• People v. Jacinto (G.R. No. 182239, 16 March 2011)

Under Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code, when
the offender is a minor under 18 years, the penalty next
lower than that prescribed by law shall be imposed, but
always in the proper period. However, for
purposes of determining the proper penalty
because of the privileged mitigating
circumstance of minority, the penalty of death is
still the penalty to be reckoned with. Thus, the
proper imposable penalty for the accused-appellant is
reclusion perpetua.
 Classification
(RPC, Article 25, in relation to Article 9)

• PRINCIPAL PENALTIES may also be classified

according to divisibility, to wit:

b. DIVISIBLE PENALTIES – those that have a

fixed duration and therefore can be divided into
three periods, such as:

 Reclusion Temporal;
 Temporary special disqualification
 Prision Mayor;
 Prision Correccional;
 Arresto Mayor;
 Suspension;
 Destierro; and
 Arresto Menor .
 Classification
(RPC, Article 25, in relation to Article 9)

• ACCESSORY PENALTIES, which are deemed

included in the imposition of principal penalties, are as
follows:

 Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification;

 Perpetual or temporary special disqualification;
 Suspension from public office, the right to vote
and be voted for, the profession or calling;
 Civil interdiction;
 Indemnification;
 Forfeiture or confiscation of instruments and
proceeds of the offense; and
 Payment of costs.
 Penalty for Complex Crimes
(RPC, Art. 48)

ARTICLE 48. Penalty for Complex Crimes.

— When a single act constitutes two or more crimes, 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.
 Penalty for Complex Crimes
(RPC, Art. 48)

Question: A committed direct assault with homicide.

What is the penalty to be imposed?

Answer: Reclusion temporal in its maximum period.

The penalty for direct assault is prision correccional

in its medium and maximum periods (Article 148).
Whereas, homicide is punishable by reclusion
temporal (Art. 249).

Thus, the penalty of the more serious crime shall be

imposed in its maximum period.
 Order of Severity (RPC, Art.

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:

xxx xxx xxx

 Order of Severity (RPC, Art.

xxx xxx xxx

1. Death,
2. Reclusion perpetua,
3. Reclusion temporal,
4. Prision mayor,
5. Prision correccional,
6. Arresto mayor,
7. Arresto menor,
8. Destierro,
9. Perpetual absolute disqualification,
10 Temporal absolute disqualification.
11. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be
voted for, the right to follow a profession or calling, and
12. Public censure.
 Three-fold Rule (RPC, Art. 70)

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).
Preventive Imprisonment (Art. 29) and Good Conduct
Allowance (Art. 97)

Note: It is the Bureau of Corrections (BuCor) and

Board of Pardons and Paroles (BJMP) that is primarily tasked
in computing the: (a) period of preventive imprisonment, for
the deduction from imprisonment terms; and (b) allowance of
Good Conduct
 People v. Conrado Lucas
(G.R. Nos. 108172-73, 9 January 1995)

• Although Section 17 of R.A. No. 7659 has fixed the duration of

reclusion perpetua from twenty (20) years and one (1) day to
forty (40) years, there was no clear legislative intent to alter
its original classification as an indivisible penalty. It shall then
remain as an indivisible penalty.

• There is no computation needed at all for reclusion

perpetua. Impose it as it is.
 Graduated scales (RPC, Art. 71)
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:
 Graduated scales (RPC, Art. 71)

SCALE NO. 1 SCALE NO. 2

1. Death, 1. Perpetual absolute

2. Reclusion perpetua, disqualification,
3. Reclusion temporal, 2. Temporal absolute
4. Prision mayor, disqualification
5. Prision correccional, 3. Suspension from
6. Arresto mayor, public office, the right to
7. Destierro, vote and be
8. Arresto menor, voted for, the right to
9. Public censure, follow a profession or
10. Fine. calling,
4. Public censure,
5. Fine
 Rules for Graduating
Penalties

1. When the penalty prescribed for the felony is single and

indivisible, the penalty next lower in degrees shall be that immediately
following that indivisible penalty in the respective graduated scale
prescribed in Article 71 of the Revised Penal Code.

Reclusion Perpetua Penalty prescribed for Simple Rape

Reclusion temporal Penalty next lower in degree

 Rules for Graduating
Penalties

2. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of two

indivisible penalties, or of one or more divisible penalties to be imposed 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.

Two indivisible penalties

Death
Penalty prescribed for
Reclusion Perpetua Serious Illegal
Detention
Penalty next lower
Reclusion Temporal
in degree
 Rules for Graduating
Penalties

2. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of

two indivisible penalties, or of one or more divisible penalties to be
imposed 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.

One divisible penalty to be imposed to their full extent

Reclusion Temporal Penalty prescribed for Homicide

Prision Mayor Penalty next lower in degree

 Rules for Graduating
Penalties

2. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of two

indivisible penalties, or of one or more divisible penalties to be imposed 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.

Two or more divisible penalties to be imposed to their full

extent

Prision Mayor
Penalty prescribed
Prision Correccional
Penalty next lower
Arresto Mayor
in degree
 Rules for Graduating
Penalties

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 period
of that immediately following in said respective graduated scale.

One indivisible penalty and the maximum of another divisible penalty

Reclusion Perpetua Penalty prescribed

Maximum
Reclusion Temporal Medium
Penalty next lower
Minimum
in degree
Maximum
Prision Mayor Medium
Minimum
 Rules for Graduating
Penalties

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 period
of that immediately following in said respective graduated scale.

Two indivisible penalties and the maximum of another divisible penalty

Death
Reclusion Perpetua Penalty prescribed
Maximum
Reclusion Temporal Medium
Minimum Penalty next lower in degree
Maximum
Prision Mayor Medium
Minimum
 Rules for Graduating
Penalties
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.

When penalty has three or more periods

Maximum
Reclusion Temporal Medium
Minimum Penalty prescribed
Maximum
Prision Mayor Medium
Minimum Penalty next lower in degree
Maximum
Prision Correccional Medium
Minimum
 Rules for Graduating
Penalties
5. When the law prescribes a penalty for a crime in some manner
not specially 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.

When penalty has two periods

Maximum
Reclusion Temporal Medium
Penalty prescribed
Minimum
Maximum Penalty next lower
Prision Mayor Medium in degree
Minimum
 Rules for Graduating
Penalties
5. When the law prescribes a penalty for a crime in some manner
not specially 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.

When penalty has one period

Maximum

Reclusion Temporal Medium Penalty prescribed

Penalty next lower
Minimum
in degree
 Rules for Graduating Penalties
(RPC, Article 61)
Tabulation of the Provisions of the Chapter
 Effect of the Attendance of Mitigating or
Aggravating
Circumstances and of Habitual Delinquency

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.

1(a). When in the commission of the crime, advantage was

taken by the offender of his public position, the penalty to be
imposed shall be in its maximum regardless of mitigating
circumstances.

The maximum penalty shall be imposed if the offense was

committed by any group who belongs to an organized/syndicated
crime group.
 Effect of the Attendance of Mitigating or
Aggravating
Circumstances and of Habitual Delinquency

When in the commission of the crime, advantage was taken

by the offender of his public position, the penalty to be imposed shall
be in its maximum regardless of mitigating circumstances.

Example: A, a municipal mayor, was convicted of Slight Illegal Detention.

The trial court found that A took advantage of his public position. However,
the Trial Court also appreciated the mitigating circumstances of voluntary
surrender and confession. The penalty to be imposed:

Maximum Penalty to be imposed

Reclusion
Medium
Temporal
Minimum
 Effect of the Attendance of Mitigating or
Aggravating
Circumstances and of Habitual Delinquency

The maximum penalty shall be imposed if the offense was

committed by any group who belongs to an organized/syndicated crime
group.

An organized/syndicated crime group means a group of two or

more persons collaborating, confederating or mutually helping one another
for purposes of gain in the commission of any crime.
 Effect of the Attendance of Mitigating or
Aggravating
Circumstances and of Habitual Delinquency

The maximum penalty shall be imposed if the offense was

committed by any group who belongs to an organized/syndicated crime
group.

Example: A, B, and C committed Robbery as members of a syndicated

crime group. They, however, voluntarily surrendered and confessed. The
penalty to be imposed:

Maximum Penalty to be imposed

Reclusion
Medium
Temporal
Minimum
 Effect of the Attendance of Mitigating or
Aggravating
Circumstances and of Habitual Delinquency

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.
 Effect of the Attendance of Mitigating or
Aggravating
Circumstances and of Habitual Delinquency

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.
 Effect of the Attendance of Mitigating or
Aggravating
Circumstances and of Habitual Delinquency

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
 Effect of the Attendance of Mitigating or
Aggravating
Circumstances and of Habitual Delinquency

5. Habitual delinquency shall have the following effects:

(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, if within a period of ten years from the date of his release or last
conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robo, hurto,
estafa or falsification, he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or
oftener.
 Quasi-
(RPC, Article 160)

Any person who shall commit a felony after having been convicted by final
judgment, before beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving the same,
shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law
for the new felony.

Example: There is one mitigating circumstance and the special aggravating

circumstance of quasi-recidivism.

The penalty to be imposed:

Penalty to be imposed, regardless of
Maximum the existence of mitigating
circumstances.

Prision
Medium
Correccional

Minimum
 Imposition of fines
(RPC, Article 66)

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.
 Penalty for Incomplete Accident
(RPC, Article 67)

When all the conditions required in circumstances

Number 4 of Article 12 of the RPC 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.
 Penalty to be imposed upon a Minor
(Article 68 of the RPC, as amended by R.A. No. 9344)
While an offender over 9 years but under 15 years who acts
with discernment is not exempt from criminal liability under Article
68, and a discretionary penalty shall be imposed which shall always
be lower by 2 degrees than that prescribed by law for the crime
committed, said offender is exempt from criminal liability under R.A.
No. 9344; hence, no penalty shall be imposed.

When an offender is over 15 but under 18 years of age, the

penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be imposed
under Article 68, while under R.A. No. 9344, the offender shall be
exempt from criminal liability unless he/she acted with discernment.
 Penalty to be imposed upon a Minor
(Article 68 of the RPC, as amended by R.A. No. 9344)
Example: A, 17 years old, committed homicide against B. The
trial court found him to have acted with discernment.

Penalty to be imposed:
Maximum
Reclusion Penalty prescribed by Article 249 for
Temporal Medium homicide.
Minimum
Penalty to be imposed – it
Maximum should be reduced first by one
degree because of the presence
of the privileged mitigating
Prision
Medium circumstance of minority. Since
Mayor
there is no ordinary mitigating
or aggravating circumstances,
Minimum the penalty to be imposed must
be in its medium period.
 Penalty to be imposed upon a Minor
(Article 68 of the RPC, as amended by R.A. No. 9344)
Example: A, 17 years old, committed Slight Illegal Detention against
B. The trial court found him to have acted with discernment. In
committing the crime, A employed means to weaken B’s defense

Penalty to be imposed:
Maximum Penalty prescribed by Article 249 for
Reclusion
Temporal Medium homicide.
Minimum

Maximum Penalty to be imposed – it should

be reduced first by one degree
because of the presence of the
Prision privileged mitigating circumstance
Mayor Medium of minority. Since there is an
aggravating circumstances, the
penalty to be imposed must be in
Minimum its maximum period.
 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.
 Penalty to be imposed when the crime committed
is
not wholly excusable

Example: A was convicted of Homicide but the court appreciated the

privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense. The
court may impose penalty lower by one or two degrees than that
prescribed for Homicide.
Maximum
Reclusion Temporal Medium Penalty prescribed by Art. 249
Minimum
Maximum
Prision Mayor Medium Penalty lower by one degree
Minimum
Maximum
Prision Correccional Medium Penalty lower by two degrees
Minimum
 Additional Penalty to be imposed
Public Officers who are guilty as Accessories
under Art 19, par. 3
(RPC, Article 58)

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.
 Penalty for Impossible
(RPC, Article 59)

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.
 Diagram of Application of Articles 50 to 57

Principals Accomplices Accessories

Consummated 0 1 2

Frustrated 1 2 3

Attempted 2 3 4

Note: “0” represents the penalty prescribed by law in defining a

crime, which is to be imposed on the principal in a consummated
offense, in accordance with Article 46 of the RPC. The other
figures represent the degrees to which the penalty must be
lowered, to meet the different situations anticipated by law.
 ARTICLES 50 – 57. EXTENT OF THE PENALTY
TO BE IMPOSED UNDER THE RPC
Example: The penalty prescribed for Homicide is
reclusion temporal (Article 249)
Consummated Frustrated Attempted

Reclusion Prision Prision

Temporal Mayor Correccional
(Article 46. The penalty (Article 50. The penalty (Article 51. A penalty
prescribed by law for next lower in degree lower by two degrees
the commission of a than that prescribed by than that prescribed by
felony shall be imposed law for the law for the
Principals
upon the principals in consummated felony consummated felony
the commission of such shall be imposed upon shall be imposed upon
felony. Whenever the the principal in a the principals in an
law prescribes a frustrated felony.) attempt to commit a
penalty for a felony is felony.)
general terms, it shall
be understood as
applicable to the
consummated felony.)
 ARTICLES 50 – 57. EXTENT OF THE PENALTY
TO BE IMPOSED UNDER THE RPC
Example: The penalty prescribed for Homicide is
reclusion temporal (Article 249)
Consummated Frustrated Attempted

Prision Prision Arresto

Mayor Correccional Mayor
(Article 52. The penalty (Article 54. The penalty (Article 56. The penalty
Accomplices next lower in degree next lower in degree next lower in degree
than that prescribed by than prescribed by law than that prescribed by
law for the for the frustrated law for an attempt to
consummated shall be felony shall be imposed commit a felony shall
imposed upon the upon the accomplices be imposed upon the
accomplices in the in the commission of a accomplices in an
commission of a frustrated felony.) attempt to commit the
consummated felony.) felony.)
 ARTICLES 50 – 57. EXTENT OF THE PENALTY
TO BE IMPOSED UNDER THE RPC
The penalty prescribed for Homicide is reclusion temporal
(Article 249)
Consummated Frustrated Attempted

Prision Arresto Arresto

Correccional Mayor Menor
(Article 53. The (Article 55. The penalty (Article 57. The penalty
penalty lower by two lower by two degrees lower by two degrees
degrees than that than that prescribed by than that prescribed by
Accessories
prescribed by law for law for the frustrated law for the attempted
the consummated felony shall be imposed felony shall be imposed
felony shall be upon the accessories to upon the accessories to
imposed upon the the commission of a the attempt to commit
accessories to the frustrated felony.) a felony.)
commission of a
consummated
felony.)
 Exceptions to the rules under Articles 50 to

The provisions contained in Articles 50 to 57,

inclusive, shall not be applicable to cases in which the law
expressly prescribes the penalty provided for a frustrated or
attempted felony, or to be imposed upon accomplices or
accessories (RPC, Article 60).
 Exceptions to the rules under Articles 50 to
(RPC, Article 250).

The courts, in view of the facts of the case, may

impose upon the person guilty of the frustrated crime of
parricide, murder or homicide, defined and penalized in the
preceding articles, a penalty lower by one degree than that
which should be imposed under the provision of Article 50.

The courts, considering the facts of the case, may

likewise reduce by one degree the penalty which under
article 51 should be imposed for an attempt to commit any of
such crimes.
 Article 250
Article 50
If (a penalty
Par. 1 (one degree
Consummated lower by one
lower)
degree than
Article 50)
Parricide Reclusion Reclusion Prision Mayor
or Murder Perpetua Temporal
to Death
Homicide Reclusion Prision Mayor Prision
Temporal Correccional
 Article 250
Article 51 (a penalty
If
Par. 2 (two degrees lower by
Consummated
lower) one degree
than Article
51)
Parricide Reclusion Prision Mayor Prision
or Murder Perpetua Correccional
to Death
Homicide Reclusion Prision Arresto Mayor
Temporal correccional
Bases for the determination of the extent of penalty
to be imposed under the RPC

1. The stage reached by the crime in its development

(either attempted, frustrated or consummated);

2. The participations therein of the persons liable; and

3. The aggravating or mitigating circumstances which

attended the commission of the crime.

In the different stages of execution in the commission of

the crime and in the participation therein of the persons liable, the
penalty is graduated by degree.
 Duration of Penalties (Art.

The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be from twenty

(20) years and one (1) day to forty (40) years.

The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be from twelve (12)

years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years.

The duration of the penalties of prision 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.
 Duration of Penalties (Art.

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.

The duration of the penalty of arresto mayor shall be from

one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months.

The duration of the penalty of arresto menor shall be

from (1) one day to thirty (30) days.

The bond to keep the peace shall be required to cover such

period of time as the court may determine.
 Subsidiary

If the convict has no property with which to meet the fine, 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 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.
 Subsidiary

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 penalty imposed is higher than prision

correccional, no subsidiary imprisonment shall be imposed upon
the culprit.
 Subsidiary

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
deprivation 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.
 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.

Penalty to be imposed for Simple

Rape, regardless of any
Reclusion Perpetua ordinary mitigating, or
aggravating
circumstances
 Rules for the Application of Indivisible
Penalties
• 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.

Example: A is convicted with Serious Illegal detention. The trial court

appreciated the aggravating circumstance of night time. The penalty to be
imposed:
 Rules for the Application of Indivisible
Penalties
• 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:

2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating

circumstances, the lesser penalty shall be applied.

Example: A is convicted with the Parricide without any mitigating or

aggravating circumstances. The penalty to be imposed:

Death
Penalty prescribed for Parricide under
Article 246.

Reclusion Perpetua Penalty to be imposed because there are no mitigating

or aggravating circumstances
 Rules for the Application of Indivisible
Penalties
• 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:

3. When the commission of the act is attended by some mitigating

circumstance and there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty
shall be applied.

Example: B was convicted of the crime of Murder. The trial court

appreciated the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender. The
penalty to be imposed:

Death
Penalty prescribed for Murder
under Article 248.

Reclusion Perpetua Penalty to be imposed because the voluntary

surrender
 Rules for the Application of Indivisible
Penalties
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.

Example: B was convicted of the crime of Murder. The trial court

appreciated the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and
confession, and the aggravating circumstance of consideration of a reward.
The penalty to be imposed:
Death
Penalty prescribed for Murder
under Article 248.

Reclusion Perpetua Penalty to be imposed because, after applying the

off-set rule, there is still one mitigating circumstances
 Rules for the Application of Indivisible Penalties

Special Mitigating Circumstance

Accused was found guilty of parricide punishable by the penalty of

reclusion perpetua to death. Applying the rules for application of indivisible
penalties (Article 63), the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be applied if
there are two mitigating circumstance. The penalty cannot be lowered to reclusion
temporal, no matter how many mitigating circumstances are present. The special
mitigating circumstance is found in rules for application of divisible penalties
(Article 64), which is not applicable because the penalty is not divisible (People
v. Takbobo, G.R. No. 102984, June 30, 1993). The Takbobo principle is also
applicable if the penalty prescribed by law for the crime committed is a single
indivisible penalty such as reclusion perpetua.

If there are three mitigating circumstance and one aggravating

circumstance, special mitigating circumstance for purposes of graduating the
penalty shall not be appreciated. Although there are two remaining mitigating
circumstances after applying the off-set rule, the penalty shall not be lowered by
one degree because the appreciation of special circumstance requires that there is
no aggravating circumstance.
 Rules for the Application of Indivisible Penalties

Offset Rule

Only ordinary aggravating and mitigating circumstances are subject to

the offset rule. Privileged mitigating circumstance of minority cannot be off-set by
ordinary aggravating circumstance (Aballe v. People,
G.R. No. L-64086, March 15, 1990). If privileged mitigating circumstance and
ordinary aggravating circumstance attended the commission of felony, the former
shall be taken into account in graduating penalty; the latter in applying the
graduated penalty in its maximum period (People v. Lumandong, G.R. NO.
132745, March 9, 2000, En Banc). Quasi-recidivism is a special circumstance and
cannot be offset by a generic mitigating circumstance (People v. Macariola, G.R.
No. L-40757, January 24, 2983). The circumstance of treachery, which qualifies
the killing into murder, cannot be offset by a generic mitigating circumstance
voluntary surrender (people v. Abletes and Pamero, G.R. No. L-33304, July 31,
1974).
 Application of Divisible Penalties

There are four kinds of divisible penalty, which are

governed by Article 64, to wit:

(1) Penalty composed of three periods fixed in

accordance with Article 76;
(2) Penalty not composed of three periods computed in
accordance with Article 65;
(3) Complex penalty under Article 77, par. 1; and
(4) Penalty without specific legal form under Article 77,
par. 2
 Rules for the Application of Penalties which
contain Three Periods
(RPC, Article 64)

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:
 Rules for the Application of Penalties which
contain Three Periods
(RPC, Article 64)
1. When there are neither aggravating nor mitigating
circumstances, they shall impose the penalty prescribed by law in its
medium period.

Example: A was convicted of Homicide without any aggravating or

mitigating circumstances. The penalty to be imposed:

Maximum
Reclusion
Medium Penalty to be imposed
Temporal
Minimum
 Rules for the Application of Penalties which
contain Three Periods
(RPC, Article 64)
2. When only a mitigating circumstances is present in the
commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its minimum period.

Example: A was convicted of Homicide. However, the mitigating

circumstance of voluntary confession was present. The penalty to be
imposed:

Maximum
Reclusion
Medium
Temporal
Minimum Penalty to be imposed
 Rules for the Application of Penalties which
contain Three Periods
(RPC, Article 64)

3. When only an aggravating circumstance is present in the

commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its maximum period.

Example: A was convicted of Slight Illegal Detention committed with

obvious ungratefulness. The penalty to be imposed:

Maximum Penalty to be imposed

Reclusion
Medium
Temporal
Minimum
 Rules for the Application of Penalties which
contain Three Periods
(RPC, Article 64)

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.

Example: A was convicted of Slight Illegal Detention committed in an

uninhabited place and with obvious ungratefulness. However the court
appreciated in A’s favor his voluntary surrender and confession as
mitigating circumstances. Since both mitigating ang aggravating
circumstances are present, they should be offset with one other. Thus,
the penalty to be imposed is:

Maximum
Reclusion
Medium Penalty to be imposed
Temporal
Minimum
 Rules for the Application of Penalties which
contain Three Periods
(RPC, Article 64)

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.

Example: A was convicted of Homicide. However the court appreciated in

A’s favor his voluntary surrender and confession as mitigating
circumstances. Thus, the penalty to be imposed is:
Maximum
Reclusion
Medium Penalty prescribed for Homicide
Temporal
Minimum
Maximum
Prision
Medium Penalty next lower in degree
Mayor
Minimum Penalty to be imposed
 Rules for the Application of Penalties which
contain Three Periods
(RPC, Article 64)
Another Example: A was convicted of Homicide. However the court
appreciated in A’s favor: (1) voluntary surrender; (2) voluntary confession
and (3) passion as mitigating circumstances.

The penalty to be imposed should be reduced first by one degree

because of the two mitigating circumstances.

The remaining mitigating circumstance will make the penalty to be imposed

to be applied in its minimum.
Maximum
Reclusion
Medium Penalty prescribed for Homicide
Temporal
Minimum
Maximum
Prision
Medium One degree lower
Mayor
Minimum Penalty to be imposed
 Rules for the Application of Penalties which
contain Three Periods
(RPC, Article 64)
Another Example: A was convicted of Slight Illegal Detention by using
disguise. However the court appreciated in A’s favor: (1) voluntary
surrender; (2) voluntary confession and (3) passion as mitigating
circumstances.

The penalty to be imposed may not be reduced by one degree because of the
presence of a aggravating circumstance. Hence. apply the off-set rule.

Maximum
Reclusion
Medium
Temporal
Minimum Penalty to be imposed
 Rules for the Application of Penalties which
contain Three Periods
(RPC, Article 64)

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.

Example: A, a recidivist, was convicted of Slight Illegal Detention by using

disguise and means to weaken the victim’s defense, and with obvious
ungratefulness. The penalty to be imposed:

Maximum Penalty to be imposed

Reclusion
Medium
Temporal
Minimum
 Rules for the Application of Penalties which
contain Three Periods
(RPC, Article 64)
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.
 Penalty Containing Three

Article 76 of RPC expressly fixed the range of the period

for reclusion temporal, prision mayor, temporary
disqualification, prision correccional, destierro, suspension,
arresto mayor, and arresto menor. To find the range of the
periods of any of the aforesaid penalties, one will simply read
Article 76. If the crime committed is homicide and there is one
mitigating circumstance of confession, the prescribed penalty of
reclusion temporal shall be applied in its minimum period because
of Article 64. Article 76 expressly states that the range of the
minimum period of reclusion temporal is from 12 years and 1 day
to 14 years and 8 months. Within the range of this period, the
maximum indeterminate penalty shall be fixed.
 Penalty Containing Three

The range of the minimum, medium and maximum periods

fixed in accordance with Article 76 is one-third equal portion of the
respective penalties except arresto mayor. Under Article 76, the
minimum period of arresto mayor ranges from 1 month and 1 day
to 2 months; medium period ranges from 2 month and 1 day to 4
months; and maximum period ranges from 4 months and 1 day to 6
months. Hence, the time included in the duration of the minimum
period of arresto mayor is only one month while that of the
medium and maximum is two months.
 Penalty Containing Three
Determining the legal duration of the minimum,
medium and maximum periods of each
penalty.

The legal duration of each period of a penalty is determined by

dividing the duration of the penalty by three periods. The quotient is then
added to the start of the duration of each penalty.

Illustration:

Prision mayor – 6 years and 1 day as minimum to 12 years

as maximum.

Step 1: Subtract the minimum / lower limit (disregarding 1 day) from the
maximum / upper limit.

Thus: 12 years – 6 years = 6 years

 Penalty Containing Three
Determining the legal duration of the minimum,
medium and maximum periods of each
penalty.

Step 2: Divide the difference of 6 years by 3 periods. The quotient is

2 years.

Step 3: Add 2 years to the start of the minimum period of 6 years. The
minimum period of prision mayor is 6 years and 1 day to 8 years; 1 day is
added to the lower limit of the minimum period to distinguish it from the
maximum period of prision correccional.

Step 4: To distinguish the lower limit of the medium period from the
upper limit of the minimum period, add 1 day to 8 years, which is the
upper limit of the minimum period. Thereafter, add 2 years. The duration
of the medium period of prision mayor is 8 years and 1 day to 10 years.
 Penalty Containing Three
Determining the legal duration of the minimum,
medium and maximum periods of each
penalty.

Step 5: To get the maximum period, add 1 day to 10 years, which is the
upper limit of the medium period of prision mayor. Thereafter, add 2
years. The duration of the maximum period of prision mayor is 10 years
and 1 day to 12 years.

The same formula and procedure are followed in computing

the duration of the period of the other penalties.
 Rule in cases in which the Penalty is Not Composed
of Three Periods
(RPC, Article 65)

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.
 Penalty Not Composed of Three

Penalties with divisible duration, the periods of which are

not expressly mentioned in Article 76 are called “penalties not
composed of three periods”; since Article 76 has not fixed the
duration of their periods, they must be computed in accordance
with Article 65. Under this provision, the time included in the
duration of penalty shall be divided into three equal portions and
periods shall be formed from each portion.

The penalty for malversation under paragraph 2 of Article

217 of the RPC is prision mayor in its minimum and medium
period. The range of this penalty is not found in Article 76.
Considering that this penalty is not composed of three periods, the
time included in the penalty prescribed should be divided into
three equal portions, which each portion forming one period,
pursuant to Article 65 (Zafra v. People, G.R. No. 176317, July 23,
2014, J. Bersamin).
 Penalty Not Composed of Three

The duration of “prision mayor in its minimum and medium

period” is 6 years and 1 day to 10 years. To determine “the time
included in the duration,” deduct “one day” and the lower limit
of the prescribed penalty from its upper limit.

10 years------------------upper limit
-6 years and 1 day-----lower limit
-1 .
4 years-------------------time included in the duration of
penalty

Fours years, which is “the time included in the duration” shall

be divided into three equal portions.

4 years/3 = 1 year and 4 months-----1/3 portion of the

penalty
 Penalty Not Composed of Three
The minimum, medium and maximum periods shall be formed out of 3
equal portions of the penalty. The time included in the duration of each
period is 1 year and 4 months.

6 years
+1 year and 4 months
7 years and 4 months
+1 year and 4 months
8 years and 8 months
+1 year and 4 months
10 years

Thus, the minimum period of the prescribed penalty of “prision mayor in

its minimum and medium periods” ranges from 6 years and 1 day to
7 years and 4 months; its medium period ranges from 7 years, 4 months
and 1 day to 8 years and 8 months; its maximum period ranges from 8
years , 8 months and 1 day to 10 years (Zafra
v. People, G.R. No. 176317, July 23, 2014, J. Bersamin).
 Complex
Complex penalty is composed of three distinct penalties. The periods of
complex penalty is formed in accordance with Article 77, par. 1. Applying this
provision, each of the components of the complex penalty shall
form a period; the lightest of them shall be the minimum, the next the
medium, and the most severe the maximum period.

Reclusion temporal to death prescribed for treason committed by resident

alien under Article 114 of the RPC is a complex penalty. This penalty is
composed of three distinct penalties, namely: reclusion temporal, reclusion
perpetua and death penalty. Out of these three components, periods shall be
formed in accordance with Article 77, par. 1. Thus, reclusion temporal,
which is the lightest of the three, shall be minimum period of penalty of
reclusion temporal to death; reclusion perpetua, which is the next penalty,
shall be the medium period; death penalty, which is the most severe, shall be
the maximum period. Thus, in the absence of modifying circumstances,
reclusion temporal to death prescribed for treason shall be applied in its
medium period, and that is, reclusion perpetua.
 Complex
Prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its
medium period prescribed for simple robbery under Article 294 of RPC is a
complex penalty since it is composed of three distinct penalties. Thus, prision
correccional in its maximum period, which is the lightest of the three,
shall be minimum period of this prescribed penalty. Prision mayor in its
minimum period, which is the most severe, shall be the maximum period. In
sum, prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its
medium period prescribed for robbery shall be broken down as follows:

Minimum: Prision correccional in its maximum period (4

years, 2 months and 1 day to 6 years)
Medium: Prision mayor in its minimum period
(6 years and 1 day to 8 years)
Maximum: Prision mayor in its medium period
(8 years and 1 day to 10 years)
See: People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 168173, December 24, 2008, En Banc, People v. Barrientos, G.R. No. 119835, January 28, 1998, En
Banc, People v. Castillo, G.R. No. L-11793, May 19, 1961, En Banc, People v. Diamante, G.R. No. 180992, September 4, 2009, and People v.
Lumiwan, G.R. Nos. 122753-56, September 7, 1998.
 Complex

Reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua

prescribed for sexual abuse under Section 5 (b) of RA No. 7610 is a complex
penalty since it is composed of three distinct penalties. Applying Article 77,
par, 1, this complex penalty can be broken down as follows:

Minimum: Reclusion temporal in its medium period

(14 years, 8 months and 1 day to 17 years and 4 months)
Medium: Reclusion temporal in its maximum period (17 years, 4
months and 1 day to 20 years)
Maximum: Reclusion perpetua

See: People v. Morante, G.R. No. 187732, November 28, 2012

 Penalty Without Specific Legal
Reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua prescribed for mutilation under Article 262 is a
penalty without a specific form (People v. Romero, G.R. No. 112985, April 21, 1999). The
duration of its periods is not fixed by Article 76. This penalty cannot be divided into three
equal portions in accordance with Article 65 since it has an indivisible component, and that,
is reclusion perpetua. It is not a complex penalty under Article 77, par. 1 since it merely is
merely composed of two distinct penalties. Thus, its periods shall be determined in
accordance with Article 77, par. 2, which provides that the periods shall be distributed,
applying for analogy the prescribed rules. Applying Article 77, par. 1 by analogy, the
maximum period shall be formed out of the most severe penalty, and that is, reclusion
perpetua. Applying Article 65 by analogy, the duration of reclusion temporal shall be
divided into two equal portions and minimum and medium periods shall be formed from each
portion. Applying Article 77, par. 3, reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua is broken
as follows:

Minimum: Lower half of reclusion temporal

(12 years and 1 day to 16 years)
Medium: Higher half of reclusion temporal
(16 years and 1 day to 20 years)
Maximum: Reclusion perpetua

See: People v. Macabando, G.R. No. 188708, July 31, 2013; People v. Romero, G.R. No. 112985, April 21, 1999; Gonzales v. People, G.R.
No. 159950, February 12, 2007; and People v. Olivia, G.R. No. 122110, September 26, 2000
 Penalty Without Specific Legal
Reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua prescribed for
malversation under Article 217 is a penalty without specific form. The duration of its periods
is not fixed by Article 76. This penalty cannot be divided into three equal portions in
accordance with Article 65 since reclusion perpetua component is not divisible. It is not a
complex penalty under Article 77, par. 1 since it is merely composed of two distinct
penalties. Thus, its periods shall be determined in accordance with Article 77, par. 2.
Applying this provision, the maximum period shall be formed out of the most severe penalty,
and that is, reclusion perpetua. The duration of reclusion temporal in its maximum period
shall be divided into two equal portions, and minimum and medium periods shall be formed
from each portion. In sum, reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua is
broken down as follows:

Minimum: Lower half of reclusion temporal in its maximum period (17

years, 4 months and 1 day to 18 years and 8 months)
Medium: Higher half of reclusion temporal in its maximum period (18
years, 8 months and 1 day to 20 years)
Maximum: Reclusion perpetua

See: Estepa v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 59670, February 15, 1990, Torres v. People, G.R. No. 175074, August 31, 2011,
Cabarlo v. People, G.R. No. 172274, November 16, 2006; Mesina v. People, G.R. No. 162489, June 17, 2015, Bersamin.
 Penalty of offense under special

The penalty for possession of dangerous drugs is 12 years and 1 day to 20 years of
imprisonment. The court cannot impose a straight penalty of 12 years and 1 day since the
application of indeterminate sentence law is mandatory (unless the accused deserves a lenient
penalty by confessing pursuant to the Nang Kay principle). Applying the ISLAW, the
minimum indeterminate penalty shall not be less than 12 years and 1 day while the maximum
shall not exceed 20 years. Thus, the court can sentence the accused to suffer 15 years of
imprisonment as minimum to 18 years as maximum (Asiatico vs. People. G.R No. 195005,
September 12, 2011;
Escalante vs. People, G.R. No. 192727, January 9, 2013)

Under Section 9 of RA 3019, the penalty for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 is
imprisonment for not less than 6 years and 1 months and not more than 15 years. Applying
the ISLAW, the minimum indeterminate penalty shall not be less than 6 years and 1 month
while the maximum shall not exceed 15 years. Thus, the court can sentence the accused to
suffer 6 years and 1month of imprisonment as minimum to 10 years as maximum (People
vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 177105-06, August 12, 2010, Bersamin)
 Adoption of the technical nomenclature of Spanish

RPC is not generally applicable to malum prohibitum. However,

when a special law, which punished malum prohibitum, adopts the
technical nomenclature of the penalties in RPC, the provisions
under this Code shall apply (People vs. Simon, G.R. No. 93028,
July 29, 1994) such as:
(1) Article 68 on the privilege mitigating circumstance of
minority; (2) Article 64 on application on penalty in its minimum
period if there is confession; and (3) Article 160 on special
aggravating circumstance of quasi-recidivism.

RA No.7080 and RA No. 10591 adopt the nomenclature of the

penalties in RPC. Hence, minority, confession (Jacaban vs. People,
G.R. No. 184955, March 23, 2015; Malto vs. People, G.R. No.
164733, September 21, 2007) or quasi- recidivism shall be
considered in plunder and illegal possession of loose firearm.
 Adoption of the technical nomenclature of Spanish

Under Section 98 of RA No. 9165, the provisions of RPC

shall not apply except in the case of minor offenders. Hence, if the
accused is a minor, privilege mitigating circumstance of minority
(People vs. Mantalaba G.R. No. 186227, July 20, 2011; People vs.
Musa, G.R. No. 199735, October 24, 2012;
Asiatico vs. People, G.R No. 195005, September 12, 2011),
confession or quasi-recidivism (People vs. Salazar, G.R. No. 98060,
January 27, 1997) shall be considered in crime involving
dangerous drugs. In this case, life imprisonment shall be
considered as reclusion perpetua. If the accused is an adult, these
circumstances shall not be appreciated.
 People v. Mantalaba
G.R. No. 186227, 20 July 2011

A violation of Section 5 of RA 9165 merits the penalty of life

imprisonment to death; however, in Section 98, it is provided that, where
the offender is a minor, the penalty for acts punishable by life
imprisonment to death provided in the same law shall be reclusion
perpetua to death. Basically, this means that the penalty can now be
graduated as it has adopted the technical nomenclature of penalties
provided for in the Revised Penal Code.
 Consequently, the privileged mitigating circumstance of
minority can now be appreciated in fixing the penalty that should be
imposed. The RTC, as affirmed by the CA, imposed the penalty of
reclusion perpetua without considering the minority of the appellant.
Thus, applying the rules stated above, the proper penalty should be one
degree lower than reclusion perpetua, which is reclusion temporal, the
privileged mitigating circumstance of minority having been appreciated.
 Necessarily, also applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law
(ISLAW), the minimum penalty should be taken from the penalty next
lower in degree which is prision mayor and the maximum penalty shall
be taken from the medium period of reclusion temporal, there being no
other mitigating circumstance nor aggravating circumstance.

The ISLAW is applicable in the present case because the

penalty which has been originally an indivisible penalty (reclusion
perpetua to death), where ISLAW is inapplicable, became a divisible
penalty (reclusion temporal) by virtue of the presence of the privileged
mitigating circumstance of minority. Therefore, a penalty of six (6) years
and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, and fourteen (14) years,
eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum,
would be the proper imposable penalty.
 Adoption of the technical nomenclature of Spanish

If the special law (such as RA No. 6325 on hijacking and RA No.

3019 one corruption) did not adopt the technical nomenclature of
penalties in RPC, the latter shall not apply. Mitigating circumstance
of confession shall not be appreciated since the penalty not
borrowed from RPC cannot be applied in its minimum period. The
crime has no attempted or frustrated stage since penalty not
borrowed from RPC cannot be graduated one or two degrees lower.
 Adoption of the technical nomenclature of Spanish

Mitigating circumstance of old age can only be appreciated if the

accused is over 70 years old at the time of the commission of the
crime under RA No. 3019 and not at the time of promulgation of
judgment (People vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 177105-06, August 12, 2010,
J. Bersamin). Moreover, this mitigating circumstance of old age
cannot be appreciated in crime punishable by RA No. 3019 since
this law did not adopt the technical nomenclature of the penalties of
the RPC.
 Incorrect

In Fransdilla vs. People, (GR No. 197562, April 20, 2015, J.

Bersamin), the trial judge fixed the indeterminate sentence at "imprisonment
of 12 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months of reclusion
temporal as minimum to 17 years, 4 months and 1 day to
20 years of reclusion temporal as maximum". This is a patent elementary
error. Considering that the clear objective of the ISLAW is to have the convict
serve the minimum penalty before becoming eligible for release on parole,
both the minimum and the maximum penalties must be definite, not ranging.
This objective cannot be achieved otherwise, for determining when the
convict would be eligible for release on parole would be nearly impossible if
the minimum and the maximum were as indefinite as the RTC fixed the
indeterminate sentence. Indeed, that the sentence is an indeterminate one
relates only to the fact that such imposition would leave the period
between the minimum and the maximum penalties indeterminate "in the
sense that he may, under the conditions set out in said Act, be released from
serving said period in whole or in part."
 Incorrect

In People vs. Fontanilla, G.R. No. 177743, January 25, 2012, J.

Bersamin - The trial court sentenced the accused to suffer reclusion
perpetua to death for murder. This is erroneous. Reclusion
perpetua and death should not be imposed as a compound, alternative or
successive penalty for a single felony. In short, the imposition of one
precluded the imposition of the other.

Article 64 of RPC provides the rules on application of divisible

penalty. Under this provision, the penalty prescribed for a felony shall be
applied in its proper imposable period based on the presence of modifying
circumstances.
 Incorrect

Under Article 349 of RPC, the penalty for bigamy is

prision mayor. In the absence of modifying circumstances,
prision mayor pursuant to Article 64 shall be applied in its
medium period, which ranges from 8 years and 1 day to 10 years.
Applying the ISLAW, the minimum of the indeterminate sentence
should be within the range of prision correccional, the penalty
next lower than that prescribed for the offense, which is from 6
months and 1 day to 6 years. Accordingly, the indeterminate
sentence of 2 years and 4 months of prision correccional, as
minimum, to 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor as maximum is
proper. (Lasanas vs. People, G.R. No. 159031, 23 June 2014, J.
Bersamin)
 Incorrect

Under Article 249 of RPC, the penalty for homicide is reclusion

temporal. In the absence of any modifying circumstances, reclusion temporal shall
be applied in its medium period, which ranges from 14 years, 8 months and 1 day to
17 years and 4 months. Applying Article 64, within the limits of the medium period
of reclusion temporal, the courts shall determine the extent of the penalty
according to the number and nature of the aggravating and mitigating
circumstances and the greater or lesser extent of the evil produced by the
crime. Thus, the court could not impose the highest penalty of the medium period of
reclusion temporal, and that, is 17 years and 4 months without specifying the
justification for so imposing. Without proper justification, the court should impose
the lowest penalty of the medium period of reclusion temporal, and that is, 14
years, 8 months. Since ISLAW is applicable, 14 years, 8 months shall be
considered as the maximum penalty while the minimum penalty shall be fixed within
the limits of prision mayor, which ranges from 6 years and 1 day to 12 years. Hence,
the accused is sentenced to suffer 10 years of prision mayor as minimum
indeterminate penalty to 14 years, 8 months of reclusion temporal as maximum
penalty. (Ladines vs. People, G.R. No. 167333, 11 January 2016, J. Bersamin)
 Incorrect

Diagle v. Cruz
G.R. No. 246914, 11 March 2020

The value of the money allegedly stolen here is US$100,000.00

or P4,900,000.00 based on a P49.00 per U.S.
dollar conversion at the time of the incident.

Applying Article 309, as amended, if the value of the thing

stolen is more than P1,200,000.00 but does not exceed P2,200,000.00,
the prescribed penalty is prision mayor in its minimum and medium
periods. In case the value of the thing stolen exceeds P2,200,000.00, the
penalty shall be the maximum period of prision mayor in its minimum
and medium period. To this amount, one (1) year for each P1,000,000.00
exceeding the P2,200,000.00 threshold shall be added.
 Incorrect

Since the amount allegedly stolen is P4,900,000.00,

which clearly exceeded P2,200,000.00, the prescribed base
penalty in accordance with Article 309, as amended, is prision
mayor in its minimum and medium periods to be imposed in the
maximum period, i.e., eight (8) years, eight
(8) months, and one (1) day to ten (10) years. Considering that
the value of the stolen money further exceeded P2,200,000.00, an
additional one (1) year for each P1,000,000.00 in excess of the
P2,200,000.00 shall be added to the prescribed base penalty,
disregarding any remainder amount. Thus:
 Incorrect

Amount Penalty

The First P2,200,000.00 Maximum: Ten (10) years

Additional P1,000,000.00 One (1) year
Additional P 1,000,000.00 One (1) year
TOTAL: P4,200,000.00 Twelve (12) years

The prescribed penalty for stealing P4,900,000.00,

therefore, is twelve (12) years of prision mayor, the designation
of which is prision mayor in its maximum period. This is the
prescribed penalty for simple theft.
 Incorrect

Under Article 310 of the RPC, the prescribed penalty

for qualified theft is two (2) degrees higher than that
prescribed for simple theft. The penalty two (2) degrees higher
than prision mayor maximum is reclusion temporal in its medium
period, i.e., fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day
to seventeen years (17) and four (4) months.

To repeat, the prescribed penalty for the offense charged

against respondent is reclusion temporal in its medium period.
Respondent, therefore, is entitled to bail as a matter of right.
 Indeterminate Sentence

(a) Application on the imposed sentence

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 said Code, and the minimum
which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to
that prescribed by the Code for the offense.
 Indeterminate Sentence

(a) Application on the imposed sentence

If the offense is punished by any other law

(Special 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 the minimum
shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the
same.
 Indeterminate Sentence

(b) Coverage

The Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable

to:

a. Those convicted of offenses punished with

death penalty or life imprisonment;

b. Those convicted of treason, conspiracy or

proposal to commit treason or espionage;
 Indeterminate Sentence

(b) Coverage

The Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable

to:

c. Those convicted of misprision of treason,

rebellion, sedition or coup d' etat;

d. Those convicted of piracy or mutiny on the

high seas or Philippine waters;
 Indeterminate Sentence

(b) Coverage

The Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable

to:

e. Those who are habitual delinquents, i.e., those

who, within a period of ten (10) years from the date of
release from prison or last conviction of the crimes of
serious or less serious physical injuries, robbery, theft,
estafa, and falsification, are found guilty of any of said
crimes a third time or oftener;
 Indeterminate Sentence

(b) Coverage

The Indeterminate Sentence Law is not

applicable to:

f. Those who escaped from confinement or evaded

sentence;

g. Those who having been granted conditional

pardon by the President of the Philippines shall have
violated any of the terms thereof;
 Indeterminate Sentence Law

(b) Coverage

The Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable to:

h. Those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not

exceed one (1) year or those with definite sentence;

i. Those convicted of offenses punished with reclusion

perpetua, or whose sentences were reduced to reclusion perpetua by
reason of Republic Act No. 9346 enacted on June 24, 2006,
amending Republic Act No. 7659 dated January 1, 2004; and

j. Those convicted for violation of the laws on terrorism,

plunder and transnational crimes.
 Mandatory application of
The application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law is mandatory to both the Revised
Penal Code and the special laws (Romero vs. People, G.R No. 171644, November 23,
2011). However, the Supreme Court, in People vs. Nang Kay, G.R. No. L-3565,
April 20, 1951, has provided an exception. In this case, the accused pleased guilty to
offense where the law prescribed a penalty of 5 to 10 years imprisonment. The court
sentenced the accused to suffer 5 years of imprisonment. The Supreme Court sustained
the penalty. Fixing the penalty at the minimum limit without applying Act No. 4103 is
favorable to the accused since the accused shall be automatically released upon
serving 5 years of imprisonment. Applying Act No. 4103 would lengthen the penalty
because the indeterminate maximum penalty must be necessarily more than 5 years
(People vs. Arroyo, G.R. No. L-35584-85, February 13, 1982). However, the Nang
Kay principle is not applicable where the crime is punishable under the Revised Penal
Code. The application of ISLAW is always mandatory if the penalty is prescribed by
RPC since it is favorable to the accused. It is favorable to the accused since in fixing the
minimum penalty, the prescribed penalty under the Code shall be lowered by one
degree. On the other hand, in fixing the minimum penalty for offense under special law
involved in the Nang Kay case, the prescribed penalty shall not be lowered (People vs.
Judge Lee, Jr, G.R. No. 66859, September 12, 1984).
 Mandatory application of

The Nang Kay principle is not also applicable where the accused does not
deserve a lenient penalty. In Batistis vs. People, G.R. No. 181571, December 16.
2009, the SC through Justice Bersamin said the Nang Kay exception is not
applicable where there is no justification for lenity towards the accused since he
did not voluntarily plead guilty, and the crime committed is a grave economic
offense because of the large number of fake Fundador confiscated.
 Exampl

A was convicted of the crime of Homicide, punishable by

reclusion temporal. Determine the imposable penalty.

a. There are no mitigating and aggravating

circumstances
Maximum
Reclusion Penalty prescribed
Medium
Temporal Minimum under the RPC
Indeterminate
Maximum
Prision Sentence

Mayor
Medium Penalty next lower
Minimum

The indeterminate sentence should be within the range of prision mayor

in any of its periods as minimum to reclusion temporal in its medium
period as maximum (From 6 years and 1 day to 17 years and 4 months)
 Exampl

A was convicted of the crime of Homicide, punishable by

reclusion temporal. Determine the imposable penalty.

b. There is one mitigating circumstance and no

aggravating circumstances

Reclusion Maximum
Penalty prescribed
Medium
Temporal Minimum under the RPC
Maximum Indeterminate
Prision
Mayor
Medium Sentence Penalty next lower
Minimum

The indeterminate sentence should be within the range of prision mayor

in any of its periods as minimum to reclusion temporal in its minimum
period as maximum (From 6 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8
months)
 Exampl

A was convicted of the crime of Homicide, punishable by

reclusion temporal. Determine the imposable penalty.

c. There is one aggravating circumstance and no

mitigating circumstances

Reclusion Maximum
Penalty
Medium
Temporal
Minimum Indeterminate prescribed under
Prision Maximum Sentence
the RPC
Mayor Medium

Minimum
Penalty next lower

The indeterminate sentence should be within the range of prision mayor

in any of its periods as minimum to reclusion temporal in its maximum
period as maximum (From 6 years and 1 day to 20 years)
 Exampl

A, a minor, was convicted of the crime of Homicide, punishable by

reclusion temporal. Determine the imposable penalty.

Maximum
Reclusion Temporal Medium Penalty prescribed by Art. 249
Minimum
Maximum One degree lower because of the
privileged mitigating circumstance
Prision Mayor Medium of minority and with no aggravating
Minimum or mitigating circumstances
Indeterminate
Maximum Sentence
Prision Correccional Medium Penalty next lower
Minimum
The indeterminate sentence should be within the range of
prision correccional in any of its periods as minimum to
prision mayor in its medium period maximum (From 6 years
and 1 day to 10 years)

Note: If there is mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the

maximum of the indeterminate sentence should be prision
mayor in its minimum or maximum period, as the case may be
 Example

A, a minor, was convicted of the crime of Homicide, punishable by reclusion temporal.

The court appreciated the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and
confession. Determine the imposable penalty.

Maximum
Reclusion Temporal Medium Penalty prescribed by Art. 249
Minimum
Maximum One degree lower because of the
Prision Mayor Medium privileged mitigating circumstance
of minority
Minimum
Maximum One degree lower because of the special
Prision Correccional Medium mitigating circumstance and with no
aggravating or mitigating circumstances
Minimum
Indeterminate
Maximum Sentence
Arresto Mayor Medium Penalty next lower
Minimum
The indeterminate sentence should be within the range of
arresto mayor in any of its periods as minimum to prision
correccional in its medium period as maximum (1 month to 4
years and 2 months)

Note: If there is mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the

maximum of the indeterminate sentence should be prision
correccional in its minimum or maximum period, as the case
may be
Republic Act No. 11362 The
Community Service Act
SECTION 3. Community Service. — Article 88a of Act No.
3815 is hereby inserted to read as follows:
ART. 88a. Community Service. — The court in
its discretion may, in lieu of service in jail,
require that the penalties of arresto menor and
arresto mayor be served by the defendant by
rendering community service in the place where
the crime was committed, under such terms as
the court shall determine, taking into consideration the
gravity of the offense and the circumstances of the case,
which shall be under the supervision of a probation
officer: Provided,
Republic Act No. 11362 The
Community Service Act
SECTION 3. Community Service. — Article 88a of Act No.
3815 is hereby inserted to read as follows:
That the court will prepare an order imposing the
community service, specifying the number of hours to be
worked and the period within which to complete the
service. The order is then referred to the assigned
probation officer who shall have responsibility of the
defendant.
Republic Act No. 11362 The
Community Service Act
SECTION 3. Community Service. — Article 88a of Act
No. 3815 is hereby inserted to read as follows:
If the defendant violates the terms of the
community service, the court shall order his/her
re-arrest and the defendant shall serve the full
term of the penalty, as the case may be, in jail, or in
the house of the defendant as provided under Article 88.
However, if the defendant has fully complied with
the terms of the community service, the court
shall order the release of the defendant unless
detained for some other offense.
Republic Act No. 11362 The
Community Service Act
SECTION 3. Community Service. — Article 88a of Act
No. 3815 is hereby inserted to read as follows:
The privilege of rendering community
service in lieu of service in jail shall be availed
of only once.
THANK YOU!