SECTION 2: Rules for the application of
penalties with regard to the mitigating and
aggravating circumstances and habitual
delinquency.
Article 62. Effect of the attendance of
mitigating or aggravating circumstances and of
habitual delinquency. (SEE CODAL)
I. Effect of the Attendance of
aggravating or mitigating circumstances
or of Habitual Delinquency
Aggravating Circumstances – these have the
effect of increasing the penalty without
exceeding the maximum provided by law
Mitigating Circumstances – these have the
effect of diminishing the penalty
Habitual Delinquency – has the effect of not
only increasing the penalty because of
recidivism but also of imposing additional
penalty.
Paragraph 1: Rules regarding Aggravating and
Mitigating Circumstances
In paragraph 1 there are two aggravating
circumstances mentioned (1) those in
themselves constitute a crime especially
punished by law or (2) are included by the law
in defining a crime. These circumstances do not
do anything in increasing the penalty.
Examples:
Which in themselves constitute a crime
 Art. 14, par. 12 ‘by means of
fire’ this is inherent in the crime of
arson which is punished by a special
law.
 Art. 14, par. 12 ‘derailment of
locomotion’ not an aggravating
circumstance in Art. 1330 known as
“Damages and Obstruction to means of
communication”
Which are included by law in defining a crime
 The circumstance of dwelling of the
offended party is not aggravating in the crime of
robbery with force upon things (Art. 299)
 Abuse of confidence is not aggravating in
qualified theft committed with grave abuse of
confidence (Art. 310)
 Neither is using poison aggravating (Art. 14,
par. 12) when killing a person since using poison
to kill is murder as defined in Art. 248, par. 3.
When maximum penalty should be imposed
1. When the crime was committed
with abuse of public position
2. If the offense was done by a
person in an organized
crime/syndicated group.
Par. 2: the same rule shall apply to those
aggravating circumstances that are inherent in
the commission of the crime.
Paragraph 3
Aggravating or mitigating circumstances which
arise from:
1. Moral attributes of the offender
 A and B killed C. A acted with premeditation
and B acted with passion and obfuscation. The
circumstances of evident premeditation,
passion and obfuscation arise from the moral
attributes of the offenders. The act of A is
aggravated while the act of B is mitigated. Note
the difference in their state of minds.
2. From his private relations with the
offended
 A and C inflicted slight physical injuries on
B. A is the son of B. C is the father of B. In this
case the aggravating circumstance of
relationship should only be appreciated against
A since he is the son of B. Relationship is
mitigating since C is a relative of higher degree
than B.
3. From any other personal cause
 A and B committed a crime. A was under 16
years of age and B was a recidivist.
Paragraph 4
The circumstances which consist (1) in the
material execution of the act, or (2) 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.
Examples:
1. Material execution of the act.
A, as principal by induction, B and C agreed to
kill D. B and C killed D with treachery, which
mode wasn’t previously agreed upon by them
with A. A was not present when B and C killed D
with treachery.
The aggravating circumstance of treachery
should only be taken against B and C since they
were the only ones who had knowledge of the
treachery employed in the crime.
The qualifying or aggravating circumstances
should not affect the principal by induction of
he left to the principals by direct participation
the means with which to commit the crime.
2. Means to accomplish the crime:
A ordered B to kill C. B used poison in the killing
of C. A did not know that B used poison to kill C.
Therefore, the use of poison to kill C should not
be aggravated against A since he did not have
knowledge of it nor was it agreed upon by
them.
Paragraph 5 – Habitual Delinquency
A person is a habitual delinquent if within a
period of ten years from the date of his last
release or last conviction of the crimes of:
1. Serious or less serious physical injuries
2. Robo - robbery
3. Hurto - theft
4. Estafa - fraud
5. Falsification
Been found guilty of any of the stated crimes
three times or oftener.
Computation of the ten-year period
With respect to the period of ten years the law
expressly mentions the defendant’s last
conviction or last release as the starting point
from which the ten-year period shall be
counted.
Additional penalty for habitual delinquency
1. Upon a third conviction, the culprit shall
be sentenced to the penalty provided by law for
the last crime of which he is found guilty by law
for the last crime of which he is found guilty and
to the additional penalty of prision correccional
in its medium and maximum periods
2. Upon a fourth conviction the culprit
shall be sentenced to the additional penalty of
prision mayor in its minimum and medium
periods.
3. Upon a fifth or additional conviction the
culprit shall also be sentenced to the additional
penalty of prision mayor its minimum period to
reclusion temporal in its minimum period.
Total penalties shall not exceed 30 years.
The total of two penalties to be imposed on the
offender shall not exceed 30 years. The two
penalties talked about are, the one for the
crime committed and the additional penalty for
being a habitual delinquent.
Habitual delinquency v. recidivism 1. When the penalty is single and
indivisible it shall be applied regardless of any
Habitual Recidivism mitigating or aggravating circumstances
As to crimes Only for Must be in 2. When the penalty is composed of two
committed robo, hurto, the same indivisible penalties the following shall apply.
slight title a. When there is only one aggravating
physical circumstance the greater penalty shall be
injuries, imposed.
estafa, b. When there is neither mitigating nor
falsification aggravating circumstances the lesser penalty
Period of Found guilty No period of shall be applied
time the of any of the time c. When there is a mitigating circumstance
crimes were crimes and no aggravating circumstance the lesser
committed specified penalty shall apply
within 10 d. When both mitigating or aggravating
years from circumstance are present, they shall offset one
last release another.
or last
conviction Art. 63 applies only when the penalty
Number of Offender nd
2 conviction prescribed by the Code is either indivisible or
crimes must be of offense in two indivisible penalties.
committed guilty third the same
time or more title Exception to Art. 63 – when a privilege
As to effects Additional If not offset mitigating circumstance under Art. 68 and 69 is
penalty is by mitigating present. The offender may get a penalty one or
imposed circumstance two degrees lower since the penalty to be
it serves to imposed is one or two degrees lower.
increase
penalty to Moral value and not numerical weight of
the circumstances should prevail.
maximum
period. Regarding paragraph 4 of Art. 63 it is the moral
value of the circumstances that should prevail
ARTICLE 63. Rules for the application of and not the numerical value of such.
indivisible penalties. In all cases in which the
law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it ARTICLE 64. Rules for the application of
shall be applied by the courts regardless of any penalties which contain three periods. (SEE
mitigating or aggravating circumstances that CODAL)
may have attended the commission of the Art. 64 applies only when the penalty has
deed. three periods

In all cases where the law prescribes a penalty
composed of two indivisible penalties the
following rules shall be observed in the
application thereof: (SEE CODAL)
Outline of the rules:
Art. 64 applies when the penalty prescribed by
law is reclusion temporal, pirsion mayor, prision
correccional, arresto mayor, arresto menor or
prision correccional to reclusion temporal
because these are divisible into three periods.
When the law prescribed a single indivisible
penalty as reclusion temporal for homicide
under Art. 76 it is understood to be divided into
three equal parts: minimum, medium,
maximum.
If the penalty is made up of three different
penalties as prision correccional to reclusion
temporal, each forms a period according to Art.
77. Thus, prision correccional the minimum,
prision mayor the medium, and reclusion
temporal the maximum. Prision mayor is
included because it is between prision
correccional and reclusion temporal.
Outline of the rules:
1. No aggravating and no mitigating –
medium period
2. Only a mitigating – minimum period
3. Only an aggravating – maximum period
4. when there are both aggravating and
mitigating – the court shall offset those of one
class against the other according to their
relative weight
5. two or more mitigating an no
aggravating – penalty next lower, in the period
applicable, according to the number and nature
of such circumstances
6. no penalty greater than the maximum
period of the penalty prescribed by law shall be
imposed, no matter how many aggravating
circumstances are present
7. the court can determine the extent of
the penalty “within the limits of each period,
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.
Art. 64 is not applicable when the penalty is
indivisible or prescribed by special law or fine.
Article 64 does not apply to
1. indivisible penalties
2. penalties by special laws
3. fine
Mitigating or Aggravating circumstances are
not considered in the following cases:
1. when the penalty is single and
indivisible
2. in felonies through negligence. The
rules for the application of penalties prescribed
by Art. 64 are not applicable to a case of
reckless imprudence under Art. 365.
3. The penalty to be prescribed on a Moro
or non-Christian inhabitants. It lies in the
discretion of the trial court, irrespective of the
attending circumstances
4. When the penalty is only a fine imposed
by an ordinance.
5. When the penalties are prescribed by a
special law.
ARTICLE 65. Rules in cases in which the penalty
is not composed of three periods. – In cases
which the penalty prescribed by law is not
composed of three periods, the courts shall
apply the rules contained int the foregoing
articles, dividing into three equal portions the
time included in the penalty prescribed, and
the forming of one period of each of the three
portions.
Meaning of rule.
1. Compute and determine first the three
periods of the entire penalty.
2. The time included in the penalty
prescribed should be divided into three equal
portions, after subtracting the minimum from
the maximum of the penalty.
3. The minimum of the minimum period
should be the minimum of the given penalty.
4. The quotient should be added to the
minimum prescribed (eliminate the 1 day) and
the total will represent the maximum of the
minimum period. Take the maximum of the
minimum period, add 1 day and make it the
minimum of the medium period; then add the
quotient to the minimum (eliminate the 1 day)
of the medium period and the total will
represent the maximum of the medium period.
Take the maximum of the medium period, add
1 day and make it the minimum of the
maximum period; then add the quotient to the
minimum (eliminate the 1 day) of the maximum
period and the total will represent the Example: prision correccional which has a
maximum of the maximum period. period of 6mos, 1day – 6yrs

Illustration of the computation when the 1. 6yrs – 6mos = 5yrs and 6mos
penalty has three periods. 2. 5yrs and 6mos / 3 = 1yr and 10mos
3. Now start with the medium to
1. Example of Prision Mayor (6yrs, 1day – maximum of prision correccional which
12yrs) is 2yrs and 4 mos to 6yrs and add 1day
2. Subtract the minimum from the 4. Then keep following the process in the
maximum: previous illustration to get the
12 years−6 years=6 years maximum and minimum of the
3. Divide the difference by three: minimum, medium of the maximum
6 years ÷3=2 years periods.
4. Use the minimum of six years and one
day of prision mayor as the minimum of ARTICLE 6. Imposition of fines. – In imposing
the minimum period. Then add two fines, the courts may fix any amount within
years to the minimum (always disregard the limits established by law; in fixing the
the one day when adding) to the get amount in each case attention shall be given,
the maximum of the minimum period. not only to the mitigating and aggravating
Thus 8 years is the maximum of the circumstances, but more particularly to the
minimum of the period. The range of wealth or means of the culprit.
the minimum period is 6yrs and 1day –
8years.
5. Use the maximum of the minimum of
period as the minimum of the medium
period, and add one day to distinguish it
from the maximum of the minimum
period; we 8 years and one day. Then
add two years to the minimum of the
medium period (disregard the one day)
to get the maximum of the medium
period. The range of the medium period
is 8yrs and 1 day to 10 years.
6. Use the maximum of the medium
period as the minimum of the
maximum period and add one day to
distinguish it from the maximum of the
medium period, we have 10yrs and
1day. Then add two years to the
minimum of the maximum period to get
the maximum of the maximum period.
Hence the range of the maximum
period is 10yrs and 1day to 12yrs.

Illustration of the computation when the

penalty is not composed of three periods.
Outline of the provision
1. The court may fix any amount within
the limits provided by law
2. The court must consider the:
a. Aggravating or mitigating
circumstances present
b. The wealth or means of the
culprit
Fines are not divided into three equal portions
The courts are not bound to divide the amount
of fine prescribed by law into three equal
portions as in the case of imprisonment
imposed in relation to divisible penalty.
Wealth or means of the culprit are the main
considerations in fine.
Obviously, to impose the same amount of fine
for the same offence upon two persons of
different means would be to mete out a
punishment of unequal severity and unjustly
discriminatory.
However, as provided in Art. 66 the courts may
also use the present aggravating and mitigating
circumstances in the imposition of the fine.
Factors such as gravity, seriousness of the
crime, heinousness of its perpetration, and the
magnitude of its effects in the offender’s victims
should certainly be considered.
Position and standing of accused considered
aggravating in gambling
a. Where a person guilty of a violation of
the Gambling Law is a man of station or
standing in the community, the
maximum penalty shall be imposed. (US
v. Salaveria.)
b. Because the accused in a gambling case
was a municipal treasurer, the court
imposed the maximum penalty
provided by law (US. Mercader.)
ARTICLE 67. Penalty to be imposed when not
all of the requisites of exemption in the fourth
circumstance of Article 12 are present. – When
all the conditions required in circumstance
number 4 of Art. 12 of this Code 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 found guilty of a grave felony,
and arresto mayor in its minimum and medium
periods, if of a less grave felony.
Art. 67 only applies when all the requisites of
the exempting circumstance of accident are
not present.
If any of the following are missing, then Art. 67
shall apply:
1. That the act causing injury be lawful,
that it is permitted not only by law but
also by regulations
2. That it be performed with due care
3. That the injury be caused by mere
accident, i.e., by an unforeseen event
4. That there be no fault or intention to
cause the injury.
If all these conditions are not present, the act
should be considered as reckless imprudence if
the act is executed without taking those
precautions or measures which the most
common prudence would require; and simple
imprudence, if it is a mere lack of precaution in
those cases where either the threatened harm
is not imminent or the danger is openly visible.
The case will fall under Art. 365 par. 1.
ARTICLE 68. Penalty to be imposed upon a
person under 18 years of age. – When the
offender is a minor under 18 years of age and
his case is once coming under the provisions of
the paragraph next to last of Article 80 of this
Code, the following rules shall be observed.
1. Upon a person under fifteen years of
age but over nine years of age, who is
 not exempt from criminal liability by
reason of the court having declared
that he acted with discernment, a
discretionary principle shall be
imposed, but always lower by two
degrees at least than that prescribed
by law for the crime which he
committed.
2. Upon a person over fifteen but below
eighteen years of age the penalty next
lower than that prescribed by law shall
be imposed, but always in the proper
period.
Article 68 has been partially repealed by RA
9344.
RA 9344 now provides that a child below 15
years of age is exempt from criminal
responsibility, and above 15 years of age but
below 18 years of age is exempt from criminal
liability unless he/she has acted with
discernment. (Sec. 6, RA 9344)
RA. 9344 was further amended by RA 1060, An
Act Strengthening the Juvenile Justice System in
the Philippines.
Child under 15 years
A child 15 years and under at the time of the
commission of the offense is exempt from
criminal liability. The child shall be immediately
release to the custody of his/her parents or
guardian, or the child’s nearest relative and be
subject to a community-based intervention
program supervised by the local social welfare
and development center officer (LSWDO),
unless the best interest of the child requires the
referral of the child to a youth care facility or
“Bahay Pagasa” (Sec. RA 9344, as amended)
A child above 12 but below 15 who commits
serious crimes.
A child who is above 12 years of age up to 15
years and who commits parricide, murder,
infanticide, kidnapping, and serious illegal
detention where the victim is killed or raped,
robbery with homicide or rape, destructive
arson, rape, or carnapping where the driver or
occupant is killed or raped or offenses under RA
9165 punishable by more than 12 years of
imprisonment, shall be deemed a neglected
child.
He shall be mandatorily placed in a special
facility within the youth care faculty or “Bahay
Pag-asa” called the Intensive Juvenile
Intervention and Support Center (IJISC). (Sec.
20-A, RA 9344.)
Child above 12 but under 15 who commits
another offense.
A child who is above 12 up to 15 and who
commits an offense for the second time or
oftener who was previously subjected to a
community-based intervention program shall
be deemed a neglected child.
He shall undergo an intensive intervention
program supervised by the LSWDO. If the
interest of the child requires that he/she be
placed in a youth care facility or “Bahay Pag-
asa,” the child’s parents or guardian shall
execute a written authorization for the
voluntary commitment of the child.
if the child has no parents or guardians or if
they refuse or fail to execute the written
authorization for voluntary commitment, the
proper petition for involuntary commitment
shall be immediately filed by the DSWD or the
LSWDO pursuant to Presidential Decree No.
603, as amended." (Sec. 20-B, RA 10630)
Child above 15 years but under 18
"A child above fifteen (15) years but below
eighteen (18) years of age shall likewise be
exempt from criminal liability and be subjected
to an intervention program, unless he/she has
acted with discernment, in which case, such
child shall be subjected to the appropriate
proceedings in accordance with this Act. (Sec. 6,
RA 9344 as amended)
Penalty to be imposed
If the court finds that the objective of the
disposition measures imposed upon the child in
conflict with the law have not been fulfilled, or
if the child in conflict with the law has willfully
failed to comply with the conditions of his/her
disposition or rehabilitation program, the child
in conflict with the law shall be brought before
the court for execution of judgment. (Sec. 40,
RA 9344.) The penalty to be imposed on the
child on conflict with the law shall be that
provided for in paragraph 2 of Art. 68, that is,
the penalty next lower than that prescribed by
law.
Exemption from criminal liability does not
exempt from civil liability
The exemption herein established from criminal
liability does not include exemption from civil
liability which shall be enforced in accordance
with existing laws. (Sec. 6, RA 9344 as
amended)
Liability for Damages
"The parents shall be liable for damages unless
they prove, to the satisfaction of the court, that
they were exercising reasonable supervision
over the child at the time the child committed
the offense and exerted reasonable effort and
utmost diligence to prevent or discourage the
child from committing another offense." (Sec.
20-D, RA 9344 as amended)
Probation as an alternative to imprisonment
The court may, after it shall have convicted and
sentenced the child in conflict with the law, and
upon application at any time, place the child on
probation in lieu of service of his/her sentence
taking into account the best interest of the
child. For this purpose, Section 4 of PD 968,
otherwise known as the Probation Law of 1976
is hereby amended accordingly.
ARTICLE 69. Penalty to be imposed when the
crime committed is not wholly excusable. – A
penalty one or two degrees lower 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 Articles 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 manner and nature of
the conditions of exemption present of lacking.
Unlawful aggression is indispensable in self-
defense, defense of relatives and defense of
stranger.
The first requisite of self-defense as found in
subsections 1,2, and 3 of Art. 1 is unlawful
aggression. It must always be present in all
cases of self-defense. For even if the other two
requisites are present in the situation, and
unlawful aggression be absent, the penalty will
not be reduced, for the primordial element in
self-defense, unlawful aggression, is lacking.
In the several cases mentioned in Art. 11 and
12
The privileged mitigating circumstances
contemplated in Art. 69 include the incomplete
justifying and exempting circumstances,
provided most of their conditions are present.
“Provided the majority of such conditions are
present”
In the case of People v. Alvares, the CA refused
to apply this Article since only unlawful
aggression was present. For article 69 to apply,
the majority of the conditions required must be
present. Only when the majority of the
conditions of justifying or exempting from
criminal liability, may the penalty be lowered
one or two degrees.
“A penalty lower by one or two degrees than
that prescribed shall be imposed XXX in the
period which may be deemed proper, in view
of the number and nature of the conditions of
exemption present of lacking.”
In view of this clause in Art. 69, the court has
the discretion to impose one or two degrees
lower than that prescribed by law for the
offense.
But in determining the proper period of the
penalty of one or two degrees lower, the court
may consider the number and nature of the
condition of exemption or justification present
or lacking.
When the majority of the requisites of self-
defense and two mitigating without
aggravating circumstances are present, the
penalty is three degrees lower.
Thus if, the accused charged with homicide
punishable by reclusion temporal proved
unlawful aggression on the part of the
deceased and another requisite of self-defense;
plus two mitigating circumstances of surrender
and obfuscation, without any aggravating
circumstance, the proper penalty for him is
arresto mayor medium from 2mos, 1day to
4mos.
ARTICLE 70. Successive service of sentences. –
When the culprit has to serve two or more
penalties, he shall serve them simultaneously
if the nature of the penalties will so permit;
otherwise, the following rules shall be
observed:
In the imposition of penalties, the order of
their respective severity shall be followed so
that they may be executed successively or as
nearly as may be possible, should a pardon
have been granted as to the penalty or
penalties first imposed, or should they have
been served out.
For the purpose of applying the provisions of
the next preceding paragraph the respective
severity of the penalties shall be determined in
accordance with the following scale:
1. Death
2. Reclusion perpetua
3. Reclusion temporal
4. Prision mayor
5. Prision corrccional
6. Arresto mayor
7. Arrresto menor
8. Destierro
9. Perpetual absolute disqualification
10. Temporary absolute disqualification
11. Suspension from public office, the right
to vote and be voted for, the right to
follow profession or calling, and
12. Public censure
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 of those
imposed equals the said 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 by Com. Act 217.)
Outline of the provisions of this Article:
1. When the culprit has to serve two or
more penalties, he shall serve them
simultaneously if the nature of the
penalties will so permit.
2. Otherwise the order of their severity
shall be followed.
3. The order of severity is as follows:
a. Death
b. Reculusion perpetua
c. Reclusion temporal
d. Prision mayor
e. Prision menor
 f. Arresto mayor
g. Arresto menor
h. Destierro
i. Perpetual absolute
disqualification
j. Temporary absolute
disqualification
k. Suspension from public office,
the right to vote and be voted
for, and the right to follow
profession or calling; and
l. Public censure
Penalties which may be simultaneously served
are:
a. Perpetual absolute disqualification
b. Perpetual special disqualification
c. Temporary absolute disqualification
d. Temporary special disqualification
e. Suspension
f. Destierro
g. Public censure
h. Fine and bond to keep the peace
i. Civil interdiction
j. Confiscation and payment of costs
The above penalties, except destierro may be
served simultaneously with imprisonment.
Penalties consisting in deprivation of liberty
cannot be served simultaneously by reason of
the nature of such penalties.
The order of the respective severity of the
penalties shall be followed so that they may be
executed successively.
What is meant by this is that the person
sentenced tom imprisonment should serve his
sentence successively. One sentence after the
other.
Three-fold rule.
According to the three-fold rule, the
maximum duration of the convict’s sentence
shall not be more than three times the length of
time corresponding to the most severe if the
penalties imposed upon him. This means that
the person who is sentence to several penalties
of imprisonment for various crimes, that the
maximum duration of the sentence with which
he shall serve shall not exceed the duration of 3
times as much as the most severe penalty to be
imposed upon him. If the most severe penalty is
15 years then 3 times of it is 45 years, his entire
sentence for all the offenses shall not exceed 45
years. However, the law provides that the
maximum term of imprisonment shall not
exceed 40 years.
The phrase the most severe of the penalties
includes equal penalties.
Thus, the petitioner for habeas corpus
who had been sentenced in six different cases
of estafa, in each of which he was penalized
with three months and 11 days of arresto
mayor, cannot be made to suffer more than
three months and 11 days multiplied by 3 or
nine months and 33 days.
The three-fold rule applies only when the
convict has to serve at least four sentences.
This is because the sum of the less than
penalties will be less severe than if the most
severe of the three or less is multiplied by
three. But in the case of 4 penalties to be
served, the sum of the 4 or more would be
more severe than the product of three times
the most severe penalty of the 4 or more
penalties.
All the penalties, even if by different courts at
different times, cannot exceed three-fold the
most severe.
The threefold rule applies even if the penalties
were imposed for different crimes, at different
times, and under different informations or
different courts.
The reason for this is that the Rules of Court
specifically provides that an information must
not charge more than one offense. Necessarily
various offenses should be in different
informations.
Duration of the convict’s sentence refers to
several different offenses, not yet served out.
This applies only when the convict has to serve
out continuous penalties of imprisonment for
several offenses. If the penalties are not
continuous then the threefold rule will not
apply.
Subsidiary imprisonment forms part of the
penalty.
The imposition of threefold maximum
penalty under Art. 70 does not preclude
subsidiary imprisonment for failure to pay a
fine.
The rule is to multiply the highest
penalty by three and the result will be the
aggregate principal of all indemnities with or
without subsidiary imprisonment, provided the
principal penalty does not exceed six years.
The subsidiary imprisonment for
nonpayment of the fine cannot be eliminated so
long as the principal penalty is not higher than
six years of imprisonment. If the prisoner
cannot pay the fine the imprisonment may
exceed that of the threefold rule as according to
subsidiary imprisonment.
The provision of Art. 70 that “no other
penalty to which he may be liable shall be
inflicted after the sum total of those imposed
equals the said maximum period,” simply
means that the convict shall not serve the
excess over the maximum of threefold the most
severe penalty. For instance, if the aggregate of
the principal penalties is six years and that is
reduced to two years under the threefold rule
he shall not be required to serve the remaining
four years.
Indemnity is a penalty.
According to the case of Arlinda v.
Director of prisons, the Court held that
indemnity is a penalty for all intents and
purposes although pecuniary in character.
Article 70 makes no distinction between the
principal penalty and the subsidiary
imprisonment.
Courts must impose all the penalties for all
crimes of which the accused is found guilty,
but in service of the same, they shall not
exceed three times the most severe and shall
not exceed 40 years.
The threefold rule is applied, not in the
imposition of the penalties but in connection
with the service of the sentences imposed.
Article 70 is concerned exclusively with
the service of sentence; it speaks of duration of
penalty and penalty to be inflicted. It has
nothing to do with the imposition of the proper
penalty. Nowhere is it there envisioned that the
court should make a computation, and in its
decision, sentence the culprit to not more than
threefold of the most severe of the penalties
imposable upon him. Computation is for the
prison authorities to undertake. (People v.
Salazar)
To or more death penalties imposed on one
convict.
Multiple death penalties are not
impossible to serve because they will have to be
executed simultaneously. A cursory reading of
Art. 70 will show that there are only two modes
of serving two or more penalties:
simultaneously or successively. The first rule is
that two or more penalties shall be served
simultaneously if the nature of the penalties will
so permit. In the case of multiple capital
penalties, the nature of said penal sanctions
does not only permit but necessitates
simultaneous service.
The imposition of multiple death
penalties is not without practicality. The
imposition of multiple death penalties is done several penalties imposed on one and
to show the great perversity and lack of the same culprit is limited to not more
morality of the offender in the commission of than threefold of the most severe
crimes that constitute the death penalty. penalty and in no case should not
Another reason is that this may serve as a exceed 40 years.
warning to the President in granting pardons to
persons convicted as such. Faced with utter 3. The absorption system (lesser penalties
delinquency of such a convict, the proper are absorbed by the graver penalties)
penitentiary authorities would exercise
judicious restraint in recommending clemency  The absorption system is observed in
or leniency in his behalf. the imposition of the penalty in
complex crimes (Art. 48), continuing
Granting, however that the President, crimes and specific crimes like robbery
in the exercise of his constitutional power to with homicide.
pardon deems it proper to commute the
multiple death penalties to multiple life
imprisonments, then the practical effect is that
the convict must serve the maximum of 40
years of multiple life sentences. If only one
death penalty is imposed, and then is
commuted to life imprisonment, the convict will
have to serve a maximum of only 30 years of
corresponding to a single life sentence.

Different systems of penalty.

There are three different systems of

penalty relative to the execution of two or more
penalties imposed on one and the same
accused they are:

1. The material accumulation system

 Previous legislation adopted the theory

of absolute accumulation of crimes and
penalties and established no limitations
whatever, and accordingly, all the
penalties for all violations were
imposed even if they reached beyond
the natural span of human life. Pars. 1-3
of Art. 70 follow the material
accumulation system.

2. The juridical accumulation system; and

 Paragraphs 4-6 of Art. 70 are in

accordance with the juridical
accumulation system. The service of the