7/27/2017
COVERAGE
PENALTIES
Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra
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)
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Article 80 (repealed by Republic Act No. 9344)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)
Probation Law (P.D. No. 968)
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);
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).
1

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.
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
200 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
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.
7/27/2017
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, 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:
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 .
2
 7/27/2017

Classification
(RPC, Article 25, in relation to Article 9)
Penalty for Complex Crimes
ACCESSORY PENALTIES, which are deemed (RPC, Art. 48)
included in the imposition of principal penalties, are
as follows: ARTICLE 48. Penalty for Complex Crimes.
When a single act constitutes two or more
Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification; crimes, or when an offense is a necessary means
Perpetual or temporary special disqualification; for committing the other, the penalty for the most
Suspension from public office, the right to vote
and be voted for, the profession or calling;
serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be
Civil interdiction; applied in its maximum period.
Indemnification;
Forfeiture or confiscation of instruments and
proceeds of the offense; and
Payment of costs.

Order of Severity (RPC, Art. 70) Order of Severity (RPC, Art. 70)

Successive service of sentence. When the culprit has xxx xxx xxx
to serve two or more penalties, he shall serve them simultaneously
if the nature of the penalties will so permit; otherwise, the following 1. Death,
rules shall be observed: 2. Reclusion perpetua,
3. Reclusion temporal,
In the imposition of the penalties, the order of their 4. Prision mayor,
respective severity shall be followed so that they may be executed 5. Prision correccional,
successively or as nearly as may be possible, should a pardon 6. Arresto mayor,
have been granted as to the penalty or penalties first imposed, or
7. Arresto menor,
should they have been served out.
8. Destierro,
9. Perpetual absolute disqualification,
For the purpose of applying the provisions of the next
10 Temporal absolute disqualification.
preceding paragraph, the respective severity of the penalties
11. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be
shall be determined in accordance with the following scale:
voted for, the right to follow a profession or calling, and
12. Public censure.
xxx xxx xxx

3
 7/27/2017

Order of Severity (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).
Three-fold Rule
The maximum duration of the convict's sentence
shall not be more than threefold 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 (40)
years.
In applying the provisions of this rule the duration of
perpetual penalties shall be computed at thirty years
(Art. 70).

Graduated scales (RPC, Art. 71)

In the case in which the law prescribed a penalty lower or
People v. Conrado Lucas higher by one or more degrees than another given penalty, the rules
(G.R. Nos. 108172-73, 9 January 1995) prescribed in Article 61 shall be observed in graduating such
penalty. The lower or higher penalty shall be taken from the
* Although Section 17 of R.A. No. 7659 has fixed the duration graduated scale in which is comprised the given penalty. The
of reclusion perpetua from twenty (20) years and one (1) day courts, in applying such lower or higher penalty, shall observe the
to forty (40) years, there was no clear legislative intent to following graduated scales:
alter its original classification as an indivisible penalty. It shall
then remain as an indivisible penalty. SCALE NO. 1
1. Death,
2. Reclusion perpetua,
3. Reclusion temporal,
4. Prision mayor,
5. Prision correccional,
6. Arresto mayor,
7. Destierro,
8. Arresto menor,
9. Public censure,
10. Fine.

4

Graduated scales (RPC, Art. 71)
SCALE NO. 2
1. Perpetual absolute disqualification,
2. Temporal absolute disqualification
3. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be
voted for, the right to follow a profession or calling,
4. Public censure,
5. Fine.
Rules for Graduating Penalties
(RPC, Article 61)
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.
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.
7/27/2017
Rules for Graduating Penalties
(RPC, Article 61)
For the purpose of graduating the penalties which are to be
imposed upon persons guilty as principals of any frustrated or
attempted felony, or as accomplices or accessories, the following
rules shall be observed:
1. When the penalty prescribed for the felony is single and
indivisible, the penalty next lower in degrees shall be that
immediately following that indivisible penalty in the respective
graduated scale prescribed in Article 71 of the Revised Penal Code.
2. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed
of two indivisible penalties, or of one or more divisible penalties to
be impose to their full extent, the penalty next lower in degree shall
be that immediately following the lesser of the penalties prescribed
in the respective graduated scale.
Rules for Graduating Penalties
(RPC, Article 61)
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.
5

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
(RPC, Article 62)
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.
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.
7/27/2017
Effect of the Attendance of Mitigating or Aggravating
Circumstances and of Habitual Delinquency
(RPC, Article 62)
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
(RPC, Article 62)
3. Aggravating or mitigating circumstances which arise
from the moral attributes of the offender, or from his private
relations with the offended party, or from any other personal
cause, shall only serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of
the principals, accomplices and accessories as to whom such
circumstances are attendant.
4. The circumstances which consist in the material
execution of the act, or in the means employed to accomplish
it, shall serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of those
persons only who had knowledge of them at the time of the
execution of the act or their cooperation therein.
6

Effect of the Attendance of Mitigating or Aggravating
Circumstances and of Habitual Delinquency
(RPC, Article 62)
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
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.
7/27/2017
Effect of the Attendance of Mitigating or Aggravating
Circumstances and of Habitual Delinquency
(RPC, Article 62)
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.
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.
7

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.
Additional Penalty to be imposed upon
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.
7/27/2017
Penalty to be imposed when the crime committed is
not wholly excusable
(RPC, Article 69)
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 for Impossible Crime
(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.
8
 7/27/2017

Diagram of Application of Articles 50 to 57 Exceptions to the rules under Articles 50 to 57

Principals Accomplices Accessories 1. The provisions contained in Articles 50 to 57, inclusive,

shall not be applicable to cases in which the law
Consummated 0 1 2 expressly prescribes the penalty provided for a
frustrated or attempted felony, or to be imposed upon
Frustrated 1 2 3 accomplices or accessories (RPC, Article 60).

2. The courts, in view of the facts of the case, may impose

Attempted 2 3 4 upon the person guilty of the frustrated crime of
parricide, murder or homicide, defined and penalized in
Note: 0 represents the penalty prescribed by law in the preceding articles, a penalty lower by one degree
defining a crime, which is to be imposed on the principal in a than that which should be imposed under the provision
consummated offense, in accordance with Article 46 of the of Article 50. The courts, considering the facts of the
RPC. The other figures represent the degrees to which the case, may likewise reduce by one degree the penalty
penalty must be lowered, to meet the different situations which under article 51 should be imposed for an attempt
anticipated by law. to commit any of such crimes (RPC, Article 250).

Bases for the determination of the extent of penalty

to be imposed under the RPC Duration of Penalties (Art. 27)

1. The stage reached by the crime in its development The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be from twenty
(either attempted, frustrated or consummated); (20) years and one (1) day to forty (40) years.

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.
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.

9

Subsidiary Imprisonment
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 Imprisonment
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.
7/27/2017
Subsidiary Imprisonment
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.
Adoption of the technical nomenclature of Spanish penalty
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.
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.
10

Adoption of the technical nomenclature of Spanish penalty
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.
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.
De Castro vs. People
(G.R. No. 171672, February 02, 2015, J. Bersamin)
The guilt of the petitioner for four counts of estafa through falsification
of a commercial document was established beyond reasonable doubt. As a
bank teller, she took advantage of the bank depositors who had trusted in her
enough to leave their passbooks with her upon her instruction.
In the four criminal cases involved in this appeal, the falsification of
commercial documents is punished with prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods (i.e., two years, four months and one day to six years)
and a fine of P5,000.00. In contrast, the estafa is punished according to the
value of the defraudation.
In Criminal Case No. 94-5524, estafa was the graver felony
because the amount of the fraud was P20,000.00; hence, the penalty
for estafa is to be imposed in its maximum period. However, the RTC and the
CA fixed the indeterminate sentence of two years, 11 months and 10 days
of prison correccional, as minimum, to six years, eight months and 20 days
of prision mayor, as maximum. Such maximum of the indeterminate penalty
was short by one day, the maximum period of the penalty being six years,
eight months and 21 days to eight years. Thus, the indeterminate sentence
is corrected to three years of prison correccional, as minimum, to six
years, eight months and 21 days of prision mayor, as maximum.
7/27/2017
Incorrect Penalty
The court should prescribe the correct penalties
in complex crimes in strict observance of Article 48 of
the Revised Penal Code. In estafa through
falsification of commercial documents, the court
should impose the penalty for the graver offense in
the maximum period. Otherwise, the penalty
prescribed is invalid, and will not attain finality (De
Castro vs. People, G.R. No. 171672, February 02,
2015, J. Bersamin).
De Castro vs. People
(G.R. No. 171672, February 02, 2015, J. Bersamin)
In Criminal Case No. 94-5525, involving P2,000.00, the estafa is
punished with four months and one day of arresto mayor in its maximum
period to two years and four months of prision correccional in its minimum
period. The falsification of commercial document is penalized with prision
correccional in its medium and maximum periods (i.e., two years, four
months and one day to six years) and a fine of P5,000.00. The latter
offense is the graver felony, and its penalty is to be imposed in the
maximum period, which is from four years, nine months and 11 days to
six years plus fine of P5,000.00. The penalty next lower in degree
is arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its
minimum period (i.e., four months and one day to two years and four
months). Thus, the indeterminate sentence of three months of arresto
mayor, as minimum, to one year and eight months of prision
correccional, as maximum that both the RTC and the CA fixed was
erroneous. The SC rectified the error by prescribing in lieu thereof the
indeterminate sentence of two years of prision correccional, as minimum,
to four years, nine months and 11 days of prision correccional plus
fine of P5,000.00, as maximum.
11

De Castro vs. People
(G.R. No. 171672, February 02, 2015, J. Bersamin)
In Criminal Case No. 94-5526, involving P10,000.00, the RTC
and the CA imposed the indeterminate sentence of four months and 20
days of arresto mayor, as minimum, to two years, 11 months and 10 days
of prision correccional, as maximum. However, the penalty for the
falsification of commercial documents is higher than that for the estafa. To
accord with Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for
falsification of commercial documents (i.e., prision correccional in its
medium and maximum periods and a fine of P5,000.00) should be
imposed in the maximum period. Accordingly, the SC revised the
indeterminate sentence so that its minimum is two years and four months
of prision correccional, and its maximum is five years of prision
correccional plus fine of P5,000.00.
Incorrect Penalty
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."
7/27/2017
De Castro vs. People
(G.R. No. 171672, February 02, 2015, J. Bersamin)
In Criminal Case No. 94-5527, where the amount of the fraud was
P35,000.00, the penalty for estafa (i.e., prision correccional in its maximum
period to prision mayor in its minimum period, or four years, two months
and one day to eight years) is higher than that for falsification of
commercial documents. The indeterminate sentence of two years, 11
months and 10 days of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight years
of prision mayor, as maximum, was prescribed. Considering that the
maximum period ranged from six years, eight months and 21 days to eight
years, the CA should have clarified whether or not the maximum of eight
years of prision mayor already included the incremental penalty of one
year for every P10,000.00 in excess of P22,000.00. Absent the
clarification, we can presume that the incremental penalty was not yet
included. Thus, in order to make the penalty clear and specific, the
indeterminate sentence is hereby fixed at four years of prision
correccional, as minimum, to six years, eight months and 21 days
of prision mayor, as maximum, plus one year incremental penalty. In other
words, the maximum of the indeterminate sentence is seven years, eight
months and 21 days of prision mayor.
Incorrect Penalty
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.
12

Incorrect Penalty
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)
Probation Law
(P.D. No. 968, as amended)
Definition
"Probation" is a disposition under which a
defendant, after conviction and sentence, is released
subject to conditions imposed by the court and to the
supervision of a probation officer.
7/27/2017
Incorrect Penalty
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)
Probation Law
(P.D. No. 968, as amended)
Disqualified Offenders (Sec. 9) The benefits of this law
shall not extend to those:
(a) sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of
more than six years;
(b) convicted of any offense against the security of the
State;
(c) who have previously been convicted by final judgment of
an offense punished by imprisonment of not less than one
(1) month and one (1) day and/or a fine of not less than Two
Hundred (200) Pesos;
13

Probation Law
(P.D. No. 968, as amended)
Disqualified Offenders (Sec. 9) The benefits of this
law shall not extend to those:
(d) who have been once on probation; and
(e) who are already serving sentence at the time the
substantive provisions of this law became applicable.
Probation Law
(P.D. No. 968, as amended)
Lagrosa v. People
(GR. No. 152044, 3 July 2003)
Petitioners Domingo Lagrosa and Osias Baguin were convicted by
the Regional Trial Court of Tagbilaran of violating Section 68 of P.D 705, as
amended (the Revised Forestry Code), for having in their possession forest
products without the requisite permits. The trial court sentenced them to suffer
the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from two (2) years, four (4) months
and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years of
prision mayor, as maximum.
Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) which modified and
reduced the penalty to an indeterminate penalty ranging from six (6) months
and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to one (1) year, eight (8)
months and twenty one (21) days of prision correccional, as maximum. They
then filed for Probation with the trial court but such was denied. The CA, upon
petition for certiorari, affirmed the decision of the trial court. Aggrieved, the
petitioners raised the issue to the Supreme Court asserting that the application
for probation was made at the first opportunity.
7/27/2017
Probation Law
(P.D. No. 968, as amended)
Francisco v. Court of Appeals
(G.R. No. 108747; 6 April 1995)
Probation is a special privilege granted by the state to a penitent
qualified offender. It essentially rejects appeals and encourages an
otherwise eligible convict to immediately admit his liability and save the
state of time, effort and expenses to jettison an appeal. The law
expressly requires that an accused must not have appealed his
conviction before he can avail of probation. This outlaws the
element of speculation on the part of the accused to wager on the
result of his appeal that when his conviction is finally affirmed on
appeal, the moment of truth well-nigh at hand, and the service of his
sentence inevitable, he now applies for probation as an "escape hatch"
thus rendering nugatory the appellate court's affirmance of his
conviction. Consequently, probation should be availed of at the first
opportunity by convicts who are willing to be reformed and
rehabilitated, who manifest spontaneity, contrition and remorse.
Probation Law
(P.D. No. 968, as amended)
Lagrosa v. People
(GR. No. 152044, 3 July 2003)
Petitioners contend that they should be allowed to apply for
probation even if they had already appealed the decision of the trial
court. They argue that their case should be considered an exception to
the general rule which excludes an accused who has appealed his
conviction from the benefits of probation. To bolster this assertion,
petitioners claim that what prompted them to appeal the decision of the
trial court was the erroneous penalty imposed by the trial court.[
14

Probation Law
(P.D. No. 968, as amended)
Lagrosa v. People
(GR. No. 152044, 3 July 2003)
HELD: The petitioners may not be granted probation.
The trial court sentenced petitioners to a maximum term of
eight years, which was beyond the coverage of the
Probation Law. They only became eligible for probation after
the Court of Appeals modified the judgment of the trial court
and reduced the maximum term of the penalty imposed on
them to one year, eight months and twenty-one days.
Having appealed from the judgment of the trial court and
having applied for probation only after the Court of Appeals
had affirmed their conviction, petitioners were clearly
precluded from the benefits of probation.
Probation Law
(P.D. No. 968, as amended)
Lagrosa v. People
(GR. No. 152044, 3 July 2003)
HELD: Hence, upon interposing an appeal, more so
after asserting their innocence therein, petitioners should be
precluded from seeking probation. By perfecting their appeal,
petitioners ipso facto relinquished the alternative remedy of
availing of the Probation Law, the purpose of which is simply
to prevent speculation or opportunism on the part of an
accused who, although already eligible, does not at once
apply for probation, but did so only after failing in his appeal.
7/27/2017
Probation Law
(P.D. No. 968, as amended)
Lagrosa v. People
(GR. No. 152044, 3 July 2003)
HELD: The Supreme Court held that petitioners are not
being candid when they claimed that what prompted them to
appeal the decision of the trial court was the erroneous penalty it
imposed. The fact that petitioners put the merits of their
conviction in issue on appeal belies their claim that their
appeal was prompted by what was admittedly an incorrect
penalty. Certainly, the protestations of petitioners connote a
profession of guiltlessness, if not complete innocence, and do not
simply assail the propriety of the penalties imposed. For sure,
petitioners never manifested that they were appealing only for the
purpose of correcting a wrong penalty to reduce it to within
probationable range.
Probation Law
(P.D. No. 968, as amended)
Arnel Colinares v. People
(G.R. No. 182748; 13 December 2011)
The accused was convicted by the RTC for Frustrated Homicide
punishable by imprisonment of more than six (6) years. On appeal, the
Supreme Court found him guilty of Attempted Homicide which offense
is punishable by less than six (6) years imprisonment. The accused
then applied for probation. The Supreme Court held that the
accused should be granted probation although he appealed from
the judgment of conviction. The ruling in Francisco does not
apply because Arnel Colinares has no right to choose whether or
not to appeal or apply for probation since the stiff penalty that the
trial court imposed on him denied him that choice. It was only after
he appealed the judgment of conviction that he was granted the right
to apply for probation. The ruling in Francisco remains that those who
will appeal from judgments of conviction, when they have the option to
try for probation, forfeit their right to apply for that privilege.
15
 7/27/2017

Probation Law
(P.D. No. 968, as amended) Probation Law
(P.D. No. 968, as amended)
Padua v. People
(G.R. No. 168546, 23 July 2008)
Section 42 of R.A. No. 9344 provides:
Michael Padua was charged and convicted for violation of Section
5, Article II of Rep. Act No. 9165 for selling dangerous drugs. Under Probation as an Alternative to Imprisonment. -
Section 24 of Rep. Act No. 9165, any person convicted of drug
trafficking cannot avail of the privilege of probation. The law
The court may, after it shall have convicted and
considers the users and possessors of illegal drugs as victims while sentenced a child in conflict with the law, and upon
the drug traffickers and pushers as predators. Hence, while drug application at any time, place the child on probation in
traffickers and pushers, like Michael Padua, are categorically lieu of service of his/her sentence taking into account the
disqualified from availing the law on probation, youthful drug best interest of the child. For this purpose, Section 4 of
dependents, users and possessors alike, are given the chance to
mend their ways.
Presidential Decree No. 968, otherwise known as the
"Probation Law of 1976", is hereby amended
Thus, while the provisions of R.A. 9165, particularly Section 70 accordingly.
thereof, deals with Probation or Community Service for First-
Time Minor Offender in Lieu of Imprisonment, minor Michael
Padua who was charged and convicted of violating Section 5,
Article II, R.A. 9165, cannot avail of probation.

Probation Law
Probation Law
(P.D. No. 968, as amended)
(P.D. No. 968, as amended)

Arrest of Probationer (Sec. 15)

Period of Probation (Sec. 14)
At any time during probation, the court may issue a
(a) The period of probation of a defendant sentenced to a
warrant for the arrest of a probationer for violation of any
term of imprisonment of not more than one year shall
of the conditions of probation.
not exceed two years, and in all other cases, said
The probationer, once arrested and detained, shall
period shall not exceed six years.
immediately be brought before the court for a hearing,
which may be informal and summary, of the violation
(b) When the sentence imposes a fine only and the
charged.
offender is made to serve subsidiary imprisonment in
The defendant may be admitted to bail pending such
case of insolvency, the period of probation shall not be
hearing. In such a case, the provisions regarding release
less than nor to be more than twice the total number of
on bail of persons charged with a crime shall be applicable
days of subsidiary imprisonment as computed at the
to probationers arrested.
rate established in the RPC.

16

Probation Law
(P.D. No. 968, as amended)
Arrest of Probationer (Sec. 15)
If the violation is established, the court may revoke or
continue his probation and modify the conditions thereof.
If revoked, the court shall order the probationer to serve
the sentence originally imposed.
An order revoking the grant of probation or modifying the
terms and conditions thereof shall not be appealable.
Probation Law
(P.D. No. 968, as amended)
Termination of Probation; Exception (Sec. 16)
The final discharge of the probationer shall operate
to restore to him all civil rights lost or suspend as a
result of his conviction and to fully discharge his
liability for any fine imposed as to the offense for
which probation was granted.
The probationer and the probation officer shall each
be furnished with a copy of such order.
7/27/2017
Probation Law
(P.D. No. 968, as amended)
Termination of Probation; Exception (Sec. 16)
After the period of probation and upon consideration
of the report and recommendation of the probation
officer, the court may order the final discharge of the
probationer upon finding that he has fulfilled the terms
and conditions of his probation and thereupon the
case is deemed terminated.
Indeterminate Sentence Law
(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.
17

Indeterminate Sentence Law
(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 Law
(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;
7/27/2017
Indeterminate Sentence Law
(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 Law
(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;
18

Indeterminate Sentence Law
(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
Conditions of Parole
Every prisoner released from confinement on parole
shall report personally to such government officials or other
parole officers appointed by the Board of Indeterminate
Sentence for a period of surveillance equivalent to the
remaining portion of the maximum sentence imposed upon
him or until final release and discharge by the Board of
Indeterminate Sentence. The officials so designated shall
keep such records and make such reports and perform such
other duties as may be required by said Board (Sec. 6).
7/27/2017
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.
Indeterminate Sentence Law
Conditions of Parole
The limits of residence of such paroled prisoner during
his parole may be fixed and from time to time changed by
the said Board in its discretion. If during the period of
surveillance such paroled prisoner shall show himself to be
a law-abiding citizen and shall not violate any law, the Board
of Indeterminate Sentence may issue a final certificate of
release in his favor, which shall entitle him to final release
and discharge (Sec. 6).
19

Indeterminate Sentence Law
Conditions of Parole
Whenever any prisoner released on parole, during the
period of surveillance, violate any of the conditions of his
parole, the Board of Indeterminate Sentence may issue
an order for his re-arrest which may be served in any
part of the Philippines by any police officer. In such case
the prisoner so re-arrested shall serve the remaining
unexpired portion of the maximum sentence for which he
was originally committed to prison, unless the Board of
Indeterminate Sentence shall, in its discretion, grant a
new parole to the said prisoner (Sec. 8).
Mandatory application of ISLAW
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.
7/27/2017
Mandatory application of ISLAW
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).
Rules for the Application of Indivisible Penalties
(RPC, Article 63)
In all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible
penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any
mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended
the commission of the deed.
In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of
two indivisible penalties, the following rules shall be observed in
the application thereof:
1. When in the commission of the deed there is present only
one aggravating circumstance, the greater penalty shall be applied.
2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating
circumstances in the commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall
be applied.
20

Rules for the Application of Indivisible Penalties
(RPC, Article 63)
3. When the commission of the act is attended by some
mitigating circumstances and there is no aggravating circumstance,
the lesser penalty shall be applied.
4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances
attended the commission of the act, the court shall reasonably allow
them to offset one another in consideration of their number and
importance, for the purpose of applying the penalty in accordance
with the preceding rules, according to the result of such
compensation.
Rules for the Application of Indivisible Penalties
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).
7/27/2017
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.
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
21

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:
1. When there are neither aggravating nor mitigating
circumstances, they shall impose the penalty prescribed by law in its
medium period.
2. When only a mitigating circumstances is present in the
commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its minimum
period.
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.
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.
7/27/2017
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.
4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances are
present, the court shall reasonably offset those of one class against
the other according to their relative weight.
5. When there are two or more mitigating circumstances and
no aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall impose the
penalty next lower to that prescribed by law, in the period that it may
deem applicable, according to the number and nature of such
circumstances.
Penalty Containing Three Periods
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.
22

Penalty Containing Three Periods
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 Periods
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.
7/27/2017
Penalty Containing Three Periods
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 Periods
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.
23

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 Periods
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 . 8 years and 8 months
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
7/27/2017
Penalty Not Composed of Three Periods
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 Periods
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
+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).
24

Complex Penalty
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 Penalty
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
7/27/2017
Complex Penalty
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.
Penalty Without Specific Legal Form
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
25
 7/27/2017

Penalty Without Specific Legal Form

Penalty of offense under special law
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
The penalty for possession of dangerous drugs is 12 years and 1 day to 20 years of
portions in accordance with Article 65 since reclusion perpetua component is not
imprisonment. The court cannot impose a straight penalty of 12 years and 1 day
divisible. It is not a complex penalty under Article 77, par. 1 since it is merely
since the application of indeterminate sentence law is mandatory (unless the
composed of two distinct penalties. Thus, its periods shall be determined in
accused deserves a lenient penalty by confessing pursuant to the Nang Kay
accordance with Article 77, par. 2. Applying this provision, the maximum period shall
principle). Applying the ISLAW, the minimum indeterminate penalty shall not be less
be formed out of the most severe penalty, and that is, reclusion perpetua. The
than 12 years and 1 day while the maximum shall not exceed 20 years. Thus, the
duration of reclusion temporal in its maximum period shall be divided into two equal
court can sentence the accused to suffer 15 years of imprisonment as minimum to
portions, and minimum and medium periods shall be formed from each portion. In
18 years as maximum (Asiatico vs. People. G.R No. 195005, September 12, 2011;
sum, reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua is broken down
Escalante vs. People, G.R. No. 192727, January 9, 2013)
as follows:
Under Section 9 of RA 3019, the penalty for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 is
Minimum: Lower half of reclusion temporal in its maximum period
imprisonment for not less than 6 years and 1 months and not more than 15 years.
(17 years, 4 months and 1 day to 18 years and 8 months)
Applying the ISLAW, the minimum indeterminate penalty shall not be less than 6
Medium: Higher half of reclusion temporal in its maximum period
years and 1 month while the maximum shall not exceed 15 years. Thus, the court
(18 years, 8 months and 1 day to 20 years)
can sentence the accused to suffer 6 years and 1month of imprisonment as
Maximum: Reclusion perpetua
minimum to 10 years as maximum (People vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 177105-06, August
See: Estepa v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 59670, February 15, 1990, Torres v. People, G.R. No. 175074, August 31, 2011, 12, 2010, Bersamin)
Cabarlo v. People, G.R. No. 172274, November 16, 2006; Mesina v. People, G.R. No. 162489, June 17, 2015, Bersamin.

THANK YOU!

26