Computation of Penalties & Indeterminate Sentence Law PDF

PENALTIES: COMPUTATION WITH THE INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra  COVERAGE Revised Penal Code, Title Three, Articles 21 to 88 Exclude the following provisions: ❖ Article 80 (repealed by Republic Act No. 9344) ❖ Articles 81 t...

PENALTIES: COMPUTATION WITH THE INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra  COVERAGE Revised Penal Code, Title Three, Articles 21 to 88 Exclude the following provisions: ❖ Article 80 (repealed by Republic Act No. 9344) ❖ Articles 81 to 85 (because Republic Act No. 9346 expressly prohibits the imposition of death penalty) Note that Republic Act No. 9344 amended Article 68 Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act No. 4103, as amended by Act No. 4225 and Republic Act No. 4203) Article 21, RPC Penalties that may be imposed. - No felony shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law prior to its commission.  NULLUM CRIMEN NULLA POENA SINE LEGE  Classification (RPC, Article 25, in relation to Article 9) Article 25 classifies penalties into: A. PRINCIPAL PENALTIES (those expressly specified in the judgment of conviction); and B. ACCESSORY PENALTIES (those deemed included in the principal penalty and do not have to be expressly specified in the judgment of conviction)  Classification (RPC, Article 25, in relation to Article 9) PRINCIPAL PENALTIES may further be classified according to gravity, to wit: a. Capital Penalty (i.e., death); b. Afflictive Penalties (i.e., reclusion perpetua, reclusion temporal, perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification, perpetual or temporary special disqualification, prision mayor); c. Correctional Penalties (i.e., prision correccional, arresto mayor, suspension, destierro);  Classification (RPC, Article 25, in relation to Article 9) PRINCIPAL PENALTIES may further be classified according to gravity, to wit: d. Light Penalties (i.e., arresto menor, public censure); and e. Penalties common to afflictive, correctional and light penalties (i.e., fine, bond to keep the peace).  Classification (RPC, Article 25, in relation to Article 9) PRINCIPAL PENALTIES may further be classified according to gravity. * This classification corresponds to the classification of the felonies in Article 9, into grave, less grave and light. Art. 9. Grave felonies, less grave felonies and light felonies. — GRAVE FELONIES are those to which the law attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive, in accordance with Art. 25 of this Code.  Classification (RPC, Article 25, in relation to Article 9) PRINCIPAL PENALTIES may further be classified according to gravity. LESS GRAVE FELONIES are those which the law punishes with penalties which in their maximum period are correctional, in accordance with the above-mentioned article. LIGHT FELONIES are those infractions of law for the commission of which a penalty of arrest menor or a fine not exceeding 40,000.00 pesos or both, is provided.  Classification (RPC, Article 25, in relation to Article 9) PRINCIPAL PENALTIES may also be classified according to divisibility, to wit: a. INDIVISIBLE PENALTIES – those that have no fixed duration and therefore cannot be divided into periods, such as: ▪ Death ▪ Reclusion Perpetua (Under R.A. No. 7659, amending Article 27, RPC, the duration of reclusion perpetua is fixed at 20 years and 1 day to 40 years. However, in People v. Lucas [G.R. Nos. 108172-73, 9 January 1995), the Supreme Court ruled that reclusion perpetua shall remain an indivisible penalty) ▪ Perpetual absolute or special disqualification ▪ Public Censure  Classification (RPC, Article 25, in relation to Article 9) PRINCIPAL PENALTIES may also be classified according to divisibility, to wit: a. INDIVISIBLE PENALTIES People v. Jacinto (G.R. No. 182239, 16 March 2011) Under Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code, when the offender is a minor under 18 years, the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be imposed, but always in the proper period. However, for purposes of determining the proper penalty because of the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority, the penalty of death is still the penalty to be reckoned with. Thus, the proper imposable penalty for the accused-appellant is reclusion perpetua.  Classification (RPC, Article 25, in relation to Article 9) PRINCIPAL PENALTIES may also be classified according to divisibility, to wit: b. DIVISIBLE PENALTIES – those that have a fixed duration and therefore can be divided into three periods, such as: ▪ Reclusion Temporal; ▪ Temporary special disqualification ▪ Prision Mayor; ▪ Prision Correccional; ▪ Arresto Mayor; ▪ Suspension; ▪ Destierro; and ▪ Arresto Menor.  Classification (RPC, Article 25, in relation to Article 9) ACCESSORY PENALTIES, which are deemed included in the imposition of principal penalties, are as follows: ▪ Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification; ▪ Perpetual or temporary special disqualification; ▪ Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, the profession or calling; ▪ Civil interdiction; ▪ Indemnification; ▪ Forfeiture or confiscation of instruments and proceeds of the offense; and ▪ Payment of costs.  Penalty for Complex Crimes (RPC, Art. 48) ARTICLE 48. Penalty for Complex Crimes. — When a single act constitutes two or more crimes, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period.  Penalty for Complex Crimes (RPC, Art. 48) Question: A committed direct assault with homicide. What is the penalty to be imposed? Answer: Reclusion temporal in its maximum period. The penalty for direct assault is prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods (Article 148). Whereas, homicide is punishable by reclusion temporal (Art. 249). Thus, the penalty of the more serious crime shall be imposed in its maximum period.  Order of Severity (RPC, Art. 70) Successive service of sentence. — When the culprit has to serve two or more penalties, he shall serve them simultaneously if the nature of the penalties will so permit; otherwise, the following rules shall be observed: In the imposition of the penalties, the order of their respective severity shall be followed so that they may be executed successively or as nearly as may be possible, should a pardon have been granted as to the penalty or penalties first imposed, or should they have been served out. For the purpose of applying the provisions of the next preceding paragraph, the respective severity of the penalties shall be determined in accordance with the following scale: xxx xxx xxx  Order of Severity (RPC, Art. 70) xxx xxx xxx 1. Death, 2. Reclusion perpetua, 3. Reclusion temporal, 4. Prision mayor, 5. Prision correccional, 6. Arresto mayor, 7. Arresto menor, 8. Destierro, 9. Perpetual absolute disqualification, 10 Temporal absolute disqualification. 11. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, the right to follow a profession or calling, and 12. Public censure.  Three-fold Rule (RPC, Art. 70) Notwithstanding the provisions of the rule next preceding, the maximum duration of the convict's sentence shall not be more than three-fold the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed upon him. No other penalty to which he may be liable shall be inflicted after the sum total of those imposed equals the same maximum period. Such maximum period shall in no case exceed forty years. In applying the provisions of this rule, the duration of perpetual penalties (pena perpetua) shall be computed at thirty years. (As amended). Preventive Imprisonment (Art. 29) and Good Conduct Allowance (Art. 97) Note: It is the Bureau of Corrections (BuCor) and Board of Pardons and Paroles (BJMP) that is primarily tasked in computing the: (a) period of preventive imprisonment, for the deduction from imprisonment terms; and (b) allowance of Good Conduct  People v. Conrado Lucas (G.R. Nos. 108172-73, 9 January 1995) Although Section 17 of R.A. No. 7659 has fixed the duration of reclusion perpetua from twenty (20) years and one (1) day to forty (40) years, there was no clear legislative intent to alter its original classification as an indivisible penalty. It shall then remain as an indivisible penalty. There is no computation needed at all for reclusion perpetua. Impose it as it is.  Graduated scales (RPC, Art. 71) In the case in which the law prescribed a penalty lower or higher by one or more degrees than another given penalty, the rules prescribed in Article 61 shall be observed in graduating such penalty. The lower or higher penalty shall be taken from the graduated scale in which is comprised the given penalty. The courts, in applying such lower or higher penalty, shall observe the following graduated scales:  Graduated scales (RPC, Art. 71) SCALE NO. 1 SCALE NO. 2 1. Death, 1. Perpetual absolute 2. Reclusion perpetua, disqualification, 3. Reclusion temporal, 2. Temporal absolute 4. Prision mayor, disqualification 5. Prision correccional, 3. Suspension from 6. Arresto mayor, public office, the right to 7. Destierro, vote and be 8. Arresto menor, voted for, the right to 9. Public censure, follow a profession or 10. Fine. calling, 4. Public censure, 5. Fine  Rules for Graduating Penalties (RPC, Article 61) 1. When the penalty prescribed for the felony is single and indivisible, the penalty next lower in degrees shall be that immediately following that indivisible penalty in the respective graduated scale prescribed in Article 71 of the Revised Penal Code. Reclusion Perpetua Penalty prescribed for Simple Rape Reclusion temporal Penalty next lower in degree  Rules for Graduating Penalties (RPC, Article 61) 2. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of two indivisible penalties, or of one or more divisible penalties to be imposed to their full extent, the penalty next lower in degree shall be that immediately following the lesser of the penalties prescribed in the respective graduated scale. Two indivisible penalties Death Penalty prescribed for Serious Reclusion Perpetua Illegal Detention Penalty next lower Reclusion Temporal in degree  Rules for Graduating Penalties (RPC, Article 61) 2. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of two indivisible penalties, or of one or more divisible penalties to be imposed to their full extent, the penalty next lower in degree shall be that immediately following the lesser of the penalties prescribed in the respective graduated scale. One divisible penalty to be imposed to their full extent Reclusion Temporal Penalty prescribed for Homicide Prision Mayor Penalty next lower in degree  Rules for Graduating Penalties (RPC, Article 61) 2. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of two indivisible penalties, or of one or more divisible penalties to be imposed to their full extent, the penalty next lower in degree shall be that immediately following the lesser of the penalties prescribed in the respective graduated scale. Two or more divisible penalties to be imposed to their full extent Prision Mayor Penalty prescribed Prision Correccional Penalty next lower Arresto Mayor in degree  Rules for Graduating Penalties (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. One indivisible penalty and the maximum of another divisible penalty Reclusion Perpetua Penalty prescribed Maximum Reclusion Temporal Medium Penalty next lower Minimum in degree Maximum Prision Mayor Medium Minimum  Rules for Graduating Penalties (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. Two indivisible penalties and the maximum of another divisible penalty Death Reclusion Perpetua Penalty prescribed Maximum Reclusion Temporal Medium Minimum Penalty next lower in degree Maximum Prision Mayor Medium Minimum  Rules for Graduating Penalties (RPC, Article 61) 4. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of several periods, corresponding to different divisible penalties, the penalty next lower in degree shall be composed of the period immediately following the minimum prescribed and of the two next following, which shall be taken from the penalty prescribed, if possible; otherwise, from the penalty immediately following in the above mentioned respective graduated scale. When penalty has three or more periods Maximum Reclusion Temporal Medium Minimum Penalty prescribed Maximum Prision Mayor Medium Minimum Penalty next lower in degree Maximum Prision Correccional Medium Minimum  Rules for Graduating Penalties (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. When penalty has two periods Maximum Reclusion Temporal Medium Penalty prescribed Minimum Maximum Penalty next lower Prision Mayor Medium in degree Minimum  Rules for Graduating Penalties (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. When penalty has one period Maximum Reclusion Temporal Medium Penalty prescribed Penalty next lower Minimum in degree  Rules for Graduating Penalties (RPC, Article 61) Tabulation of the Provisions of the Chapter Effect of the Attendance of Mitigating or Aggravating Circumstances and of Habitual Delinquency (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) When in the commission of the crime, advantage was taken by the offender of his public position, the penalty to be imposed shall be in its maximum regardless of mitigating circumstances. Example: A, a municipal mayor, was convicted of Slight Illegal Detention. The trial court found that A took advantage of his public position. However, the Trial Court also appreciated the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and confession. The penalty to be imposed: Maximum Penalty to be imposed Reclusion Medium Temporal Minimum Effect of the Attendance of Mitigating or Aggravating Circumstances and of Habitual Delinquency (RPC, Article 62) The maximum penalty shall be imposed if the offense was committed by any group who belongs to an organized/syndicated crime group. An organized/syndicated crime group means a group of two or more persons collaborating, confederating or mutually helping one another for purposes of gain in the commission of any crime. Effect of the Attendance of Mitigating or Aggravating Circumstances and of Habitual Delinquency (RPC, Article 62) The maximum penalty shall be imposed if the offense was committed by any group who belongs to an organized/syndicated crime group. Example: A, B, and C committed Robbery as members of a syndicated crime group. They, however, voluntarily surrendered and confessed. The penalty to be imposed: Maximum Penalty to be imposed Reclusion Medium Temporal Minimum Effect of the Attendance of Mitigating or Aggravating Circumstances and of Habitual Delinquency (RPC, Article 62) 2. The same rule shall apply with respect to any aggravating circumstance inherent in the crime to such a degree that it must of necessity accompany the commission thereof. 3. Aggravating or mitigating circumstances which arise from the moral attributes of the offender, or from his private relations with the offended party, or from any other personal cause, shall only serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of the principals, accomplices and accessories as to whom such circumstances are attendant. Effect of the Attendance of Mitigating or Aggravating Circumstances and of Habitual Delinquency (RPC, Article 62) 4. The circumstances which consist in the material execution of the act, or in the means employed to accomplish it, shall serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of those persons only who had knowledge of them at the time of the execution of the act or their cooperation therein. Effect of the Attendance of Mitigating or Aggravating Circumstances and of Habitual Delinquency (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 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.  Quasi-recidivism (RPC, Article 160) Any person who shall commit a felony after having been convicted by final judgment, before beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving the same, shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new felony. Example: There is one mitigating circumstance and the special aggravating circumstance of quasi-recidivism. The penalty to be imposed: Penalty to be imposed, regardless of Maximum the existence of mitigating circumstances. Prision Medium Correccional Minimum  Imposition of fines (RPC, Article 66) In imposing fines, the courts may fix any amount within the limits established by law; in fixing the amount in each case attention shall be given, not only to the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, but more particularly to the wealth or means of the culprit.  Penalty for Incomplete Accident (RPC, Article 67) When all the conditions required in circumstances Number 4 of Article 12 of the RPC to exempt from criminal liability are not present, the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon the culprit if he shall have been guilty of a grave felony, and arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if of a less grave felony.  Penalty to be imposed upon a Minor (Article 68 of the RPC, as amended by R.A. No. 9344) While an offender over 9 years but under 15 years who acts with discernment is not exempt from criminal liability under Article 68, and a discretionary penalty shall be imposed which shall always be lower by 2 degrees than that prescribed by law for the crime committed, said offender is exempt from criminal liability under R.A. No. 9344; hence, no penalty shall be imposed. When an offender is over 15 but under 18 years of age, the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be imposed under Article 68, while under R.A. No. 9344, the offender shall be exempt from criminal liability unless he/she acted with discernment.  Penalty to be imposed upon a Minor (Article 68 of the RPC, as amended by R.A. No. 9344) Example: A, 17 years old, committed homicide against B. The trial court found him to have acted with discernment. Penalty to be imposed: Maximum Reclusion Penalty prescribed by Article 249 for Temporal Medium homicide. Minimum Penalty to be imposed – it Maximum should be reduced first by one degree because of the presence of the privileged mitigating Prision Medium circumstance of minority. Since Mayor there is no ordinary mitigating or aggravating circumstances, Minimum the penalty to be imposed must be in its medium period.  Penalty to be imposed upon a Minor (Article 68 of the RPC, as amended by R.A. No. 9344) Example: A, 17 years old, committed Slight Illegal Detention against B. The trial court found him to have acted with discernment. In committing the crime, A employed means to weaken B’s defense Penalty to be imposed: Maximum Reclusion Penalty prescribed by Article 249 for Temporal Medium homicide. Minimum Maximum Penalty to be imposed – it should be reduced first by one degree because of the presence of the Prision privileged mitigating circumstance Mayor Medium of minority. Since there is an aggravating circumstances, the penalty to be imposed must be in Minimum its maximum period. Penalty to be imposed when the crime committed is not wholly excusable (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 to be imposed when the crime committed is not wholly excusable (RPC, Article 69) Example: A was convicted of Homicide but the court appreciated the privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense. The court may impose penalty lower by one or two degrees than that prescribed for Homicide. Maximum Reclusion Temporal Medium Penalty prescribed by Art. 249 Minimum Maximum Prision Mayor Medium Penalty lower by one degree Minimum Maximum Prision Correccional Medium Penalty lower by two degrees Minimum  Additional Penalty to be imposed 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.  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.  Diagram of Application of Articles 50 to 57 Principals Accomplices Accessories Consummated 0 1 2 Frustrated 1 2 3 Attempted 2 3 4 Note: “0” represents the penalty prescribed by law in defining a crime, which is to be imposed on the principal in a consummated offense, in accordance with Article 46 of the RPC. The other figures represent the degrees to which the penalty must be lowered, to meet the different situations anticipated by law. ARTICLES 50 – 57. EXTENT OF THE PENALTY TO BE IMPOSED UNDER THE RPC Example: The penalty prescribed for Homicide is reclusion temporal (Article 249) Consummated Frustrated Attempted Reclusion Prision Prision Temporal Mayor Correccional (Article 46. The penalty (Article 50. The penalty (Article 51. A penalty prescribed by law for next lower in degree lower by two degrees the commission of a than that prescribed by than that prescribed by Principals felony shall be imposed law for the law for the upon the principals in consummated felony consummated felony the commission of such shall be imposed upon shall be imposed upon felony. Whenever the the principal in a the principals in an law prescribes a frustrated felony.) attempt to commit a penalty for a felony is felony.) general terms, it shall be understood as applicable to the consummated felony.)  ARTICLES 50 – 57. EXTENT OF THE PENALTY TO BE IMPOSED UNDER THE RPC Example: The penalty prescribed for Homicide is reclusion temporal (Article 249) Consummated Frustrated Attempted Prision Prision Arresto Mayor Correccional Mayor (Article 52. The penalty (Article 54. The penalty (Article 56. The penalty Accomplices next lower in degree next lower in degree next lower in degree than that prescribed by than prescribed by law than that prescribed by law for the for the frustrated law for an attempt to consummated shall be felony shall be imposed commit a felony shall imposed upon the upon the accomplices be imposed upon the accomplices in the in the commission of a accomplices in an commission of a frustrated felony.) attempt to commit the consummated felony.) felony.)  ARTICLES 50 – 57. EXTENT OF THE PENALTY TO BE IMPOSED UNDER THE RPC The penalty prescribed for Homicide is reclusion temporal (Article 249) Consummated Frustrated Attempted Prision Arresto Arresto Correccional Mayor Menor (Article 53. The (Article 55. The penalty (Article 57. The penalty penalty lower by two lower by two degrees lower by two degrees Accessories degrees than that than that prescribed by than that prescribed by prescribed by law for law for the frustrated law for the attempted the consummated felony shall be imposed felony shall be imposed felony shall be upon the accessories to upon the accessories to imposed upon the the commission of a the attempt to commit accessories to the frustrated felony.) a felony.) commission of a consummated felony.)  Exceptions to the rules under Articles 50 to 57 The provisions contained in Articles 50 to 57, inclusive, shall not be applicable to cases in which the law expressly prescribes the penalty provided for a frustrated or attempted felony, or to be imposed upon accomplices or accessories (RPC, Article 60).  Exceptions to the rules under Articles 50 to 57 (RPC, Article 250). The courts, in view of the facts of the case, may impose upon the person guilty of the frustrated crime of parricide, murder or homicide, defined and penalized in the preceding articles, a penalty lower by one degree than that which should be imposed under the provision of Article 50. The courts, considering the facts of the case, may likewise reduce by one degree the penalty which under article 51 should be imposed for an attempt to commit any of such crimes.  Article 250 Article 50 If (a penalty lower Par. 1 (one degree Consummated by one degree lower) than Article 50) Parricide Reclusion Reclusion Prision Mayor or Murder Perpetua to Temporal Death Homicide Reclusion Prision Mayor Prision Temporal Correccional  Article 250 Article 51 (a penalty If Par. 2 (two degrees lower by one Consummated lower) degree than Article 51) Parricide Reclusion Prision Mayor Prision or Murder Perpetua to Correccional Death Homicide Reclusion Prision Arresto Mayor Temporal correccional Bases for the determination of the extent of penalty to be imposed under the RPC 1. The stage reached by the crime in its development (either attempted, frustrated or consummated); 2. The participations therein of the persons liable; and 3. The aggravating or mitigating circumstances which attended the commission of the crime. In the different stages of execution in the commission of the crime and in the participation therein of the persons liable, the penalty is graduated by degree.  Duration of Penalties (Art. 27) The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be from twenty (20) years and one (1) day to forty (40) years. The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years. The duration of the penalties of prision mayor and temporary disqualification shall be from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years, except when the penalty of disqualification is imposed as an accessory penalty, in which case, its duration shall be that of the principal penalty.  Duration of Penalties (Art. 27) The duration of the penalties of prision correccional, suspension and destierro shall be from six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years, except when suspension is imposed as an accessory penalty, in which case, its duration shall be that of the principal penalty. The duration of the penalty of arresto mayor shall be from one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months. The duration of the penalty of arresto menor shall be from (1) one day to thirty (30) days. The bond to keep the peace shall be required to cover such period of time as the court may determine.  Subsidiary 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 2. When the principal penalty imposed be only a fine, the subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed six months, if the culprit shall have been prosecuted for a grave or less grave felony, and shall not exceed fifteen days, if for a light felony. 3. When the principal penalty imposed is higher than prision correccional, no subsidiary imprisonment shall be imposed upon the culprit.  Subsidiary 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.  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. Penalty to be imposed for Simple Rape, regardless of any ordinary Reclusion Perpetua mitigating, or aggravating circumstances  Rules for the Application of Indivisible Penalties (RPC, Article 63) In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the following rules shall be observed in the application thereof: 1. When in the commission of the deed there is present only one aggravating circumstance, the greater penalty shall be applied. Example: A is convicted with Serious Illegal detention. The trial court appreciated the aggravating circumstance of night time. The penalty to be imposed: Death Penalty to be imposed Penalty prescribed for Serious Illegal Detention Reclusion Perpetua Note: The imposition of the penalty of death is hereby prohibited. In lieu of the death penalty, the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed.  Rules for the Application of Indivisible Penalties (RPC, Article 63) In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the following rules shall be observed in the application thereof: 2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances, the lesser penalty shall be applied. Example: A is convicted with the Parricide without any mitigating or aggravating circumstances. The penalty to be imposed: Death Penalty prescribed for Parricide under Article 246. Penalty to be imposed because there are no mitigating Reclusion Perpetua or aggravating circumstances  Rules for the Application of Indivisible Penalties (RPC, Article 63) In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the following rules shall be observed in the application thereof: 3. When the commission of the act is attended by some mitigating circumstance and there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied. Example: B was convicted of the crime of Murder. The trial court appreciated the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender. The penalty to be imposed: Death Penalty prescribed for Murder under Article 248. Penalty to be imposed because the voluntary Reclusion Perpetua surrender  Rules for the Application of Indivisible Penalties (RPC, Article 63) 4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the act, the court shall reasonably allow them to offset one another in consideration of their number and importance, for the purpose of applying the penalty in accordance with the preceding rules, according to the result of such compensation. Example: B was convicted of the crime of Murder. The trial court appreciated the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and confession, and the aggravating circumstance of consideration of a reward. The penalty to be imposed: Death Penalty prescribed for Murder under Article 248. Penalty to be imposed because, after applying the Reclusion Perpetua off-set rule, there is still one mitigating circumstances  Rules for the Application of Indivisible Penalties Special Mitigating Circumstance Accused was found guilty of parricide punishable by the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. Applying the rules for application of indivisible penalties (Article 63), the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be applied if there are two mitigating circumstance. The penalty cannot be lowered to reclusion temporal, no matter how many mitigating circumstances are present. The special mitigating circumstance is found in rules for application of divisible penalties (Article 64), which is not applicable because the penalty is not divisible (People v. Takbobo, G.R. No. 102984, June 30, 1993). The Takbobo principle is also applicable if the penalty prescribed by law for the crime committed is a single indivisible penalty such as reclusion perpetua. If there are three mitigating circumstance and one aggravating circumstance, special mitigating circumstance for purposes of graduating the penalty shall not be appreciated. Although there are two remaining mitigating circumstances after applying the off-set rule, the penalty shall not be lowered by one degree because the appreciation of special circumstance requires that there is no aggravating circumstance.  Rules for the Application of Indivisible Penalties Offset Rule Only ordinary aggravating and mitigating circumstances are subject to the offset rule. Privileged mitigating circumstance of minority cannot be off-set by ordinary aggravating circumstance (Aballe v. People, G.R. No. L-64086, March 15, 1990). If privileged mitigating circumstance and ordinary aggravating circumstance attended the commission of felony, the former shall be taken into account in graduating penalty; the latter in applying the graduated penalty in its maximum period (People v. Lumandong, G.R. NO. 132745, March 9, 2000, En Banc). Quasi-recidivism is a special circumstance and cannot be offset by a generic mitigating circumstance (People v. Macariola, G.R. No. L-40757, January 24, 2983). The circumstance of treachery, which qualifies the killing into murder, cannot be offset by a generic mitigating circumstance voluntary surrender (people v. Abletes and Pamero, G.R. No. L-33304, July 31, 1974).  Application of Divisible Penalties There are four kinds of divisible penalty, which are governed by Article 64, to wit: (1) Penalty composed of three periods fixed in accordance with Article 76; (2) Penalty not composed of three periods computed in accordance with Article 65; (3) Complex penalty under Article 77, par. 1; and (4) Penalty without specific legal form under Article 77, par. 2  Rules for the Application of Penalties which contain Three Periods (RPC, Article 64) In cases in which the penalties prescribed by law contain three periods, whether it be a single divisible penalty or composed of three different penalties, each one of which forms a period in accordance with the provisions of Articles 76 and 77, the court shall observe for the application of the penalty the following rules, according to whether there are or are not mitigating or aggravating circumstances:  Rules for the Application of Penalties which contain Three Periods (RPC, Article 64) 1. When there are neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, they shall impose the penalty prescribed by law in its medium period. Example: A was convicted of Homicide without any aggravating or mitigating circumstances. The penalty to be imposed: Maximum Reclusion Medium Penalty to be imposed Temporal Minimum  Rules for the Application of Penalties which contain Three Periods (RPC, Article 64) 2. When only a mitigating circumstances is present in the commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its minimum period. Example: A was convicted of Homicide. However, the mitigating circumstance of voluntary confession was present. The penalty to be imposed: Maximum Reclusion Medium Temporal Minimum Penalty to be imposed  Rules for the Application of Penalties which contain Three Periods (RPC, Article 64) 3. When only an aggravating circumstance is present in the commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its maximum period. Example: A was convicted of Slight Illegal Detention committed with obvious ungratefulness. The penalty to be imposed: Maximum Penalty to be imposed Reclusion Medium Temporal Minimum  Rules for the Application of Penalties which contain Three Periods (RPC, Article 64) 4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall reasonably offset those of one class against the other according to their relative weight. Example: A was convicted of Slight Illegal Detention committed in an uninhabited place and with obvious ungratefulness. However the court appreciated in A’s favor his voluntary surrender and confession as mitigating circumstances. Since both mitigating ang aggravating circumstances are present, they should be offset with one other. Thus, the penalty to be imposed is: Maximum Reclusion Medium Penalty to be imposed Temporal Minimum  Rules for the Application of Penalties which contain Three Periods (RPC, Article 64) 5. When there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall impose the penalty next lower to that prescribed by law, in the period that it may deem applicable, according to the number and nature of such circumstances. Example: A was convicted of Homicide. However the court appreciated in A’s favor his voluntary surrender and confession as mitigating circumstances. Thus, the penalty to be imposed is: Maximum Reclusion Medium Penalty prescribed for Homicide Temporal Minimum Maximum Prision Medium Penalty next lower in degree Mayor Minimum Penalty to be imposed  Rules for the Application of Penalties which contain Three Periods (RPC, Article 64) Another Example: A was convicted of Homicide. However the court appreciated in A’s favor: (1) voluntary surrender; (2) voluntary confession and (3) passion as mitigating circumstances. The penalty to be imposed should be reduced first by one degree because of the two mitigating circumstances. The remaining mitigating circumstance will make the penalty to be imposed to be applied in its minimum. Maximum Reclusion Medium Penalty prescribed for Homicide Temporal Minimum Maximum Prision Medium One degree lower Mayor Minimum Penalty to be imposed  Rules for the Application of Penalties which contain Three Periods (RPC, Article 64) Another Example: A was convicted of Slight Illegal Detention by using disguise. However the court appreciated in A’s favor: (1) voluntary surrender; (2) voluntary confession and (3) passion as mitigating circumstances. The penalty to be imposed may not be reduced by one degree because of the presence of a aggravating circumstance. Hence. apply the off-set rule. Maximum Reclusion Medium Temporal Minimum Penalty to be imposed  Rules for the Application of Penalties which contain Three Periods (RPC, Article 64) 6. Whatever may be the number and nature of the aggravating circumstances, the courts shall not impose a greater penalty than that prescribed by law, in its maximum period. Example: A, a recidivist, was convicted of Slight Illegal Detention by using disguise and means to weaken the victim’s defense, and with obvious ungratefulness. The penalty to be imposed: Maximum Penalty to be imposed Reclusion Medium Temporal Minimum  Rules for the Application of Penalties which contain Three Periods (RPC, Article 64) 7. Within the limits of each period, the court shall determine the extent of the penalty according to the number and nature of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the greater and lesser extent of the evil produced by the crime.  Penalty Containing Three 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.  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. 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 2: Divide the difference of 6 years by 3 periods. The quotient is 2 years. Step 3: Add 2 years to the start of the minimum period of 6 years. The minimum period of prision mayor is 6 years and 1 day to 8 years; 1 day is added to the lower limit of the minimum period to distinguish it from the maximum period of prision correccional. Step 4: To distinguish the lower limit of the medium period from the upper limit of the minimum period, add 1 day to 8 years, which is the upper limit of the minimum period. Thereafter, add 2 years. The duration of the medium period of prision mayor is 8 years and 1 day to 10 years.  Penalty Containing Three 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. 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 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 duration of “prision mayor in its minimum and medium period” is 6 years and 1 day to 10 years. To determine “the time included in the duration,” deduct “one day” and the lower limit of the prescribed penalty from its upper limit. 10 years------------------upper limit -6 years and 1 day-----lower limit -1. 4 years-------------------time included in the duration of penalty Fours years, which is “the time included in the duration” shall be divided into three equal portions. 4 years/3 = 1 year and 4 months-----1/3 portion of the penalty  Penalty Not Composed of Three 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 8 years and 8 months +1 year and 4 months 10 years Thus, the minimum period of the prescribed penalty of “prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods” ranges from 6 years and 1 day to 7 years and 4 months; its medium period ranges from 7 years, 4 months and 1 day to 8 years and 8 months; its maximum period ranges from 8 years , 8 months and 1 day to 10 years (Zafra v. People, G.R. No. 176317, July 23, 2014, J. Bersamin).  Complex 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 Prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period prescribed for simple robbery under Article 294 of RPC is a complex penalty since it is composed of three distinct penalties. Thus, prision correccional in its maximum period, which is the lightest of the three, shall be minimum period of this prescribed penalty. Prision mayor in its minimum period, which is the most severe, shall be the maximum period. In sum, prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period prescribed for robbery shall be broken down as follows: Minimum: Prision correccional in its maximum period (4 years, 2 months and 1 day to 6 years) Medium: Prision mayor in its minimum period (6 years and 1 day to 8 years) Maximum: Prision mayor in its medium period (8 years and 1 day to 10 years) See: People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 168173, December 24, 2008, En Banc, People v. Barrientos, G.R. No. 119835, January 28, 1998, En Banc, People v. Castillo, G.R. No. L-11793, May 19, 1961, En Banc, People v. Diamante, G.R. No. 180992, September 4, 2009, and People v. Lumiwan, G.R. Nos. 122753-56, September 7, 1998.  Complex 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  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  Penalty Without Specific Legal Form Reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua prescribed for malversation under Article 217 is a penalty without specific form. The duration of its periods is not fixed by Article 76. This penalty cannot be divided into three equal portions in accordance with Article 65 since reclusion perpetua component is not divisible. It is not a complex penalty under Article 77, par. 1 since it is merely composed of two distinct penalties. Thus, its periods shall be determined in accordance with Article 77, par. 2. Applying this provision, the maximum period shall be formed out of the most severe penalty, and that is, reclusion perpetua. The duration of reclusion temporal in its maximum period shall be divided into two equal portions, and minimum and medium periods shall be formed from each portion. In sum, reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua is broken down as follows: Minimum: Lower half of reclusion temporal in its maximum period (17 years, 4 months and 1 day to 18 years and 8 months) Medium: Higher half of reclusion temporal in its maximum period (18 years, 8 months and 1 day to 20 years) Maximum: Reclusion perpetua See: Estepa v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 59670, February 15, 1990, Torres v. People, G.R. No. 175074, August 31, 2011, Cabarlo v. People, G.R. No. 172274, November 16, 2006; Mesina v. People, G.R. No. 162489, June 17, 2015, Bersamin.  Penalty of offense under special law The penalty for possession of dangerous drugs is 12 years and 1 day to 20 years of imprisonment. The court cannot impose a straight penalty of 12 years and 1 day since the application of indeterminate sentence law is mandatory (unless the accused deserves a lenient penalty by confessing pursuant to the Nang Kay principle). Applying the ISLAW, the minimum indeterminate penalty shall not be less than 12 years and 1 day while the maximum shall not exceed 20 years. Thus, the court can sentence the accused to suffer 15 years of imprisonment as minimum to 18 years as maximum (Asiatico vs. People. G.R No. 195005, September 12, 2011; Escalante vs. People, G.R. No. 192727, January 9, 2013) Under Section 9 of RA 3019, the penalty for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 is imprisonment for not less than 6 years and 1 months and not more than 15 years. Applying the ISLAW, the minimum indeterminate penalty shall not be less than 6 years and 1 month while the maximum shall not exceed 15 years. Thus, the court can sentence the accused to suffer 6 years and 1month of imprisonment as minimum to 10 years as maximum (People vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 177105-06, August 12, 2010, Bersamin)  Adoption of the technical nomenclature of Spanish 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.  Adoption of the technical nomenclature of Spanish penalty Under Section 98 of RA No. 9165, the provisions of RPC shall not apply except in the case of minor offenders. Hence, if the accused is a minor, privilege mitigating circumstance of minority (People vs. Mantalaba G.R. No. 186227, July 20, 2011; People vs. Musa, G.R. No. 199735, October 24, 2012; Asiatico vs. People, G.R No. 195005, September 12, 2011), confession or quasi-recidivism (People vs. Salazar, G.R. No. 98060, January 27, 1997) shall be considered in crime involving dangerous drugs. In this case, life imprisonment shall be considered as reclusion perpetua. If the accused is an adult, these circumstances shall not be appreciated.  People v. Mantalaba G.R. No. 186227, 20 July 2011 A violation of Section 5 of RA 9165 merits the penalty of life imprisonment to death; however, in Section 98, it is provided that, where the offender is a minor, the penalty for acts punishable by life imprisonment to death provided in the same law shall be reclusion perpetua to death. Basically, this means that the penalty can now be graduated as it has adopted the technical nomenclature of penalties provided for in the Revised Penal Code.  Consequently, the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority can now be appreciated in fixing the penalty that should be imposed. The RTC, as affirmed by the CA, imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua without considering the minority of the appellant. Thus, applying the rules stated above, the proper penalty should be one degree lower than reclusion perpetua, which is reclusion temporal, the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority having been appreciated.  Necessarily, also applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISLAW), the minimum penalty should be taken from the penalty next lower in degree which is prision mayor and the maximum penalty shall be taken from the medium period of reclusion temporal, there being no other mitigating circumstance nor aggravating circumstance. The ISLAW is applicable in the present case because the penalty which has been originally an indivisible penalty (reclusion perpetua to death), where ISLAW is inapplicable, became a divisible penalty (reclusion temporal) by virtue of the presence of the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority. Therefore, a penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, and fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, would be the proper imposable penalty.  Adoption of the technical nomenclature of Spanish 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.  Adoption of the technical nomenclature of Spanish penalty Mitigating circumstance of old age can only be appreciated if the accused is over 70 years old at the time of the commission of the crime under RA No. 3019 and not at the time of promulgation of judgment (People vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 177105-06, August 12, 2010, J. Bersamin). Moreover, this mitigating circumstance of old age cannot be appreciated in crime punishable by RA No. 3019 since this law did not adopt the technical nomenclature of the penalties of the RPC.  Incorrect 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."  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.  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)  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)  Incorrect Penalty Diagle v. Cruz G.R. No. 246914, 11 March 2020 The value of the money allegedly stolen here is US$100,000.00 or P4,900,000.00 based on a P49.00 per U.S. dollar conversion at the time of the incident. Applying Article 309, as amended, if the value of the thing stolen is more than P1,200,000.00 but does not exceed P2,200,000.00, the prescribed penalty is prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods. In case the value of the thing stolen exceeds P2,200,000.00, the penalty shall be the maximum period of prision mayor in its minimum and medium period. To this amount, one (1) year for each P1,000,000.00 exceeding the P2,200,000.00 threshold shall be added.  Incorrect Penalty Since the amount allegedly stolen is P4,900,000.00, which clearly exceeded P2,200,000.00, the prescribed base penalty in accordance with Article 309, as amended, is prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods to be imposed in the maximum period, i.e., eight (8) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day to ten (10) years. Considering that the value of the stolen money further exceeded P2,200,000.00, an additional one (1) year for each P1,000,000.00 in excess of the P2,200,000.00 shall be added to the prescribed base penalty, disregarding any remainder amount. Thus:  Incorrect Penalty Amount Penalty The First P2,200,000.00 Maximum: Ten (10) years Additional P1,000,000.00 One (1) year Additional P 1,000,000.00 One (1) year TOTAL: P4,200,000.00 Twelve (12) years The prescribed penalty for stealing P4,900,000.00, therefore, is twelve (12) years of prision mayor, the designation of which is prision mayor in its maximum period. This is the prescribed penalty for simple theft.  Incorrect Penalty Under Article 310 of the RPC, the prescribed penalty for qualified theft is two (2) degrees higher than that prescribed for simple theft. The penalty two (2) degrees higher than prision mayor maximum is reclusion temporal in its medium period, i.e., fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day to seventeen years (17) and four (4) months. To repeat, the prescribed penalty for the offense charged against respondent is reclusion temporal in its medium period. Respondent, therefore, is entitled to bail as a matter of right.  Indeterminate Sentence 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.  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: 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: c. Those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or coup d' etat; d. Those convicted of piracy or mutiny on the high seas or Philippine waters;  Indeterminate Sentence 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;  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 (b) Coverage The Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable to: h. Those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one (1) year or those with definite sentence; i. Those convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences were reduced to reclusion perpetua by reason of Republic Act No. 9346 enacted on June 24, 2006, amending Republic Act No. 7659 dated January 1, 2004; and j. Those convicted for violation of the laws on terrorism, plunder and transnational crimes.  Mandatory application of 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).  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.  Example A was convicted of the crime of Homicide, punishable by reclusion temporal. Determine the imposable penalty. a. There are no mitigating and aggravating circumstances Maximum Reclusion Penalty prescribed Medium Temporal Minimum under the RPC Indeterminate Maximum Prision Sentence Mayor Medium Penalty next lower Minimum The indeterminate sentence should be within the range of prision mayor in any of its periods as minimum to reclusion temporal in its medium period as maximum (From 6 years and 1 day to 17 years and 4 months)  Example A was convicted of the crime of Homicide, punishable by reclusion temporal. Determine the imposable penalty. b. There is one mitigating circumstance and no aggravating circumstances Maximum Reclusion Penalty prescribed Medium Temporal Minimum under the RPC Maximum Prision Indeterminate Mayor Medium Sentence Penalty next lower Minimum The indeterminate sentence should be within the range of prision mayor in any of its periods as minimum to reclusion temporal in its minimum period as maximum (From 6 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months)  Example A was convicted of the crime of Homicide, punishable by reclusion temporal. Determine the imposable penalty. c. There is one aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstances Maximum Reclusion Penalty prescribed Medium Temporal Minimum Indeterminate under the RPC Maximum Sentence Prision Mayor Medium Penalty next lower Minimum The indeterminate sentence should be within the range of prision mayor in any of its periods as minimum to reclusion temporal in its maximum period as maximum (From 6 years and 1 day to 20 years)  Example A, a minor, was convicted of the crime of Homicide, punishable by reclusion temporal. Determine the imposable penalty. Maximum Reclusion Temporal Medium Penalty prescribed by Art. 249 Minimum Maximum One degree lower because of the privileged mitigating circumstance of Prision Mayor Medium minority and with no aggravating or Minimum mitigating circumstances Indeterminate Maximum Sentence Prision Correccional Medium Penalty next lower Minimum The indeterminate sentence should be within the range of prision correccional in any of its periods as minimum to prision mayor in its medium period maximum (From 6 years and 1 day to 10 years) Note: If there is mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the maximum of the indeterminate sentence should be prision mayor in its minimum or maximum period, as the case may be  Example A, a minor, was convicted of the crime of Homicide, punishable by reclusion temporal. The court appreciated the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and confession. Determine the imposable penalty. Maximum Reclusion Temporal Medium Penalty prescribed by Art. 249 Minimum Maximum One degree lower because of the Prision Mayor Medium privileged mitigating circumstance of minority Minimum Maximum One degree lower because of the special Prision Correccional Medium mitigating circumstance and with no aggravating or mitigating circumstances Minimum Indeterminate Maximum Sentence Arresto Mayor Medium Penalty next lower Minimum The indeterminate sentence should be within the range of arresto mayor in any of its periods as minimum to prision correccional in its medium period as maximum (1 month to 4 years and 2 months) Note: If there is mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the maximum of the indeterminate sentence should be prision correccional in its minimum or maximum period, as the case may be Republic Act No. 11362 The Community Service Act SECTION 3. Community Service. — Article 88a of Act No. 3815 is hereby inserted to read as follows: ART. 88a. Community Service. — The court in its discretion may, in lieu of service in jail, require that the penalties of arresto menor and arresto mayor be served by the defendant by rendering community service in the place where the crime was committed, under such terms as the court shall determine, taking into consideration the gravity of the offense and the circumstances of the case, which shall be under the supervision of a probation officer: Provided, Republic Act No. 11362 The Community Service Act SECTION 3. Community Service. — Article 88a of Act No. 3815 is hereby inserted to read as follows: That the court will prepare an order imposing the community service, specifying the number of hours to be worked and the period within which to complete the service. The order is then referred to the assigned probation officer who shall have responsibility of the defendant. Republic Act No. 11362 The Community Service Act SECTION 3. Community Service. — Article 88a of Act No. 3815 is hereby inserted to read as follows: If the defendant violates the terms of the community service, the court shall order his/her re-arrest and the defendant shall serve the full term of the penalty, as the case may be, in jail, or in the house of the defendant as provided under Article 88. However, if the defendant has fully complied with the terms of the community service, the court shall order the release of the defendant unless detained for some other offense. Republic Act No. 11362 The Community Service Act SECTION 3. Community Service. — Article 88a of Act No. 3815 is hereby inserted to read as follows: The privilege of rendering community service in lieu of service in jail shall be availed of only once. THANK YOU!