Penalties Art.

21-47
Friday, 18 August 2017 5:42 PM

There will be some little bit of the graduation thing. We will be doing that later.

It is basic criminal law that there can be no crime if there is no penalty. Even if there is let us say a description of
an illegal act - if it doesn't have a penalty, it is not a crime. A crime is an act and a penalty prescribed for that
act.

Then we talk about ex-post facto. When we first met, we talked about retroactivity and prospectivity. This is a
refresher. Of course, there are exceptions.

Article 21 talks about pardon. But we'll talk about that later in Art. 36. Cuz there's pardon by offended party and
pardon by President.

What are restrictions of deprivations without penalties? We can only know the penalty once they are
convicted. If there is a crime, dakpon dayon unya ipriso. But it will take time to try the case in court and it may
even take years. In the meantime, where is the suspect? He is an accused, not a convict. They are presumed
innocent according to the Constitution.

We will have deprivations of liberty that are not yet considered penalties. When the accused is detained, he is
detained in the meantime that the case is pending against him. If he is presumed innocent, he must still be able
to exercise his right, such as his right to vote and right to be voted for. We have persons who are already in
detention but still ran for public office like Trillanes. They can still run, and the prisoners in CPDRC can still vote
because they are still presumed innocent. Once they are convicted, they will be imprisoned together with the
main penalty. There is such a thing as an accessory penalty which could be the deprivation of political rights
such as absolute disqualification. It can be perpetual or temporary; absolute or special. He cannot run
anymore or vote.

What is the purpose? The detention is for one thing: not to punish but to assure that they will not escape while
the case is still being tried. As so, if they can assure the court and make an assurance that they will not escape
while the trial is pending or ongoing, then the court may allow them to get out of prison. Why are they in jail?

1. They were not able to post bail. Because if they were, they would have been outside and not in prison.
Even if the charges are bailable, they were not able to post bail. [could be money, property, surety]

2. The crime they committed would not allow bail to be posted.

In a bail bond, you make a guarantee. If there is that guarantee, the accused can get out of the CPDRC and
etc. The only purpose is that he will not escape. That's it.

ARE THEY ALLOWED TO TRAVEL OVERSEAS?

Hold departure order is needed for them to stop travelling abroad. You can travel if there is no HDO. That is
what happened to David Lim, the singer who was accused of rape.

This is not yet a penalty. The truth of the matter is that their lives are more miserable than those who are actually
convicted. They cannot sleep at the same time because there is no space for them to lie down at the same
time. Other who lie down with others standing or sitting. And yet, they are still presumed to be innocent. As a
matter of fact, 60% or 50+% will be convicted. Meaning, 30+% will be acquitted. And yet it is possible that just
because they didn't post bail, they have suffered. In other jails, those who have it better are already convicted.

Insane persons even if they have committed crimes, they have to be committed to mental institutions. They are
not criminally liable. Their hospitalization will not be done.

Minors will only be committed in jail if they are in the age of majority. Suspended sentence - they will be
committed to institutions, There will be intervention programs to give them a chance to correct themselves. We
said that a person who is 15 or below cannot incur criminal liability, but it doesn't mean they are exempt from
youth institutions because there will still be programs that will be committed. Like for example, a person who is
12 years old committed murder, he will be exempt but you cannot send him out on the streets because there is
something that needs to be done. We only have a few of these institutions because they did not really put
allocation budget on that.

Suspension of employment during trial. The purpose of that is preventive. It's so that he will not be able to
influence the outcome of the investigation. It's for those who are public officials. They cannot use their influence
in the investigation.

Criminal Law I Page 1

in the investigation.

Administrative fines are imposed by administrative bodies. While we say the RPC has fines as a penalty, even
under special penal laws and ordinances, they are penalties that cannot be imposed by administrative bodies.
They can only be imposed by the court. If you are fined by the LTO for not wearing a helmet, you are not fined
as a penalty. It is an administrative fine.

PENALTIES ART. 25-88

So we classify penalties such as capital penalties, afflictive, correctional, and light. Place the picture here.

For prision correcional, you spend it in prison, but destierro is spent outside. They have the same divisible
penalties.

It is important to classify penalties into different places because they have different prescription periods and
expiration periods. They have a purpose in classifying divisible and indivisible. The mitigating circumstances and
etc. are not effective if the penalty is indivisible.

Accessories are the disqualification whether perpetual or temporary. These are accessories. Naa sad na siyay
importance why we make these classifications.

Reclusion Perpetua [Check slide]

It is indivisible, but actually, it has a number of years. These are for purposes of parole. If you are imprisoned for
the minimum period, you can ask for the parole. If you are not good during your period, you are not eligible for
parole. If you have plenty of crimes, like murder of 3, it's only up to the maximum. It's not like life imprisonment
because that has no fixed period.

If double murder or tulo kabuok in one instance. Let us just say that Maguindanao Massacre - 57 deaths in one
occasion. That would be 57 reclusion perpetuas for Ampatuan. But in actuality, it is possible that that can be
the conviction. But the service cannot exceed forty years or even less. We will go to execution of service of
sentence in another time.

You cannot say reclusion perpetua medium or etc., it just has to be reclusion perpetua.

RECLUSION PERPETUA v. LIFE IMPRISONMENT *pic*

Reclusion perpetua is usually in felonies. Life imprisonment is only imposed in special penal laws. But in special
penal laws, there can also be reclusion perpetua.

Reclusion perpetua = special penal laws and RPC. Definite duration. Has accessory penalties.
Life Imprisonment - Special penal laws.

DESTIERRO *pic*

Civil Interdiction *pic*

It usually comes with a penalty. It is an accessory penalty. It is not monetary in nature. You will lose your civil
rights and responsibilities. You cannot be a guardian anymore, you cannot exercise parental authority, you
cannot manage a business even if it is your own because it is part of the penalty.

PARDON BY PRESIDENT V. PARDON BY PRESIDENT *PIC*

Criminal case who is the plaintiff - the people of the Philippines. Even if the plaintiff is the people of the
Philippines, there is also a private offended party. If we say robbery, there is a person who is offended. So, in a
criminal case, we may have a case where there is a victim or there is one that is victimless. Such as junta or
illegal possession of firearms or dangerous drugs. It is possible that the offender is also a victim.

However, in a criminal case where there is a victim, what if or what is the effect if the victim will pardon the
offender?

Article 23 - Pardon by offended party will have no bearing on the criminal case, but only if it is filed. The people
will now become the plaintiff. Wala na nay bearing. If it is before the filing of the criminal case, it will have a
bearing. For example, snatching and then nauli, and the person does not execute an affidavit and pinpoint the
snatcher, then the police cannot file a case against them. It is encouraged in property crimes like estafa,
robbery, etc. Even in libel, oral defamation, it is encouraged to just send it to the barangay. Because there are
a lot of real cases that merits very little time the Court has, so it encourages estafa and kawat kawat na i -settle
lang siya.

Criminal Law I Page 2

lang siya.

The victim can even be imprisoned because the court issued a subpoena and you did not come to court. You
can be imprisoned for contempt of court.

There are instances where the pardon of the private party can extinguish criminal liability.

#1 The woman who is raped can pardon the rapist through marriage.

#2 - If there are certain crimes like estafa, once nailad ka in estafa, once ni untol na ang cheke, naay crime.
However, there are kinds (1) of estafa where the law allows for a grace period. The law states that you still have
3 days to make good on the check. That will negate criminal liability. We call it incipient criminal liability. It is
not yet a mature criminal liability. If you file it in court, the court will dismiss it for being premature.

In order for criminal liability to mature, you must still make a written demand. If i -reject ang demand or nothing
was done, that is the time you can really go to court. Within that stage, there is only incipient criminal liability. It
is allowed under the law; technically, even if there is incipient criminal liability, if you pardon him/her, there will
be no criminal liability. A STALE CHECK CAN NEVER GIVE RISE TO CRIMINAL LIABILITY BECAUSE IT WASN'T YOUR
FAULT. YOU ALLOWED THE CHECK TO GO STALE AND IMO NANG IADTO SA BANGKO, THEN THAT WILL NOT BE
BOUNCING CHECKS. A PERSON IS ONLY ALLOWED WITHIN 90 DAYS TO MAKE GOOD ON A CHECK.

3. When Erap was pardoned, it only extended to the criminal liability, but in the crime of plunder, you have
illegally-gotten wealth worth at least 50 million. Na-pardon ka, but you have to pay the money. Civil
liabilities are not included in the pardon. Whatever was illegally gotten, they will be taken back. Now,
pardon in the private offended party often includes the civil aspect. Si Juan nakabangga ni Pedro, they
will say that ayaw nalang bai, maginsurance nalang ta. It has something to do with the civil liability.

4. Duterte can only pardon himself when he is already convicted. The President cannot be sued in immunity,
but he can be tried in ICC. It is an executive prerogative. It doesn't matter what the case is. Even
Ampatuan can be pardoned because it is an executive prerogative.

5. Pardon by the offended party can only pardon private crimes.

[CASAA-D] Concubinage, Adultery, Seduction, Abduction, Acts of Lasciviousness, Defamation (refers to
concubinage, abduction, seduction, adultery, acts of lasciviousness].

If for example, si Juan ug si Juana naay anak si Juanito. Juanito nangabit ni Maria. Wala ni file si Maria kay love.
Si Juanito, suya kay si Maria kay mas daghan ug allowance kaysa niya. Can he file for concubinage?

This can only be filed by the offended party. So no. It is only the offended spouse. Children are not included. In
these cases, both parties must be included. It must be extended to the other one. Pardon benefits both of
them.

Article 38 - Pecuniary Liabilities

Reparation - usually refers to property. Kung kaguba ka ug cellphone, ibalik ang phone. Etc.

Indemnification - it is possible that it is not property. If the house is burnt, it is not replaced but given money
instead. Gi-libel. Tungod ana sleepless nights, moral anxiety, and etc. you can get moral damages. That is
indemnification.

Article 39 - Subsidiary Penalty *pic*

The penalty is a fine. This is one of those that you said is not fair because of poverty. If the penalty is only a fine
not imprisonment, if the accused or convict cannot pay the fine, he/she will be imprisoned. This is subsidiary
imprisonment. It will not exceed 3 months.

APPLICATION OF PENALTIES Art 46-77. EXECUTION OF PENALTIES ART. 78-88

*pic*

Application of Penalties

ONLY FOR THE CONSUMMATED STAGE FRUSTRATED Attempted

Homicide - RT (For the principal) PM PC

PM - Accomplice PC AM
PC - Accessory AM XX

Criminal Law I Page 3

Homicide - RT (For the principal) PM PC
PM - Accomplice PC AM
PC - Accessory AM XX

Complex Crime Art 48

Only one act that results to two or more grave or less grave.

1 - 2 or more. Then that is an ordinary complex crime. Clue: when one act resulting in two or more, we usually
use the word WITH.

Second formula: There are two offenses. Two or more. 2 = 1 is a means to commit another. For example, you
falsify a title of a land. That's a crime. Your purpose of falsifying is so that you can sell the land. Because it does
not belong to you, you pretend to be the owner. Falsifying a public document is a crime, just because you
falsified it. But if it is private, you cannot commit a crime by simply falsifying it. It should result to damage for it to
be a crime.

Nangilad ka para mabaligya nimo. The pangilad is another crime. It is estafa. You have a situation where one is
a falsification of a public document where it is a means to commit estafa, another crime. That is the other
example.

IN THESE CASES, THERE IS ONLY ONE PENALTY. It is the penalty of the highest in its maximum period.

THOSE TWO FORMULAS ARE ARTICLE 48. THESE ARE ORDINARY COMPLEX CRIMES.

Other complex crimes = special complex crimes.

THE ONLY SPECIAL CRIMES: CHECK PIC PLS IMPORTANT. It does not follow a formula.

Criminal Law I Page 4

Complex Crimes
Friday, 8 September 2017 5:32 PM

When you are confronted with two or more crimes committed, you determine whether two or more crimes
constitute as special complex crime. You would know there is a SCC if you actually memorized the special
complex crimes. If there is no special complex crime, you have to determine whether one crime is inherent in
another. If it is part of the elements, we incorporate it with the main crime.

Case Study: (Picture)

Several people killed several victims. We don't know how many acts were committed. Who killed the
passengers, we do not know. What is or how do we file the cases here? We go to the basic principle that for
every act resulting in one death, it results in one felony. One felony, one penalty.

Picture (People v. Orias) This is the very basic principle in law, but in complex crimes, we have two or more
crimes which only have one penalty. This is true whether the crime is a special complex crime. Once it is
complex, there is only one penalty now for the two crimes. It can be many crimes. For example, robbery
with homicide. Robbery is a bailable offense. The highest penalty there would only be reclusion temporal.
Sometimes, it is prision mayor or prision correcional. If there is homicide, the penalty there is only reclusion
temporal.

If one is charged with rebellion, all other crimes will be absorbed. It will only be one. Accdng to SC, when the
common crimes are committed in furtherance of the rebellion, all common crimes will be absorbed within the
political crime. Most of the time, we never file rebellion cases. But Manila DOJ, they file rebellion cases, and
that's when we'll have a problem. Then, the accused will be posting bail. When the time comes for trial, you
cannot find them anymore. Our style is never to file rebellion cases because it’s hard to prove rebellion. It's
easier to prove murder. You cannot post bail for this.

Whereas if we file a case of rebellion, we will not only prove that he committed murder, we must prove that the
purpose in committing the crime is for rebellion. In Marawi, they have to justify rebellion. That's why they won't
file terrorism. Under the Constitution, terrorism is not a ground for Martial Law.

Enrile v. Amit: He was charged with rebellion, and then he was charged for obstruction of justice. It is not a
felony, but it is a crime under a special penal law. Enrile said no, you cannot charge me for obstruction of
justice because he was already charged with rebellion. Everything he committed was absorbed under
rebellion. He harbored or hid, concealed Gringo. SC agreed and it was absorbed.

NELMIDA: (Picture) Several people died and several accused, but although we do not know who killed whom,
there was evidence that all of them acted under a conspiracy. They were all conspirators, and when you have
a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. And because it is the act of all, never mind if we don't know who
killed whom. As long as all of them conspired, all of them will be liable for the deaths of all of them.

Before Nelmida, the standing decision was the one of Lawas. (Picture). It was there in 1955, and was just
changed around 2000. We did not know who fired the shots, and we do not know who actually executed. We
cannot also prove conspiracy. There was no proof to conspiracy. Here, there was no proof and evidence of
the conspiracy. SC therefore modified the formula under Art. 48. Lawas said when we say one act, it could
include several acts under a single impulse. We cannot have here one act because there are actually many
acts. We would not know how to file a case. Who shot A or B? There were 50 plus victims. Who shall be charged
if you do not have evidence to the conspiracy?

Because of the impossibility of knowing who to charge, SC came up with the single impulse doctrine in the
Lawas case. Even if there are several acts, we can apply Art. 48 and we can have an ordinary complex crime.
Lawas was more or less 60 years, and then Nelmida came about. We have to make this clear that the
application of Lawas should only be limited to situations where we do not have evidence of a conspiracy.
Where we have an evidence of a conspiracy, there can be as many crimes there as many deaths. Nelmida
did not abandon the Lawas ruling. What happened in Nelmida is that it only sort of limited the application of
Lawas to situations where there is no proof of a conspiracy. Where there is proof, then Lawas would not be
applicable.

(Picture) However, SC also took note of the fact that it has also handed down or rendered decisions where
they applied the Lawas Doctrine, even if there was evidence to a conspiracy. SC said okay, the rule is when
there is a conspiracy, for every death, that is one crime. No complexing. We apply Lawas when we do not
have evidence of a conspiracy. We take note of the singularity of the impulse. By way of exception to the
exception, we have the Pincalin, De Los Santos etc. It occurs only in the prison committed by the prisoners. All
these cases involve a jail riot. These cases adopted a single impulse doctrine because it involves prisoners;
conspiracy is present.

ROBBERY WITH ROBBERY (Case)

In this case, we said that in complexing, there must be two crimes committed. You cannot have one crime
only, or you cannot have one complete and one incomplete crime. In complex, you must have two separate
crimes. It is stated in the book that you cannot complex estafa through falsifications of private documents. For
falsification, element must result in damage or it is the purpose of the damage. If you just falsify your diary or
letter instead of signing Juan De la Cruz, you sign as James Bond or whatever, that is not a crime. Or for
example, you send an application letter, or a letter saying you are 25 years old, you are 28 years old. There is no
crime for damage.

It is different when it is a public or official document or commercial document. Why? Because for example,
there is a check where instead you falsify the signature in the check. That is a crime, even if you did not derive
anything. Because a check is a commercial document. Damage result in private documents is not needed in
this case because it is a commercial document. Or in a land ownership, you pretend you are the owner of the
land because it would now say that Pedro is the land owner through falsification. Was there falsification? Yes.
Was there damage? No. But it is not necessary because it is commercial. Damage is only necessary when the
document is private.

What if they falsified the document, and because of that falsified document, someone was deceived to buy,
those are two separate crimes. The swindling would not happen if it weren't for falsification. Falsification was a
means in committing estafa. It is a complex crime because it fits in Art. 48. That can only happen if the
document is public. Because if the document is a private document, in order to constitute falsification, you

Criminal Law I Page 5

document is public. Because if the document is a private document, in order to constitute falsification, you
must have falsification as well as damage. If it is a private document, let us say for example, that Juan wrote
you a letter to pay for rentals (private letter). You pretended that you were Juan and signed it. And going to
Pedro telling him to pay rentals because you were authorized, it will only be one crime. This is because the
document was private. Since there is only one damage, you cannot complex. If the document was public, you
don't need the requisite of damage.

In Napolis, the robbers entered a house. Actually, the house was partly a store and a dwelling. So, Napolis and
his friends went inside the store by destroying the door. That's how they entered the store, but they did not get
anything from the store. Instead, after destroying the door, they went inside the bedroom. Inside, they saw the
couple and intimidated them by pointing a gun and telling them to hand them the money.

Where was the taking done? There was no taking in the store. There was no robbery. If they took something in
the store, they would have committed one robbery here. It would be the use of force upon things, but they did
not get anything there. So, there is no robbery. They proceeded to the bedroom, and pointed the gun at the
couple where they give the money and jewelry. In this case, there was robbery with violence and intimidation.
Because they held them at gunpoint. So that's the robbery.

WHAT IS MORE SERIOUS? ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE AND INTIMIDATION OR ROBBERY WITH FORCE UPON THINGS?

If they did not destroy the door, they could not have entered. There is only one robbery because there is only
one taking. But both the modes of committing the robbery were committed. The SC said, how do we call this
crime? Because both modes were employed. Can we say that it is either of the two? The SC said the crime
would be called according to the seriousness of the crime. This is robbery with violence or intimidation. But the
problem is that there would be a lesser penalty. Not even the other mode could be used because it would be
a lesser offense overall. In Napolis, the solution of the court was that it is a complex crime. It is robbery with
robbery.

It would have been different if they went inside and took something and then robbery with intimidation. It
would be perfect for Art. 48. Now we have one robbery as a mode to commit the other robbery. The problem is
that there was only one taking. The robbery with violence with intimidation was complete, but not the robbery
with force upon things. This is in 1972.

10 Years after, it was mentioned in People v. Liani. There is no intention of abandoning the Napolis case. In the
case of Franzdila case (2015), SC again reiterated Napolis doctrine. They are not abandoning the ruling.

(Another picture about the Napolis case)

In the complexing, although you thought you understood the formulas, every now and then, SC would
challenge you by inventing other principles. Such as the single impulse doctrine in the Lawas case. Here's the
thing. The single impulse doctrine apparently only applies in crimes against persons. In Damano, Juan entered
the chicken coop with chickens owned by different persons. If we go for Orias, every taking of one chicken, it is
one crime. In this case, SC said there was only one crime. It wasn't even complex. It was one simple theft only.
The Lawas was more in line with the formula. The Single Impulse Doctrine which will result in a complex crime
only applies in crimes against persons. In the manok case, that is the single larceny doctrine.

It has been clarified in Santiago v. Lorena (in syllabus). She was accused of taking money. The SC said there
was only one crime even if there was several taking. There was only one simple crime applying the single
larceny doctrine enunciated in the manok case. The effect of this is that there is only one crime. The effect of
the single impulse doctrine is that there is a complex crime.

PENALTY FOR ERROR IN PERSONAE (picture)

It is not really refer to the praeter intentionem because it is already listed in Art. 13 as one of the mitigating
circumstances. Praeter intentionem is actually mitigating, not Art. 49. This only applies in error in personae. It is
very specific, also. If you come to think of it, it will only apply when the crime committed was parricide. Because
in error in personae, not involving parricide, it does not matter who gets killed. Whether it was Juan or Pedro, it
would be the same murder, but there will be changes when the crime will become parricide. Or when the
crime will become murder. SC said when you killed somebody without intention to the minor, it will make the
crime murder. As a matter of fact, a more recent decision 17 na ang victim, and yet the crime was still murder.
The essence of 17 is that there was abuse of superior strength because he was 17. In reality, there are 16 year
olds that are big, but in the ruling of the SC, it is because the victim was 16 that the crime was already murder.

2-3 years ago, the case did not mention the size or the manner of committing. It was just because the victim
was 17. We can understand if the victim is 5 years old, but if the victim is already 17, it depends on the actual
case because if the killer is like 60 years old and sickly versus a 17 year old who is big, that would not necessarily
be abuse of superior strength. BUT BECAUSE IT IS THE PREVAILING DOCTRINE, IT IS THE RULE THAT KILLING A MINOR
QUALIFIES HOMICIDE TO MURDER.

What if the crime intended was lesser than what was committed?

We use the lesser penalty. If he wanted to kill the son but killed another person. If the fight was between father
and son, and the son tried to hit the father with a shot but killed someone else (stranger). The penalty imposed
is the homicide because it is the lesser crime rather than parricide.
Death -- Indivisible
RP --- Indivisible (everything else is
GRADUATION OF PENALTIES (BY DEGREE OR PERIOD; PICTURE)
divisible)
RT (Min, Med, Max)
Degree Period PM
Stage of the crime; Participation; Aggravating, mitigating except PC----- Destierro
Privileged privileged. AM
Am
If we lower degree, we consider the PuCen/Fine
penalty. If RP is the penalty, it is only the
penalty for the consummated. For Enrile CASE (Plunder)
frustrated, one degree lower. For
attempted, another degree lower. If this is Note: minority is a privileged mitigating;
murder, then we lower it to reclusion seniority is not.
1temporal and then Prision Mayor. If
participation is merely accomplice, we Ordinary mitigating only lowers by period,
lower it to three. It is according to not by degree. Penalty for plunder is
commission or participation. recluson perpetua, which means that life is
also not divisible, what's the use of the

Criminal Law I Page 6

murder, then we lower it to reclusion seniority is not.
1temporal and then Prision Mayor. If
participation is merely accomplice, we Ordinary mitigating only lowers by period,
lower it to three. It is according to not by degree. Penalty for plunder is
commission or participation. recluson perpetua, which means that life is
also not divisible, what's the use of the
Two mitigating circumstance (or more) + ordinary mitigating?
no aggravating = one degree lower.

Special aggravating - maximum. If

ordinary complex, higher penalty for the
more serious in its maximum period. When
we have an ordinary complex crime with
special aggravating, we always maximize.

There are always three periods. With the max, min, and medium. The problem is not all penalties are imposed in
its full extent. It is also not just one degree. For example, book two will tell you that the penalty for homicide is
reclusion temporal. It is given in its full extent. When we say reclusion temporal in its full extent it would mean
min, med, plus max. It includes all of the periods. When the law says reclusion temporal, it includes all the
periods in the degree. When there is minority, we go one degree lower in full extent. If he is merely an
accomplice, lower the degree again. If it is frustrated, then we go lower again.

Not all penalties are like that. The penalties could only consider maximum + medium. What is one degree
lower?

Read Art. 61. It would be PM medium up to RT Minimum.

1 special aggravating + 1 ordinary mitigating = special aggravating always maximizes it. Ordinary mittigating
does it offset? We can only offset ordinary mitigating with ordinary aggravating. Does the ordinary mitigating in
this case have an effect? It means that there will be the maximum of the medium.

THERE SHALL ALWAYS BE THREE PERIODS. EVEN IF THE LAW PRESCRIBES TWO, YOU HAVE TO CUT TO THREE.

If it's RT med and min, divide the 2 into three different periods.

Reclusion perpetua + the maximum of the reclusion temporal is divisible. RT by itself is just indivisible. This time,
there is only minimum and maximum. RP is already the max. And then we divide the max of RT into medium
and minimum. SO THERE IS STILL THREE PERIODS.

INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW

After you graduated the penalty in accordance with the provisions, apply indeterminate sentence law. It is not
exclusive to the RPC, so it can apply to other crimes that are not punished in the RPC (not felonies). ISLAW says
that after graduating in accordance to the RPC, you still need to find the maximum range and the minimum
range of the penalty.

The maximum range is the penalty arrived at after graduating in accordance to the RPC. For example, PC max
of its min. That is the maximum range, but we still have to find the minimum range. It shall be one degree lower
from the penalty prescribed by law. If the crime was estafa through falsification of commercial document, the
original penalty is PM Max. Thus, one degree lower would be PC Max. We do not start from the graduated
penalty. We start from the penalty PRESCRIBED BY LAW!

Max: PC MIN OF ITS MAX

Min: AM MAX (in the max of AM, it can be anywhere because it is INDETERMINATE. It can be max max, max
mid, max min) > 4 years 2 months, 1 day - 6 years.

Indeterminate because it is at the discretion of the judge in its range. If the court says 5 years, it will be in
between the minimum and the maximum range.

Criminal Law I Page 7

Continuation of Indeterminate Sentence Law
Friday, 15 September 2017 5:38 PM

When do we not apply ISLAW?

ISLAW is mandatory only for sentences involving imprisonment. (in the picture). ISLAW not
applicable?

1. It is when the penalty is inapplicable. Death, life, RP. Destierro is divisible. It can be
divided, but we do not talk about ISLAW is destierro because it is not imprisonment. It is
not applicable.

2. Not imprisonment (destierro or a fine).

3. Habitual delinquent

4. Not exceeding one year. (When the penalty does not exceed one year, you graduate
it, but you do not find the minimum. You only find the maximum).

In penalties which do not exceed one year, there will only be what is called a straight
penalty. If ISLAW is applicable, the court will say in this case, this is PC max min as the
maximum and Arresto Mayor Max anywhere. The penalty can go like this.

The use of minimum is for purposes of minimum. Probation is not based on the minimum
but the maximum. After serving the minimum sentence, he/she can ask for parole. (This
is in the range in regards to min-max in ISLAW).

(This is about the estafa with falsification of commercial documents na quiz cont. of
example) Section1 of ISLAW, the minimum should be taken by the penalty prescribed
by law. If minimum is one degree from the penalty prescribed by law, then that would
be PC. But why AM?

Before you take the minimum, you apply the privileged mitigating circumstances. In
another case, in temporal, SC said how about 2 ordinary mitigating without
aggravating. That's not privileged. SC said it must be treated in the same manner as a
privileged mitigating. That's why you have to lower and lower before applying ISLAW.
That is only true for privileged. For any other modifying circumstances, the law remains.
It must be applied verbally or literally. It is must be one degree lower. The only time that
you do not put one degree lower is when there is privileged. You have to lower una
before you look for the minimum. For any other, you apply the one degree lower of the
original penalty.

If the person is sentenced to an indivisible penalty, can he/she avail of ISLAW if naay
privileged mitigating?

YES. Privileged mitigating takes precedence jud. It goes down by one degree. If it was
from RP to RT, he can now avail of ISLAW. When there is privileged, it has precedence.

If death?

In Art. 61, if the penalty is death (granting that there is death), death… according to
Art. 61, what is one degree lower to death? The next lower to death is reclusion
perpetua which will be another indivisible. Because of death is the only penalty, even if
there is privileged, it will still be another indivisible. If it is not only death, if it is RP to
death, what is the one degree lower? It now becomes divisible through RT. Now that it
is, we can now apply ISLAW.

Even if RP is indivisible, it still has a period. 20 and 1 to 40. But it is still indivisible. But 20 & 1
is for application of parole. But if it is only RP, he can be released at 20 and 1, but if he is
not released then he should be released after reaching the maximum of 30 years. For
purposes of parole, RP shall be computed at 30. Therefore, bisag dili siya irelease after
20 and 1, he is released after 30 because it is considered the maximum for RP for
parole. What is the 40 for? It is for when he has more than one crime committed.

Criminal Law I Page 8

Life has no duration. So you cannot say that 1 degree lower than life is something else.
There is a degree lower than RP, so if the person is a minor, and the penalty for the
crime is life, that means that he cannot be imprisoned for more than twenty years. But if
he doesn't have any privileged mitigating, it does not mean to say that he can be
released at 30. It is for reclusion perpetua. Life has no duration.

(PP v. Simon) ISLAW also applies in special penal laws. It also applies. But the problem in
special penal laws is that there are no degrees. How do we find the minimum range? In
special penal law, let us say for example that in a particular crime, the penalty is let us
say, 5 to ten years. That's the penalty. 5-10 years, that's what the law says. Simon says
we can apply ISLAW because it's not just for RPC. It applies to all special penal laws. But
how do we know what's the next lower? Will it be 3-5, 2-5 etc? Therefore, in order to
apply ISLAW (bec. It is advantageous). How do we get the maximum. Get it anywhere
as long as it's not more than 10 years. For minimum, anywhere but not below 5 years. It's
still in between 5-10. The court can impose a sentence of 6-8 years or it can even be
9-10 years.

There are SPLs that are not like this, though. It can be similar to the RPC. In that case, we
can apply principles similar to that applied in the RPC.

PP v. Lian - DO not apply ISLAW to indivisible penalties. The exception is when there is
privileged mitigating. It was not a single indivisible. We said that if the penalty is RP, you
can't apply ISLAW to look for a maximum and the minimum. That's what Lian said.
However, if the penalty prescribed by law is RT maximum to RP, can we apply ISLAW?

Yes because RT max to RP is not indivisible. Because it is not indivisible but divisible, we
can apply indeterminate sentence law.

Lumauig v. PP (pic)

It is possible that the penalty arrived at after graduating is less than one year. SO there
is homicide. Minority, PM, then 1 privileged mit, PC, and then two ord mit, AM. 1 month
1 day to 6 mos. You can see that the maximum does not exceed one year. Do we
have a straight penalty? Or do we apply ISLAW to apply one degree lower to get the
minimum? Do we still find the minimum here?

Here's what the law says, straight penalty of less than one year should be based on the
penalty prescribed, not the penalty arrived at after graduating. We can go one
degree lower, we can go to Am. You apply ISLAW because the 1 year 6 mos is not the
penalty prescribed by law, but the penalty arrived at after graduating. Because it is not
the penalty prescribed by law, you can apply ISLAW, and get the one degree lower for
the minimum range.

NEXT TOPIC: Execution and Service of Sentence

If you notice, the flow of discussion is from who committed crimes and etc. and then
muabot ta sa time that we will now sentence him. After sentencing him, we will now go
to how they will serve the sentence.
In execution of service of sentence, he can only serve it if he was sane at the time of
the sentence. Which means to say that at the time of the commission of the crime, he
was still sane. Because if he was already insane at the time of the commission of the
crime, we will have no penalty because he will be exempt. What we presuppose here
is that the person committed a crime when he was sane and later becomes insane. He
will not be made to serve the sentence. He will still be made to go to the mental
hospital, but when he's sane, he will be serving the sentence.

Earlier we said that detention is not considered penalty if he goes to a mental

institution. When he's gone to the mental hospital, it is not commuted from the
sentence. It will not prescribe. It will only prescribe if he escapes. If he escapes, the
penalty may prescribe.

In the service of sentence, it's not really that the… diba naggraduate pa ta.. But
actually after a number of years, that may not be still the actual number of years that
the convict will serve. Makahangyo man. Let's say for instance that he committed

Criminal Law I Page 9

the convict will serve. Makahangyo man. Let's say for instance that he committed
several murders. (Multiple murders = complex crime). Five murders, kada murder, that
will be x reclusion perpetua. Kada RP, it's 30. That will be 150 years. First matter of
computing is 30+30+30+30+30 = 150. That is the first manner of computing it. The first
formula is to add. Then another formula that can be considered is the three-fold rule:

We get the most serious penalty, and then we multiply it by three. In this case, the most
serious is 30. Multiply it by three, meaning it will be 90. Because this is more
advantageous, the addition rule will not apply. We apply the more advantageous.

Other computation is that it does not exceed 40 years. This is the maximum. The one he
serves is the most advantageous, which is 40.

However, what if ang iya penalties are 1 ka ten years, usa ka two years, usa ka one
year, usa pa jud ka one year, and usa ka two years. 10+2+1+1+2 = 16. We use this
because it is the most advantageous out of the three rules. The number of years would
depend on which of the three will be more advantageous.

THIS IS STILL APPLICABLE FOR LIFE SENTENCE.

If there are several sentences, the manner of serving them is (pic). There is first material
accumulation system. In absorption, there will only be one penalty. That is the complex
crime (several crimes with one penalty but will be in the maximum). Then, juridical,
there is a limit. If there is only one, the limit is thirty. If there are several, the limit is 30.

GRADUATING A FINE BY DEGREE: (pic)

We do not graduate fine for ISLAW because that is only for imprisonment. We graduate
fine because what if it is frustrated or attempted? We still graduate by degree. What if
the person was an accomplice? Also degree. The crime is let's say, damage to
property. The penalty for damage to property is fine. What if B is not the principal. Dili
siya ang namato or dili nakasala. He was just an accomplice. He cannot be fined for
the same amount. We have to lower the penalty by degree. If the penalty is fine, let's
say for example that the penalty is 5000 to 10, 000. That's the penalty. If we lower this by
degree, the next lower degree would be you find the difference is based on 10000,
and we'll find the 1/4 of the maximum. So -2, 500. So 5000 to 7, 500.

If it is attempted, that will be 5000. We lower degree by deducting 1/4. Can we

graduate the penalty of fine by periods? Because this is degree. Can we graduate by
period? Yes. How?

If it is 5k to 10k, we do not anymore find the medium. We just find the max and the min.
The max will be 10k and the min is 5k.

PROBATION LAW

Probation applies when the penalty is fine or imprisonment. What is probation? In

probation, the person who is sentenced for the commission of the crime and penalized
for either fine or imprisonment will not pay the money and will not go to jail. He is
already jailed. He does not pay the sentence by paying the fine or going to jail (?).
Those who are convicted may not serve their sentence INSIDE the jail. In order to do
that, they must meet certain qualifications. There are also those who are disqualified. In
order to avail:

Penalty imposed by court must not be more than six years. So it is possible that the
person charged with murder, possible to avail of probation. Kung tulo ka privileged
diay? Incomplete self-defense, minority, two mitigating. Not more than 6 years. So he
can still avail of probation.

It used to be that the penalty is the penalty imposed by the trial court, not the
appellate court. Which says that the case even if it came from RTC, it is important that
the penalty imposed by RTC is not more than six years. After that, the maximum should
not be higher than six years. It is possible that the minimum is two years. Pero if the max
is 8 years, that will not qualify you from probation. What is important is the maximum. IT
USED TO BE (before the amendment) that the penalty must be the penalty imposed by

Criminal Law I Page 10

USED TO BE (before the amendment) that the penalty must be the penalty imposed by
the trial court because if the convict elevates his case on appeal, and later on he will
lose his right to avail of probation. THAT IS NOT SO ANYMORE!!

First, in the case of Colmenares, what happened was naconvicto si A for frustrated
homicide by the trial court. So prision mayor. It was the maximum because it was
frustrated. Therefore, because prision mayor is 6 years + to twelve years. Because it was
more than 6 years, he could not avail of probation. He went on appeal. When the case
reached the CA, CA said no, this is not frustrated homicide. This is only attempted.
PRISION CORRECIONAL where 6 mos to 6 years. This time he applied for probation. Can
he do it?

Under the old law no. Because the old law says so. But even under the old law, SC
made the ruling in Colmenares (EVEN UNDER OLD LAW). SC said if the penalty imposed
by the court at first was more than six years and later appealed that case, and on
appeal, it becomes less than six years, he would still be entitled to probation because
he could not have applied for probation anyway. Because the penalty at that time
was not yet six years. Even if there was an appeal that the convict was still allowed
probation, because the six years was not the penalty imposed by the lower court. What
happened was 2015, Congress adopted the SC ruling.

CONGRESS CANNOT INTERFERE WITH PROCEDURE (SIDE NOTE). It is about plea

bargaining.

EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Criminal Law I Page 11