TITLE V.
CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER robbery or theft is considered a “fence” and incurs criminal liability
PROHIBITED DRUGS
Articles 190, 191, 192, 193 and194 of the Revised Penal Code
have been repealed by Republic Act No. 6425 (The Dangerous
Drugs Act of 1972), as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1683
and further amended by Republic Act No. 7659.
Acts punished by the Republic Act No. 6425
1. Importation of prohibited drugs;
2. Sale, administration, delivery, distribution and transportation
of prohibited drugs;
3. Maintenance of a den, dive or resort for prohibited drug users;
4. Being employees and visitors of prohibited drug den;
5. Manufacture of prohibited drugs;
6. Possession or use of prohibited drugs;
7. Cultivation of plants which are sources of prohibited drugs;
8. Failure to comply with the provisions of the Act relative to the
keeping of records of prescriptions, sales, purchases,
acquisitions and/or deliveries of prohibited drugs;
9. Unlawful prescription of prohibited drugs;
10. Unnecessary prescription of prohibited drugs;
11. Possession of opium pipe and other paraphernalia for
prohibited drugs;
12. Unauthorized importation, manufacture, sale administration,
dispensation, delivery, transportation, distribution,
possession or use of regulated drugs, failure to comply with
the provisions of the Act relative to the keeping of records of
prescriptions, sales, purchases, acquisitions and/or
deliveries, unlawful prescription, unnecessary prescription of
regulated drugs, and maintenance of a den, dive or resort for
regulated drug users.
ACCESSORY AS A FENCE
The Revised Penal Code defines what manners of participation
shall render an offender liable as an accessory. Among the
enumeration is “by profiting themselves or by assisting the offender
to profit by the effects of the crime”. So the accessory shall be liable
for the same felony committed by the principal. However, where the
crime committed by the principal was robbery or theft, such
participation of an accessory brings about criminal liability under
Presidential Decree No. 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law). One who
knowingly profits or assists the principal to profit by the effects of
robbery or theft is not just an accessory to the crime, but principally
liable for fencing under Presidential Decree No. 1612.
Any person who, with intent to gain, acquires and/or sell,
possesses, keeps or in any manner deals with any article of value
which he knows or should be known to him to be the proceeds of
for “fencing” under said decree. The penalty is higher than that of a
mere accessory to the crime of robbery or theft.
Likewise, the participation of one who conceals the effects of
robbery or theft gives rise to criminal liability for “fencing”, not
simply of an accessory under paragraph 2 of Article 19 of the Code.
Mere possession of any article of value which has been the subject
of robbery or theft brings about the presumption of “fencing”.
Presidential Decree No. 1612 has, therefore, modified Article 19 of
the Revised Penal Code.
Questions & Answers
1. May one who profited out of the proceeds of estafa or
malversation be prosecuted underthe Anti-Fencing Law?
No. There is only a fence when the crime is theft or robbery. If the
crime is embezzlement or estafa, still an accessory to the crime of
estafa, not a fence.
2. If principal committed robbery by snatching a wristwatch and
gave it to his wife to sell, is the wife criminally liable? Can she be
prosecuted as an accessory and as a fence?
The liability of the wife is based on her assisting the principal to
profit and that act is punishable as fencing. She will no longer be
liable as an accessory to the crime of robbery.
In both laws, Presidential Decree No. 1612 and the Revised Penal
Code, the same act is the basis of liability and you cannot punish a
person twice for the same act as that would go against double
jeopardy.
Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISLAW): How to
determine maximum and minimum penalties
(Act no 4103 as amended)
The Indeterminate Sentence Law is mandatory in all cases,
EXCEPT if the accused will fall in any of the following exceptions:
1. if sentenced with a penalty of death or life imprisonment
2. if convicted of treason, conspiracy, proposal to commit treason
3. if convicted of misprision of treason, sedition, rebellion or
espionage
4. if convicted of piracy
5. if the offender is a habitual delinquent
6. those who escaped from prison or evaded sentence
7. those who violated the terms of conditional pardon of the chief
executive
8. where the maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed 1
year (important!)
9. if convicted by final judgement at the time of the effectivity of Act
No. 4103
10. if penalized with suspension or distierro
If accused fall in any of the foregoing exceptions. DO NOT APPLY
ISLAW!
ISLAW applies to offenses punished by Special Law and Revised
Penal Code.

Why is ISLAW mandatory?
In the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law the judge will
get the maximum penalty and likewise the minimum penalty. If the
accused was already able to serve the minimum term of his
indeterminate sentence and upon the approval of the Board, the
accused now becomes eligible for parole. ISLAW is favorable to
the accused.
If the accused was granted parole and violated some
conditions of the parole, What will happen?
A warrant of arrest will be issued by the court and the accused will
be made to serve the rest of the remaining or unexpired portion of
his sentence. (But in probation you go back to number 1, serving of
sentence will be from the beginning)
Application of ISLAW:
How to get maximum and minimum penalty in Special Law:
1. The maximum penalty should NOT exceed the maximum
provided for by that law.
2. The minimum penalty should NOT fall below the minimum
provided by the law.
How to get maximum and minimum penalty in Revised Penal Code:
Example: In the crime of homicide, under the Revised Penal Code,
the offender is sentenced to reclusion temporal.
The maximum penalty under the Indeterminate Sentence Law is
reclusion temporal. But reclusion temporal is a divisible penalty
consisting of maximum, medium and minimum periods. Which
period will we place the maximum term of the Indeterminate
Sentence?
Guide for determining the maximum penalty:
1. Determine the entire range of the penalty
2. Determine if there is mitigating or aggravating circumstance
Which period will the maximum penalty be placed?
In pursuant to art 64, when there is no mitigating and no
aggravating circumstance, it should be placed at the medium
period. Thus, the maximum penalty for the example above is
reclusion temporal in the medium period.
What is the minimum penalty now?
In getting the minimum penalty, the rule is to simply get the penalty
one (1) degree lower from the maximum penalty without taking into
account the mitigating and aggravating circumstance. Thus, the
penalty one degree lower from reclusion temporal, without taking
into account any mitigating or aggravating circumstance, is prision
mayor. Prision mayor is now the minimum penalty for our example.
Important: If your maximum penalty is wrong, it follows that the
minimum penalty will also be wrong.
Again, prision mayor is a divisible penalty. Which period can it be
placed?
Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, it would depend upon the
discretion of the court on which period to place it. Thus, the
minimum penalty is prision mayor in any of its period.
Factors that could affect the imposition of minimum penalty:
1. Age
2. Conduct during trial
3. Mental or physical condition
Suppose in the example above, 1 aggravating circumstance was
proven. What is now the maximum penalty?
It would still be reclusion temporal, but it shall be placed in the
maximum period because of the presence of 1 aggravating
circumstance.
How about the minimum penalty?
It would still be 1 degree lower from reclusion temporal, which is
prision mayor. In which period? It shall be discretionary upon the
court.
(More examples)
1 mitigating but NO aggravating
maximum penalty: reclusion temporal in the minimum period
minimum penalty: prision mayor in any period
2 mitigating, NO aggravating (privileged mitigating)
maximum penalty: prision mayor in the medium period
minimum penalty: prision correctional any period
The preceding example is an exception to the rule. If there is a
privileged mitigating circumstance, we take it into account first in
order to obtain the proper maximum penalty. Then, from that
maximum penalty, we obtain the proper minimum penalty by
getting the penalty 1 degree lower. Same rule applies as to the
period of the minimum penalty.
Remember: It will never become a privileged mitigating
circumstance if there is an aggravating circumstance present. 8
mitigating and 1 aggravating will never become privileged
mitigating circumstance.
3 mitigating, NO aggravating
maximum penalty: prision mayor in the minimum period
minimum penalty: prision correctional any period
In the preceding example, there are 3 mitigating circumstance
present and no aggravating circumstance. The first two mitigating
circumstance shall be a privileged mitigating circumstance. Thus,
the penalty will be reduced by 1 degree from reclusion temporal to
prision mayor. The 3rd mitigating circumstance shall place the
penalty in the minimum period.
4 mitigating, NO aggravating
maximum penalty: prision correctional in the medium period (2
privileged circumstance. Thus we lower by 2 degrees)
minimum penalty: arresto mayor any period
5 mitigating, NO aggravating
maximum penalty: prision correctional in the minimum period
minimum penalty: arresto mayor any period
At most we can only lower by 2 degrees. Thus, if there are 6
mitigating circumstance and NO aggravating:
maximum penalty: prision correctional in the minimum period
minimum penalty: arresto mayor any period
How is Indeterminate Sentence Law applied in complex
crimes (Article 48)?
A complex crime is punished by the most serious offense and shall
be imposed in its maximum period.
Example: Estafa through falsification of public documents.
Under the Revised Penal Code, falsification of public documents
(Article 171) is a more serious offense punished by prision mayor
than estafa (Article 315), punished only by prision correctional.
Thus, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum
penalty for estafa through falsification of public documents shall be
prision mayor in the maximum period. Minimum penalty shall be
prision correctional, any period.

Suppose there was 1 mitigating circumstance proven. Maximum

penalty would still be prision mayor in the maximum period. In
pursuant to Article 48, even if there is a mitigating circumstance
present, it should still be imposed at the maximum period.

How about if there are 2 mitigating circumstance and no

aggravating?
The rule is, if it is a privileged mitigating circumstance, we lower by
the penalty by one degree but still place it at the maximum period.
Thus, the maximum penalty shall be prision correctional in the
maximum period.

4 mitigating, NO aggravating
maximum penalty: arresto mayor in its maximum period