for the principal in frustrated or attempted

felony.
BOOK ONE - is fixed by law.
GENERAL PROVISIONS REGARDING THE
DATE OF ENFORCEMENT AND
APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
CODE, AND REGARDING THE OFFENSES, Graduation of penalties by degrees or by periods.

THE PERSONS LIABLE AND THE PENALTIES DEGREES

Title Three: P E N A L T I E S ● stages of execution

○ consummated
○ frustrated or
Chapter Four APPLICATION OF PENALTIES ○ attempted)

● degree of the criminal participation of the offender

Section One. - Rules for the application ○ principal,
of penalties to the persons criminally ○ accomplice, or
○ accessory
liable and for the graduation of the
same. PERIODS

The division of a divisible penalty into three periods, as

- maximum,
- medium and
Article 46. Penalty to be imposed upon principals - minimum,
in general. - The penalty prescribed by law for the
commission of a felony shall be imposed upon Refers to the proper period of the penalty which should be
the principals in the commission of such felony. imposed when aggravating or mitigating circumstances
attend the commission of the crime.
Whenever the law prescribes a penalty for a
felony is general terms, it shall be understood as
applicable to the consummated felony.
---------------------------------------------------------
RULES FOR APPLICATION OF PENALTIES

GENERAL RULE

- GENERAL RULE: Penalty prescribed in general terms — general

rule.
- [UPON PRINCIPALS] The penalty
prescribed by law for the commission of a
felony shall be imposed upon the
principals in the commission of such
felony.
- [FOR CONSUMMATED FELONY] Whenever
the law prescribes a penalty for a felony is
general terms, it shall be understood as
applicable to the consummated felony.

- EXCEPTION RULE: When FIXED BY LAW

- The exception is when the penalty to be imposed upon
the principal
- in frustrated or attempted felony
- Whenever it is believed that the penalty lower
by one or two degrees corresponding to said
acts of execution is not in proportion to the
wrong done, the law fixes a distinct penalty
• __
---------------------------------------------------------
Article 47. In what cases the death penalty shall
not be imposed. - The death penalty shall be
imposed in all cases in which it must be imposed
under existing laws, except in the following
cases:
1. When the guilty person be more than seventy
years of age.
2. When upon appeal or revision of the case by
the Supreme court, all the members thereof are
not unanimous in their voting as to the propriety
of the imposition of the death penalty. For the
imposition of said penalty or for the confirmation
of a judgment of the inferior court imposing the
death sentence, the Supreme Court shall render
its decision per curiam, which shall be signed by
all justices of said court, unless some member or
members thereof shall have been disqualified
from taking part in the consideration of the case,
in which even the unanimous vote and signature
of only the remaining justices shall be required.
(INOPERATIVE BY: REPUBLIC ACT No. 9346
June 24, 2006 AN ACT PROHIBITING THE
IMPOSITION OF DEATH PENALTY IN THE
PHILIPPINES)
---------------------------------------------------------
RULES FOR APPLICATION OF PENALTIES
DEATH PENALTY
- RULE: MAJORITY OF SC REQUIRED FOR DEATH PENALTY
- Since the Supreme Court is composed of 15 members
(Sec. 4[1], Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution), the vote of eight
(8) members is required to impose the death penalty.
- RULE: a review by the Court of Appeals before the case is
elevated to the Supreme Court. [DEATH PENALTY]
- If only to ensure utmost circumspection before the
penalty of death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment is imposed, the Court now deems it wise
and compelling to provide in these cases a review by
the Court of Appeals before the case is elevated to the
Supreme Court. Where life and liberty are at stake, all
possible avenues to determine his guilt or innocence
must be accorded an accused, and no care in the
evaluation of the facts can ever be overdone. A prior
determination by the Court of Appeals on, particularly,
the factual issues, would minimize the possibility of an
error of judgment. If the Court of Appeals should affirm
the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment, it could then render judgment imposing
the corresponding penalty as the circumstances so
warrant, refrain from entering judgment and elevate
the entire records of the case to the Supreme Court for
the its final disposition. (People vs. Mateo, G.R. Nos.
147678-87, July 7, 2004)
- RULE: The 1987 Constitution MERELY SUSPENDED the imposition of
the death penalty. [NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL?]
- "Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel,
degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither
shall the death penalty be imposed, unless, for
compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the
Congress hereafter provides for it.
- Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced
to reclusion perpetua."
- A reading of said Section will readily show that there is
really nothing therein which expressly declares the
abolition of the death penalty.
- The 1987 Constitution merely suspended the imposition
of the death penalty. (People vs. Munoz, G.R. Nos.
38969-70, Feb. 9,1989,17 0 SCRA 107, 120, 121)
- RULE: R.A. No. 7659 (1993) restored the death penalty [1996, RA
8177, the : R.A. No. 7659 was amended prescribing death by
lethal injection for offenders convicted of heinous crimes.]. BUT:
R.A. No. 9346 (2006) prohibited the imposition of the death
penalty.
- (INOPERATIVE BY: REPUBLIC ACT No. 9346 June
24, 2006 AN ACT PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION OF
DEATH PENALTY IN THE PHILIPPINES)
- In 1993, Congress passed RA 7659, or the Death Penalty
Law, which reimposed capital punishment.
- RULE: Death penalty IS NOT IMPOSED In the following cases:
- 1. When the guilty person is below 18 years of age
- at the time of the commission of the crime.
- 2. When the guilty person is more than 70 years of age.
- 3. When upon appeal or automatic review of the case
by the Supreme Court, the vote of 8 members is not
obtained for the imposition of the death penalty.
- RULE: Exceptional cases in which the death penalty was not
imposed.
- [CRIME INSIDE PRISON] (1) Considering the
circumstances under which the offense in question was
perpetrated in the light of the deplorable conditions
existing in the national penitentiary which had been
previously taken cognizance of by this Court,
2
• __
imposition of the penalty of death is believed
unwarranted. (People vs. Dela Cruz, No. L-46397, May
16,1983,122 SCRA 227,231, citing People vs. Delos
Santos, 14 SCRA 4702 and People vs. Garcia, 96 SCRA
497)
- [CRIME CLUMSILY CONCEIVED] (2) Appellant has
already been detained for almost eight years now and
is presently confined at the National Penitentiary
awaiting the outcome of our review of the judgment
rendered by the trial court. The facts of the case tend
to show that the crime was not the result of any
deliberate and well-formed nefarious conspiracy of a
criminal group.
- It was rather a crime clumsily conceived on
the spur of the moment.
- Appellant obviously did not fully realize the
gravity of the crime he and his companions
were embarking upon. The extreme penalty
of death imposed on appellant is
inappropriate. Under the given
circumstances, the penalty that should be
imposed should be reduced to life
imprisonment. (People vs. Marcos, No. L-
65048, Jan. 9, 1987, 147 SCRA 204, 217)
- [ILONGOTS] Precisely because of the limited nature of
his schooling and of the effect upon his general
outlook, of the unenlightened environment prevailing
in the community of Ilongots to which he belongs, as
well as of the circumstance that the deceased
Flaviano Fontanilla had been a former municipal
mayor, whose act in clearing and working on a land
claimed by the Ilongots was seemingly regarded by
these non-Christians as one of oppression and abuse of
authority, the Court feels that Santos should not be
dealt with the severity due to persons otherwise
circumstanced. (People vs. Santos, Nos. L-17215-17,
Feb. 28, 1967, 19 SCRA 445, 454)
- REASON: justification for death penalty
- 1. Social defense and exemplarity justify the penalty of
death. Carillo has proved himself to be a dangerous
enemy of society.
- 2. The death penalty imposed upon him is a warning to
others. (People vs. Carillo, 85 Phil. 611,635)
- RULE: Death penalty not cruel and unusual. [which the
Constitution prohibits?]
- The death penalty, as such, is not excessive, unjust or
cruel, within the meaning of that word in the
Constitution. Punishments are cruel when they involve
torture or lingering death. Cruel punishment implies
something inhuman and barbarous, something more
than the mere extinguishment of life. (People vs.
Marcos, supra, at 216, citing People vs. Camano, 115
SCRA 688)
- Republic Act No. 296, providing that eight justices must
concur in the imposition of death penalty is retroactive.
- RULE: Rep. Act No. 296 can be given retroactive effect. [8
justices must CONCUR for death penalty]
- Republic Act No. 296, providing that eight justices must
concur in the imposition of death penalty is retroactive.
Rep. Act No. 296 is procedural and not substantive,
and that it is applicable to cases pending in the courts
at the time of the approval of said Act and to crimes
committed before its approval. (People vs. James
Young, 83 Phil. 702)
- In what crimes is death penalty imposed?
- (1) treason,
- (2) piracy,
- (3) qualified piracy,
- (4) qualified bribery,
- (5) parricide,
- (6) murder,
- (7) infanticide,
- (8) kidnapping and serious illegal detention,
- (9) robbery with homicide,
- (10) destructive arson,
- (11) rape with homicide,
- (12) plunder,
- (13) certain violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, and
- (14) carnapping
- The COURT is duty-bound to impose death penalty when it is
required by law:
- "Death penalty shall be imposed in all cases in which it
must be imposed under existing law."
- The accused, without any provocation, hacked to
death three girls in their house. The court refused to
impose the death penalty, believing and stating that "a
quick death would seem to be too sweet a medicine
for him and he should be put to death slowly but surely"
and imposed life imprisonment at hard labor, without
hope whatsoever of any pardon or reprieve.
- Is the pronouncement of the court in accordance with
law?
- NO, because as long as the death penalty
remains in the statute books, it is the duty of
the judicial officers to respect and apply the
law regardless of their private opinion.
(People vs. Limaco, 88 Phil. 35, 43)
- RULE: Prosecution must still present evidence for DEATH
PENALTY, even if there is plea of guilty.
- The trial court must require the prosecution to present
evidence, despite plea of guilty when the crime
charged is punished with death.
- RULE: Where the penalty of reclusion perpetua is imposed, in
lieu of the death penalty, there is a need to perfect an appeal.
- Since the death penalty's imposition is now prohibited,
there is a need to perfect an appeal, if appeal is
desired, from a judgment of conviction for an offense
where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua in lieu
of the death penalty. (People vs. Salome, G.R. No.
169077, Aug. 31, 2006)
- RULE: MUST elevate the entire records of the case to the
Supreme Court for its final disposition.
- The records of all cases imposing the penalty of death,
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment shall be
3
• __
forwarded by the Court of Appeals to the Supreme
Court for review.
- Pursuant to the ruling of the Supreme Court in People
vs. Mateo, G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, if the Court
of Appeals should affirm the penalty of death,
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, it could then
render judgment imposing the corresponding penalty
as the circumstances so warrant, refrain from entering
judgment and elevate the entire records of the case to
the Supreme Court for its final disposition.
---------------------------------------------------------
Article 48. Penalty for complex crimes. - When a
single act constitutes two or more grave or less
grave felonies, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------
RULES FOR APPLICATION OF PENALTIES
COMPLEX CRIMES
- RULE: Art. 48 requires the commission of at least two crimes.
- But the two or more grave or less grave felonies must
be the result of a single act, or an offense must be a
necessary means for committing the other.
- RULE: Art. 48 applies only to cases where the Code does not
provide a definite specific penalty for a complex crime.
- RULE: Art. 48 does not apply when the law provides one single
penalty for special complex crimes.
RULE: A complex crime is ONLY ONE CRIME / ONLY ONE
CRIMINAL INTENT. HENCE, one penalty imposed.
- In complex crime, although two or more crimes are
actually committed, they constitute only one crime in
the eyes of the law as well as in the conscience of the
offender.
- The offender has only one criminal intent. Even in the
case where an offense is a necessary means for
committing the other, the evil intent of the offender is
only one. (People vs. Hernandez, 99 Phil. 515)
- Hence, there is only one penalty imposed for the
commission of a complex crime.
- RULE: Two kinds of complex crimes:
- [COMPOUND CRIME] When a single act
constitutes two or more grave or less
grave felonies
- [COMPLEX CRIME PROPER] When an
offense is a necessary means for
committing the other,
- RULE: When the homicide, physical injuries, and the burning of
a house are the result of one single act of negligence, there is
only one penalty, but there are three civil liabilities.
- RULE: When a complex crime is charged and one offense is not
proven, the accused can be convicted of the other.
- RULE: When the penalty for one of the crimes resulting from a
single act is beyond the jurisdiction of the municipal court, there
should be additional penalty for the other.
- RULE:[favorable to the accused?] When two felonies
constituting a complex crime are punishable by imprisonment
and fine, respectively, only the penalty of imprisonment should
be imposed.
- When a single act constitutes two grave or less grave
felonies, or one grave and another less grave, and the
penalty for one is imprisonment while that for the other
is fine, the severity of the penalty for the more serious
crime should not be judged by the classification of
each of the penalties involved, but by the nature of
the penalties. (People vs. Yongco, CA-G.R. No. 18252-
CR, January 26, 1977)
- RULE: Applicable to crimes through negligence.
- Thus, a municipal mayor who accidentally discharged
his revolver during a school program, killing a girl and
injuring a boy requiring medical attendance for more
than 30 days, was found guilty of a complex crime of
homicide with less serious physical injuries through
reckless imprudence. (People vs. Castro, 40 O.G., Supp.
12, 83)
- Held: The two deaths and several serious physical
injuries resulted from his single act of reckless driving.
Hence, only one penalty should be imposed upon him.
(People vs. Villamora, C.A., 40 O.G. 768)
- RULE [NOT A COMPLEX CRIME]: No complex crime where one
of the offense is penalized by a special law.
- Although the evidence shows that a crime has been
committed for the express purpose of committing
another, as when a public officer misappropriates
public funds for which he is accountable through
falsification of public document, yet both crimes should
be punished separately where it appears that they are
4
• __
punished under different statutes, i.e., the
Administrative Code and the Penal Code. (People vs.
Araneta, 48 Phil. 650, 654)
- Note: Before the Revised Penal Code took
effect, the crime of malversation was
punished under the Administrative Code.
- RULE [NOT A COMPLEX CRIME]: No complex crime, when one
offense is committed to conceal the other.
- when one of the offenses was committed for the
purpose of concealing the commission of the other,
there is no complex crime.
- Examples: (a) After committing homicide, the accused,
in order to conceal the crime, set fire to the house
where it had been perpetrated. (People vs. Bersabal,
48 Phil. 439, 442)
- Note: Setting fire to the house is arson. (Art.
321) But in this case, neither homicide nor
arson was necessary to commit the other.
- RULE [NOT A COMPLEX CRIME]: Misappropriated funds in
falsification of documents makes it a separate offense
- When the offender had in his possession the funds
which he misappropriated, the falsification of a public
or official document involving said funds is a separate
offense.
- The accused, a municipal treasurer of Batac,
Ilocos Norte, misappropriated f*741.24
belonging to the public funds. He made it
appear in the payroll that several municipal
teachers of Batac received their salaries
when in fact they did not receive the sums
indicated in the payroll as received by them.
It was held that the accused was guilty of
malversation and falsification, two separate
crimes, because the falsification was not a
necessary means for the commission of the
malversation, but was committed only to
conceal the malversation. (People vs. Cid, 66
Phil. 354, 363)
- RULE: [NOT A COMPLEX CRIME] There is no complex crime of
arson with homicide under Art. 48.
- The ruling in the case of U.S. vs. Burns, 41 Phil. 418, that
under an information charging the accused with
setting fire to an automobile in the basement of an
inhabited house, whereby said house was destroyed
and one of its inmates burned to death, the accused is
guilty of a complex crime of arson with homicide, is no
longer applicable to such case, Art. 320 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended by Rep. Act No. 7659,
having provided one penalty therefor.
- RULE [NOT A COMPLEX CRIME]: Illegal possession of firearm is
not a necessary means to commit homicide.
- RULE [NOT A COMPLEX CRIME]: Illegal possession of firearm,
when considered a special aggravating circumstance.
- Illegal possession of firearm, when considered a special
aggravating circumstance.
- With the passage of Rep. Act No. 8294 on June 6, 1997,
the use of an unlicensed firearm in murder or homicide
is now considered, not as a separate crime, but merely
a special aggravating circumstance. (People vs.
Castillo, G.R. Nos. 131592-93, February 15, 2000)
- EXCEPTION RULE [COMPLEX CRIME]: Illegal possession of firearm
absorbed in rebellion. People vs. Rodriguez (G.R. L-13981, April
25, 1960)
- Held: This gun was introduced by the prosecution as
evidence in the case of rebellion. On October 24, 1951,
the case for rebellion was filed in the Court of First
Instance. On the other hand, the information in the
present case was filed on October 30, 1956, which
involves the charge of illegal possession of the same
firearm and same ammunition. Considering that "any
or all of the acts described in Art. 135, when committed
as a means to or in furtherance of the subversive ends
described in Art. 134, become absorbed in the crime of
rebellion, and can not be regarded or penalized as
distinct crimes in themselves x x x and cannot be
considered as giving ris e to a separate crime that,
under Art. 48 of the Code, would constitute a complex
one with that of rebellion (People vs. Geronimo, L-8936,
Oct. 23, 1956), the conclusion is inescapable that the
crime with which the accused is charged in the
present case is already absorbed in the rebellion case
and so to press it further now would place him in
double jeopardy.
- While it is true that in the crime of rebellion, there is no
allegation that the firearm in question is one of those
used in carrying on the rebellion and that the same
was borne by the accused without a license, the same
would not make the present charge different from the
one included in the crime of rebellion, for it appears
from the record that one of the firearms used in
furtherance thereof is the same pistol with which the
accused is now charged. In fact, that pistol was
presented in the rebellion case as evidence. Nor is the
fact that there is no allegation in the rebellion case
that the carrying of the firearm by the accused was
without license of any consequence, for it can be
safely assumed that it was so, not only because the
accused was a dissident but because the firearm was
confiscated from his possession."
- RULE: [NOT A COMPLEX CRIME] When requisites not fulfilled?
- When two or more crimes are committed but (1) not by
a single act, or (2) one is not a necessary means for
committing the other, there is no complex crime.
- The accused compelled the pilot to direct the airplane
from Laoag to Amoy instead of Aparri, and for not
complying with such illegal demand, the accused shot
him to death.
- Held: The accused committed two separate crimes of
frustrated coercion (Arts. 6 and 286) and murder (Art.
248). They do not constitute a complex crime of grave
coercion with murder, because the accused could
have killed the pilot, without necessity of compelling
him to change the route of the airplane; the coercion
was not necessary for the commission of murder.
- Neither was murder necessary to commit coercion. The
accused executed two distinct acts, and not only one.
Compelling the pilot to change the route of the
airplane is one act. Shooting him when he did not
5
• __

comply with that order is another act. (People vs. Ang

Cho Kio, 95 Phil. 475, 478) the offender.

- RULE [COMPLEX CRIME] [SINGLE ACT]:

- RULE: [NOT A COMPLEX CRIME] There is no complex crime of
- [Throwing a grenade, multiple deaths] Guillen, by a
rebellion with murder, arson, robbery, or other common crimes.
single act of throwing a highly explosive hand
- Murder, arson and robbery are mere ingredients of the
grenade at President Roxas resulting in the death of
crime of rebellion, as means "necessary" for the
another person, committed several grave felonies,
perpetration of the offense. (Enrile vs. Salazar, G.R. No.
namely: (1) murder, of which Simeon Varela was the
92163, June 5, 1990, 186 SCRA 217, 229) Such common
victim; and (2) multiple attempted murders, of which
offenses are absorbed or inherent in the crime of
President Roxas and four others were the injured
rebellion. (People vs. Hernandez, 99 Phil. 515) But a
parties. (People vs. Guillen, 85 Phil. 307, 318)
rebel who, for some independent or personal motives,
- [plane bomb, multiple deaths] Placing a time bomb
commits murder or other common offenses in addition
in a plane, which caused it to explode in mid-air,
to rebellion, may be prosecuted for and convicted of
killing 13 persons therein, constitutes a complex
such common offenses. (People vs. Geronimo, 100 Phil.
crime of multiple murder and destruction of
90, 99)
property. (People vs. Largo, 99 Phil. 1061-1062
[Unrep.])
- RULE: COURT: [SHOULD NOT split the same into various charges.]
- [Multiple acts of conspirators] Although several
- An accused should not be harassed with various
independent acts were performed by the accused
prosecutions based on the same act by splitting the
in firing separate shots from their individual firearms, it
same into various charges. (People vs. Lizardo, No. L-
was not possible to determine who among them
22471, Dec. 11,1967,2 1 SCRA 1225,1227, reiterating
actually killed victim Rolando Tugadi. Moreover,
People vs. Silva, No. L-15974, Jan. 30, 1962, 4 SCRA 95)
there is no evidence that accusedappellants
intended to fire at each and every one of the
- RULE: COURT: One information should be filed when a complex
victims separately and distinctly from each other. On
crime is committed.
the contrary, the evidence clearly shows a single
criminal impulse to kill Marlon Tugad's group as a
whole. Thus, one of accused-appellants exclaimed
in frustration after the ambush: "My gosh, we were
- RULE: Art. 48 is intended to favor the culprit. [lesser punishment
not able to kill all of them." Where a conspiracy
than if considered two distinct crimes]
animates several persons with a single purpose, their
- In directing that the penalty for the graver offense shall
individual acts done in pursuance of that purpose
be imposed in its maximum period, Art. 48 could have
are looked upon as a single act, the act of
had no other purpose than to prescribe a penalty lower
execution, giving rise to a single complex offense.
than the aggregate of the penalties for each offense, if
(People vs. Sanidad, G.R. No. 146099, April 30,2003)
imposed separately.
- When in obedience to an order several accused
- REASON: The reason for this benevolent spirit of Art. 48 is
simultaneously shot many persons, without evidence
readily discernible. When two or more crimes are the
how many each killed, there is only a single offense,
result of a single act, the offender is deemed less
there being a single criminal impulse.
perverse than when he commits said crimes through
separate and distinct acts. (People vs. Hernandez, 99
Phil. 515, 542-543) Note: If a person fired a shot and
- RULE [NOT A COMPLEX CRIME] [SEVERAL/DISTINCT ACTS]:
killed two persons with the same shot, were it not for
- [SEVERAL SHOTS MACHINE GUN] Several shots from
Art. 48, he would be sentenced to reclusion temporal
Thompson sub-machine gun causing several deaths,
for each homicide. But under Art. 48, he shall be
although caused by a single act of pressing the
sentenced to the maximum period of one reclusion
trigger, are considered several acts.
temporal only. Reclusion temporal has a duration of 12
- [TWO SHOTS in succession, directed at two different
years and 1 day to 20 years.
person] [DIFFERENT ACTS] when the acts are wholly
different, not only in themselves, but also because
- RULE: [FOLLOW THE PENALTY OF THE MOST SERIOUS CRIME IN ITS
they are directed against two different persons, as
MAXIMUM PERIOD.]
when one fires his revolver twice in succession, killing
- The penalty for complex crime is the penalty for the
one person and wounding another (U.S. vs. Ferrer, 1
most serious crime, the same to be applied in its
Phil. 56)
maximum period.
- [SINGLE CRIMINAL IMPULSE, but different acts]
[DIFFERENT ACTS] when two persons are killed one
[COMPOUND CRIME] When a single act after the other, by different acts, although these two
constitutes two or more grave or less grave killings were the result of a single criminal impulse
felonies (People vs. Alfindo, 47 Phil. 1), the different acts must
be considered as distinct crimes.
Requisites: - [DIFFERENT ACTS] The eight killings and the
1. That only a single act is performed by attempted murder were perpetrated by means of
different acts. Hence, they cannot be regarded as

6
• __

constituting a complex crime (People vs. Toling, No.

L-27097, Jan. 17, 1975, 62 SCRA 17, 34) - RULE No complex crime when trespass to dwelling is a direct
- The infliction of the four fatal gunshot wounds on means to commit a grave offense.
Siyang and of the wound in the palm of the mayor's - When trespass to dwelling (Art. 280) is a direct means
right hand was not the result of a single act. The to commit a graver offense, like rape, homicide or
injuries were the consequences of two volleys of murder, there is no complex crime of trespass to
gunshots. Hence, the assaults on Siyang and the dwelling with rape, homicide or murder. The trespass
mayor cannot be categorized as a complex crime. to dwelling will be considered as the aggravating
(People vs. Tamani, Nos. L-22160-61, Jan. 21, 1974, 55 circumstance of unlawful entry under par. 18, or of
SCRA 153, 176) breaking a part of the dwelling under par. 19, of Art.
- Several light felonies resulting from one single act — 14. (People vs. Abedosa, 53 Phil. 788, 791)
not complex.
- Thus, in a collision between two
automobiles driven in a careless and
negligent manner, resulting in the slight 2. That the single act produces:
physical injuries of the passengers and light
felony of damage to property, there is no
complex crime, because the crime of slight (1) two or more grave felonies, or
physical injuries, as well as that of damage
to property, is a light felony. (People vs. (2) one or more grave and one or more less
Turla, 50 Phil. 1001, 1002)
grave felonies, or
- Theft of firearm and illegal possession of same
firearm do not form a complex crime — they are two (3) two or more less grave felonies.
distinct crimes.
- Subsequent acts of intercourse, after forcible 0A. Light felonies produced by the same
abduction with rape, are separate acts of rape.
- Where the complaining witness was forcibly act [from a single act][but not a
abducted by the four accused and complex crime]
violated on board a truck by one of them
with the assistance of the three others, and (a) should be treated and punished as
after reaching a house in the evening, the separate offenses
four of them alternately ravished her inside
- Several light felonies resulting from one single act — not
the house three time s each and one each
complex.
the following morning, there was only one
- Thus, in a collision between two automobiles driven
forcible abduction with rape which was
in a careless and negligent manner, resulting in the
the one committed in the truck, and the
slight physical injuries of the passengers and light
subsequent acts of intercourse in the house
felony of damage to property,
against her will are separate acts of rape.
- there is no complex crime,
The reason for the ruling is that when the
- because the crime of slight physical
first act of rape was committed in the truck,
injuries,
the crime of forcible abduction was
- as well as that of damage to property,
already consummated so that each of the
- is a light felony. (People vs. Turla, 50 Phil.
succeeding rapes committed in the house
1001, 1002)
cannot legally be considered as still
connected with the abduction. The crimes
committed are one (1) forcible abduction (b) may be absorbed by the grave
with rape and sixteen (16) separate rapes. felony.
(People vs. Bohos, No. L-40995, June 25,
- When the crime is committed by force or violence, slight
1980, 98 SCRA 353, 364)
physical injuries are absorbed.
- Even while the first act of rape was being
- a. Where the person in authority or his agent, who
performed, the crime of forcible abduction
was attacked while in the performance of his duty,
was already consummated, so that each
suffered slight physical injuries only, the crime of
of the three succeeding rapes cannot be
slight physical injuries is absorbed in the crime of
complexed with forcible abduction.
direct assault. (Art. 148) This is the ruling in the cases
(People vs. Jose, No. L-28232, Feb. 6, 1971,
of People vs. Benitez, 73 Phil. 671 and People vs.
37 SCRA 450, 475)
Acierto, 57 Phil. 614.
- b. When in the commission of rape, slight physical
- RULE: The "single-criminal-impulse," "same motive" or the
injuries are inflicted on the girl's genital organ, the
"single-purpose" theory has no legal basis, for Article 48 speaks
crime of slight physical injuries is absorbed in the
of "a single act." However, the theory is acceptable when it is
crime of rape. (People vs. Apiado, 53 Phil. 325, 327)
not certain who among the accused killed or injured each of
- REASON: The reason for the rulings is that
the several victims.

7
• __

the slight physical injuries are the necessary
consequence of the force or violence
inherent in the crimes of direct assault and
rape.
- After a justice of the peace had read to the
accused the sentenc e of conviction, the latter took
a dagger and stabbed said justice of the peace in
the back, the wound incapacitating him for ordinary
work for more than 30 days. This is a complex crime
of direct assault with serious physical injuries, the
single act of stabbing the justice of the peace
constituting the two less grave felonies of direct
assault and serious physical injuries. (U.S. vs. Montiel,
9 Phil. 162, 167-168)
- Where the stabbing and killing of the victim which
caused likewise the death of the fetus arose from
the single criminal intent of killing the victim, as
shown by accused's pursuit of the victim after she
was able to escape, the crime committed is the
complex crime of murder with abortion. (People vs.
Lopez, G.R. No. 136861, Nov. 15, 2000)
the crime committed was the complex crime of
kidnapping and murder under Art. 48 of the Revised
Penal Code, as the kidnapping of the victim was a
necessary means of committing the murder. On the
other hand, where the victim was kidnapped not for
the purpose of killing him but was subsequently slain
as an afterthought, 2 separate crimes of kidnapping
and murder were committed.
- Consequently, the rule now is: Where the person
kidnapped is killed in the course of the detention,
regardless of whether the killing was purposely
sought or was merely an afterthought, the
kidnapping and murder or homicide can no longer
be complexed under Art. 48, nor be treated as
separate crimes, but shall be punished as a special
complex crime under the last paragraph of Art. 267,
as amended by R.A. No. 7659. (People vs. Ramos,
297 SCRA 618, citing Parulan vs. Rodas)

0B. Rape with homicide is a special

complex crime not covered by Art. 48.
- Under Art. 266-B, the facts in both cases would constitute a
special complex crime of rape with homicide punished with
death.
- When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, a
homicide is committed, or when the rape is
frustrated or attempted and a homicide is
committed by reason or on the occasion thereof,
Art. 266-B shall apply.
- Therefore, the ruling in the case of People vs.
Matela, 58 Phil. 718, that raping a girl and killing her
afterwards constitute two distinct offenses which
must be punished separately, is no longer
controlling.
- Likewise, the ruling in the case of People vs. Acosta,
60 Phil. 158, that raping a girl transmitting to her a
venereal disease which caused her death or that
killing the victim of rape when she tried to shout,
People vs. Yu, 1 SCRA 199, is a complex crime of
rape with homicide under Art. 48, is no longer [COMPLEX CRIME PROPER] When an offense
controlling. is a necessary means for committing the other
- With due respect, it is believed that there being only
one act of forcible sexual intercourse which - RULE: MUST HAVE A SINGLE PURPOSE / ONE CRIIMINAL INTENT
produced the two crimes, the accused committed - In complex crime, when the offender executes
a compound crime. (People vs. De la Cruz, C.A., 61 various acts, he must have a single purpose.
O.G. 5384) - The accused received 17 money orders with a letter,
all in one envelope, addressed to the offended
party. The accused presented them to the post
* Special Complex Crime of Kidnapping with Murder or office for cashing on one occasion, after having
Homicide. falsified the signature of the remitter on each and
- Prior to 31 December 1993, the date of effectivity of every one of the 17 money orders.
R.A. No. 7659, the rule was that where the - Held: In all the acts performed by the accused, there
kidnapped victim was subsequently killed by his was only one criminal intent. To commit estafa, the
abductor, the crime committed would either be a accused had to commit 17 falsifications. These
complex crime of kidnapping with murder under Art. falsifications were necessary means to commit
48 of the Revised Penal Code, or two (2) separate estafa. (People vs. Gallardo, C.A., 52 O.G. 3103)
crimes of kidnapping, and murder. Thus, where the
accused kidnapped the victim for the purpose of
killing him, and he was in fact killed by his abductor,
REQUISITES:

8
• __

punished under different statutes.

1. That at least two offenses are
- Although the law uses the term "offenses," the
committed. Supreme Court, in the case of People vs. Araneta, 48
Phil. 650, held that this kind of complex crime does
not exist when the two crimes are punished under
- FALSIFICATION BEING NECESSARY TO COMMIT CRIME OF
different statutes.
MALVERSATION
- The falsification of the cedula certificate, which is a
- Subsequent acts of intercourse, after forcible abduction with
crime under Art. 171, was necessary to commit the
rape, are separate acts of rape.
crime of malversation under Art. 217, because the
accused had to falsify the duplicate of the cedulas
to obtain from the taxpayers the money which he
later misappropriated.

- Simple seduction by means of usurpation of official

functions. (U.S. vs. Hernandez, 29 Phil. 109)
- Note: The crime of usurpation of official function (Art.
---------------------------------------------------------
177) was a necessary means for committing the
crime of simple seduction. (Art. 338) Plurality of crimes.
- DEFINITION
- Abduction as a necessary means for committing rape. - Plurality of crimes consists in the successive
execution by the same individual of different
2. That one or some of the offenses must criminal acts
- upon any of which no conviction has yet
be necessary to commit the other. been declared. (Guevara)
- Abduction as a necessary means for committing rape.
- A girl, 19 years of age, who had worked in the rice
PLURALITY OF CRIME RECIDIVISM
fields in Calamba, Laguna, was on her way home in
the afternoon. When in an uninhabited place, the
; in plurality of crimes, there In recidivism, there must be
two accused forcibly abducted her against her
is no conviction of any of conviction by final
strong protest and resistance, took her to the woods
the crimes committed. judgment of the first or prior
in Silang, Cavite, and other places where she was
offense
raped by one of the accused while her hands were
being held by the other. The crime of forcible
abduction (taking a woman against her will with
Kinds of plurality of crimes.
lewd designs — Art. 342) was a necessary means for
- Art. 48 provides for two cases of formal or ideal plurality of
committing the crime of rape (having sexual
crimes. There is but one criminal liability in this kind of
intercourse with a woman by using force, etc. — Art.
plurality.
266-A). (See People vs. Manguiat, 51 Phil. 406)

- In real or material plurality, there are different crimes in law

- The phrase "necessary means" does not mean
as well as in the conscience of the offender. In such cases,
"indispensable means." [NOT REQUIRED TO BE INDISPENSABLE]
the offender shall be punished for each and every offense
- The phrase "necessary means" used in Art. 48 has
that he committed.
been interpreted not to mean indispensable means,
- “INDISPENSABLE MEANS”: defined as the other crime (1) formal or ideal plurality
would be an indispensable element of the latter and
(2) real or material plurality.
would be an ingredient thereof.
- The phrase merely signified that, for instance, a
crime such as simple estafa can be and ordinarily is
real or material continued crime
committed in the manner defined in the Penal
Code; but if the "estafador" resorts to or employs plurality
falsification, merely to facilitate and insure his
committing estafa, then he is guilty of the complex In real or material plurality as well as in continued crime,
crime of estafa through falsification. (Dissenting there is a series of acts performed by the offender.
Opinion, People vs. Hernandez, 99 Phil. 515, 557)
While in real or material in continued crime, the
- plurality, each act different acts constitute
performed by the offender
3. That both or all the offenses must be only one crime
constitutes a separate
punished under the same statute. crime, because all of the acts
performed arise from one
- RULE: “OFFENSES” but does not exist when two crimes are because each act is criminal resolution.

9
• __

theft of the two game roosters belonging to two

generated by a criminal
different persons was punished with one penalty
impulse;
only, the Supreme Court holding that there being
only one criminal purpose in the taking of the two
roosters, only one crime was committed.

A person committing multiple crimes is punished with ONE

- RULE: A continued crime is different from a transitory crime.
penalty in the following cases:

1. When the offender commits any of the complex crimes CONTINUED CRIME TRANSITORY CRIME
defined in Art. 48 of the Code.
A continued, continuous or When a transitory crime is
2. When the law specifically fixes a single penalty for two or continuing crime is different committed, the criminal
more offenses committed. Examples: from a transitory crime in action may be instituted
- (1) Robbery with homicide (Art. 294); (2) criminal procedure to and tried in the court of the
Kidnapping with serious physical injuries. (Art. 267, determine venue. municipality, city or
par. 3) province wherein any of the
essential ingredients thereof
3. When the offender commits continued crimes. took place. The singleness
of the crime, committed by
--------------------------------------------------------- executing two or more acts,
is not considered.

---------------------------------------------------------
CONTINUING CRIME
A continued crime is not a complex crime.
[There is no provision in the Revised Penal Code or any other
penal law defining and specifically penalizing a continuing
crime.]
- RULE: [CONTINUING CRIME] EXAMPLES:
[The principle is applied in connection with two or more
crimes committed with a single intention.]
- DEFINITION
- A continued (continuous or continuing) crime is a
single crime, consisting of a series of acts but all
arising from one criminal resolution.
- A continuing offense is a continuous, unlawful act or
series of acts set on foot by a single impulse and
operated by an unintermittent force, however long
a time it may occupy. (22 C.J.S., 52)
- Although there is a series of acts, there is only one
crime committed. Hence, only one penalty shall be
imposed.
- RULE: A continued crime is not a complex crime.
- A continued crime is not a complex crime, because
the offender in continued or continuous crime does
not perform a single act, but a series of acts, and
one offense is not a necessary means for committing
the other.
- RULE: A continued crime is not a complex crime. Not being a
complex crime, the penalty for continued crime is not to be
imposed in the maximum period.
- Thus, in the case of People vs. De Leon, supra, the
An example of transitory
crime, also called a "moving
crime," is kidnapping a
person for the purpose of
ransom, by forcibly taking
the victim from Manila to
Bulacan where ransom was
demanded. The offenders
could be prosecuted and
tried either in Manila or in
Bulacan.
- [DIFFERENT VICTIMS SAME ACT] Thus, a collector of a
commercial firm misappropriates for his personal use
several amounts collected by him from different
persons.
- There is here one crime only, because the
different and successive appropriations are
but the different moments during which
one criminal resolution arises and a single
defraudation develops.
- [STEALING FROM TWO DIFFERENT PERSONS, BUT ONE
HOUSE ONLY] Likewise, a thief who takes from the
yard of a house two game roosters belonging to two
different persons commits only one crime, for the
reason that there is a unity of thought in the criminal
purpose of the offender.
- There is no series of acts here for the
accomplishment of different purposes, but
only of one (purpose) which is
consummated, and which determines the
existence of only one crime. (People vs. De
Leon, 49 Phil. 437, 439-441)
- [SEVERAL ROBBERIES UNDER ONE PLAN] Eight
robberies as component parts of a general plan.
While the inhabitants of a barrio were working in a
sugar mill, seven armed persons, who had a general
plan to commit robbery against all those in the
place, entered the mill and while two of the bandits

10
• __
guarded the people with guns levelled at them, five
of them ransacked the houses for their personal
properties.
- RULE: [NOT CONTINUING CRIME]: Not one continuing crime,
but three separate crimes. [STEALING FROM TWO DIFFERENT
PERSONS, BUT DIFFERENT HOUSES]
- Held: Appellants argue that they are guilty of one
crime only, citing in support of their contention the
case of People vs. De Leon, 49 Phil. 437.
- The contention is without merit. In the case cited,
defendant entered the yard of a house where he
found two fighting cocks belonging to different
persons and took them.
- In the present case, appellants, after committing the
first crime, went to another house where they
committed the second and then proceeded to
another house where they committed the third.
- Obviously, the rule in the case cited cannot be
invoked and applied to the present.
---------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
Article 49. Penalty to be imposed upon the
principals when the crime committed is different
from that intended. - In cases in which the felony
committed is different from that which the
offender intended to commit, the following rules
shall be observed:
1. If the penalty prescribed for the felony
committed be higher than that corresponding to
the offense which the accused intended to
commit, the penalty corresponding to the latter
shall be imposed in its maximum period.
[FELONY COMMITTED > FELONY INTENDED]
2. If the penalty prescribed for the felony
committed be lower than that corresponding to
the one which the accused intended to commit,
the penalty for the former shall be imposed in its
maximum period. [FELONY COMMITTED <
FELONY INTENDED]
3. The rule established by the next preceding
paragraph shall not be applicable if the acts
committed by the guilty person shall also
constitute an attempt or frustration of another
crime, if the law prescribes a higher penalty for
either of the latter offenses, in which case the
penalty provided for the attempted or the
frustrated crime shall be imposed in its maximum
period. [FELONY COMMITTED/FELONY
INTENDED > ATTEMPTED/FRUSTRATED
FELONLY]
---------------------------------------------------------
RULES FOR APPLICATION OF PENALTIES
CRIME COMMITTED IS DIFFERENT FROM THAT
INTENDED
1. PENALTY RULE: [FELONY COMMITTED > FELONY
INTENDED]
- FELONY INTENDED PENALTY shall be
imposed in its maximum period.
2. PENALTY RULE: [FELONY COMMITTED < FELONY
INTENDED]
- FELONY COMMITTED PENALTY shall be
imposed in its maximum period.
3. PENALTY RULE: [FELONY COMMITTED/FELONY
INTENDED > ATTEMPTED/FRUSTRATED
FELONLY]
- penalty provided for the attempted or the
frustrated crime shall be imposed in its
maximum period.
- RULE: Art. 49 applies only when
- there is a mistake in the identity of the victim of the
crime, and
- In this case, there is praeter intentionem and
the crime not intended by the offender befell
the same person. Note that in the examples
under error in personae, the crime not
intended by the offender befell a different
person.
- the penalty for the crime committed is different from
that for the crime intended to be committed.
- Art. 49 is applicable only when the intended
crime and the crime actually committed are
punished with different penalties.
- The rules prescribed in paragraphs 1 and 2 of
Art. 49 contemplate of cases where the
intended crime and the crime actually
committed are punished with different
penalties by reason of relationship between
the offender and the offended party, which
qualifies one of the crimes.
- If the intended crime and the crime actually
committed are punished with the same or
equal penalties, Art. 49 is not applicable.
- Thus, if A, intending to kill B, a stranger,
actually killed C, another stranger,
Art. 49 is not applicable, because
11
• __
whether it was B or it was C who was
killed, the crime committed was
homicide. There is no difference in
the penalty.
- RULE: [ART 49 APPLICABLE] Art. 49 applies only IN error in
personae -
- Art. 49 applies only when there is a mistake in the
identity of the victim[error in personae] of the crime,
and the penalty for the crime committed is different
from that for the crime intended to be committed.
- Error in personae —
- Examples: A, thinking that the person walking
in a dark alley was B, a stranger, fired at that
person, who was killed as a result. It turned
out that person was C, the father of A.
- In this case, the crime actually
committed is parricide, punishable
by reclusion perpetua to death.
- The crime which A intended to commit
is homicide, punishable by reclusion
temporal.
- In view of rule No. 1 provided for in Art.
49, the penalty for homicide shall be
imposed in its maximum period.
- But suppose that A wanted to kill his father
and waited for the latter in a dark alley where
he used to pass in going home; when A saw a
person coming and thinking that he was his
father, A shot him; and it turned out that that
person was a stranger. In this case, A should
be punished with the penalty for homicide to
be applied in its maximum period.
- Note that in either case, the lesser penalty is
always to be imposed, only that it shall be
imposed in the maximum period.
- RULE: [ART 49 NOT APPLICABLE]
- Aberratio ictus —
- Example: A fired his gun at his father, with
intent to kill him, but he missed and hit C,
killing the latter.
- In this case, two crimes were actually
committed:
- (1) homicide, of which C
was the victim; and
- (2) attempted parricide, of
which A's father was the
offended party.
- One who fires a gun at his
father with intent to kill is
guilty of attempted
parricide, even if the latter
is not injured at all.
- The two crimes actually committed were the
result of a single act; hence, A committed a
complex crime of consummated homicide
with attempted parricide. There being a
complex crime, Art. 48, not Art. 49, is
applicable.
- Praeter intentionem —
- Example: A, without intent to kill, boxed B from
behind on the back part of the latter's head.
B fell to the cement pavement with his head
striking it.
- B died due to the fracture of the skull. In this
case, the death of B was not intended by A.
- In this case, there is praeter
intentionem and the crime not
intended by the offender befell the
same person. Note that in the
examples under error in personae,
the crime not intended by the
offender befell a different person.
- From the foregoing examples and discussions, it will be
noted that the rules stated in paragraphs 1 and 2 of
Art. 49 cannot apply to cases involving aberratio ictus
or praeter intentionem.
ART 49 ART 48
In Art. 49, the lesser penalty is to be in Art. 48, the penalty for the more
imposed, to be applied in the or most serious crime shall be
maximum period (Pars. 1 and 2); imposed, the same to be applied in
its maximum period.
On the other hand, in error in
personae, since only one crime is
produced by the act of the offender,
there could be no complex crime,
which presupposes the commission
of at least two crimes.
In the two examples of error in
personae, it will be noted that only
one person was affected by the
single act of the offender; hence,
only one crime was produced. For
this reason, it is Art. 49, and not Art.
48, that is applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------
the basis for reduction of the penalty by one or
two degrees, is invariably the penalty prescribed
by law for the consummated crime
[OF PRINCIPAL?]
Article 50.
Penalty to be imposed upon
principals of a frustrated crime. - The penalty
next lower in degree than that prescribed by law
for the consummated felony shall be imposed
upon the principal in a frustrated felony.
Article 51.
Penalty to be imposed upon
principals of attempted crimes. - A penalty
lower by two degrees than that prescribed by
law for the consummated felony shall be
12
• __

imposed upon the principals in an attempt to Article 55.Penalty to be imposed upon

commit a felony.
It will also be noticed that under Article 51, the
penalty for an attempted crime is that for the
consummated felony,
accessories of a frustrated crime. - The
penalty lower by two degrees than that
prescribed by law for the frustrated felony shall
be imposed upon the accessories to the
commission of a frustrated felony

- reduced by two degrees,

- not the penalty for the frustrated felony, the basic penalty to be used for reduction by one
reduced by one degree. (De los Angeles or two degrees is that for the attempted felony
vs. People, 103 Phil. 295, 298-299) [OF PRINCIPAL?]

Article 56. Penalty to be imposed upon

accomplices in an attempted crime. - The
penalty next lower in degree than that
the basis for reduction of the penalty by one or
prescribed by law for an attempt to commit a
two degrees, is invariably the penalty prescribed
felony shall be imposed upon the accomplices
by law for the consummated crime
in an attempt to commit the felony.
[OF PRINCIPAL?]
Article 57.Penalty to be imposed upon
Article 52.
Penalty to be imposed upon
accessories of an attempted crime. - The
accomplices in consummated crime. - The
penalty lower by two degrees than that
penalty next lower in degree than that
prescribed by law for the attempted felony shall
prescribed by law for the consummated shall be
be imposed upon the accessories to the
imposed upon the accomplices in the
attempt to commit a felony.
commission of a consummated felony.

Article 53.
Penalty to be imposed upon
accessories to the commission of a
consummated felony. - The penalty lower by
two degrees than that prescribed by law for the
consummated felony shall be imposed upon the
accessories to the commission of a
consummated felony.

the basis for the reduction is the penalty

prescribed by law for the frustrated felony; ---------------------------------------------------------
[OF PRINCIPAL?]
RULES FOR APPLICATION OF PENALTIES
Article 54. Penalty to imposed upon
principals / accomplice / accessories
accomplices in a frustrated crime. - The
penalty next lower in degree than prescribed by consummated / frustrated / attempted
law for the frustrated felony shall be imposed
upon the accomplices in the commission of a
frustrated felony.

13
• __

2. The participations therein of the persons liable.

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.

TABLE: principal in a consummated offense

- RULE: When there is mitigating or aggravating circumstance,
- RULE: "0" represents the penalty prescribed by law in defining a the penalty is lowered or increased by PERIOD ONLY
crime, which is to be imposed on the principal in a - RULE EXCEPTION: except when the penalty is divisible
consummated offense, in accordance with the provisions of and there are two or more mitigating and without
Article 46. aggravating circumstances,
- In which case the penalty is lowered by
- The other figures represent the degrees to which the penalty degree.
must be lowered, to meet the different situations anticipated by - What is a period of penalty?
law. - A period is one of the three equal portions,
called minimum, medium, and maximum, of
- RULE: From all of these, it will also be observed that in making a divisible penalty. (See Art. 65)
any reduction by one or two degrees, the basis used is that - What is a period of DEGREE?
already prescribed, not as already reduced.
- In Articles 50, 51, 52 and 53 of the Revised Penal Code,
the basis for reduction of the penalty by one or two - RULE: A period of a divisible penalty, when prescribed by the
degrees, is invariably the penalty prescribed by law for Code as a penalty for a felony, is in itself a degree.
the consummated crime, while under Articles 54 and - In Art. 140, the penalty for the leader of a sedition is
55, prision mayor in its minimum period and fine.
- the basis for the reduction is the penalty prescribed by - It being a degree, the penalty next lower than that
law for the frustrated felony; and under Articles 56 and penalty is prision correccional in its maximum period.
57, the basic penalty to be used for reduction by one (People vs. Gayrama, 60 Phil. 796, and People vs.
or two degrees is that for the attempted felony. Haloot, 64 Phil. 739)
---------------------------------------------------------
- RULE: Exceptions to the rules established in Articles 50 to 57
- [law expressly prescribes] Arts. 50 to 57 shall not apply
to cases where the law expressly prescribes the
penalty for a frustrated or attempted felony, or to be
imposed upon accomplices or accessories. (Art. 60)
- [The penalty for frustrated parricide, murder, or
homicide may be two degrees lower; and the penalty
for attempted parricide, murder, or homicide may be
three degrees lower.]
- 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, a penalty lower by one degree
than that which should be imposed under the
provisions of Art. 50; and may reduce by one
degree, the penalty which under Art. 51
should be imposed for an attempt to commit
any of such crimes. (Art. 250)

What are the bases for the determination of the extent of

penalty to be imposed under the Revised Penal Code?

1. The stage reached by the crime in its development (either

Article 58. Additional penalty to be imposed upon
attempted, frustrated or consummated). certain accessories. - Those accessories falling
within the terms of paragraphs 3 of Article 19 of
this Code who should act with abuse of their

14
• __

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.
---------------------------------------------------------
RULES FOR APPLICATION OF PENALTIES
penalty to be imposed upon certain accessories.
accessories: abuse of their public functions
- if the principal offender shall be guilty of a grave
felony
- shall suffer the additional penalty of
absolute perpetual disqualification
---------------------------------------------------------
Article 59. Penalty to be imposed in case of
failure to commit the crime because the means
employed or the aims sought are impossible. -
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.
---------------------------------------------------------
RULES FOR APPLICATION OF PENALTIES
- 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
---------------------------------------------------------
Article 60. Exception to the rules established in
Articles 50 to 57. - The provisions contained in
Articles 50 to 57, inclusive, of this Code 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.
---------------------------------------------------------
RULES FOR APPLICATION OF PENALTIES
Exception to the rules established in Articles 50 to
57.
- EXCEPTION
- 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.
---------------------------------------------------------

in case of failure to commit the crime because the

means employed or the aims sought are
impossible.

- PENALTY
- shall impose upon him the penalty of
arresto mayor or a fine from 200 to 500
pesos.

- REASON
- having in mind the social danger and the
degree of criminality shown by the
offender

- IMPOSSIBLE CRIME

15
• __
Article 61. Rules for graduating penalties. - For
the purpose of graduating the penalties which,
according to the provisions of Articles 50 to 57,
inclusive, of this Code, are to be imposed upon
persons guilty as principals of any frustrated or
attempted felony, or as accomplices or
accessories, the following rules shall be
observed:
1. When the penalty prescribed for the felony is
single and indivisible, the penalty next lower in
degrees shall be that immediately following that
indivisible penalty in the respective graduated
scale prescribed in Article 71 of this Code.
2. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is
composed of two indivisible penalties, or of one
or more divisible penalties to be impose to their
full extent, the penalty next lower in degree shall
be that immediately following the lesser of the
penalties prescribed in the respective graduated
scale.
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
periods of the proper divisible penalty and the
maximum period of that immediately following in
said respective graduated scale.
4. when the penalty prescribed for the crime is
composed of several periods, corresponding to
different divisible penalties, the penalty next
lower in degree shall be composed of the period
immediately following the minimum prescribed
and of the two next following, which shall be
taken from the penalty prescribed, if possible;
otherwise from the penalty immediately following
in the above mentioned respective graduated
scale.
5. When the law prescribes a penalty for a crime
in some manner not especially 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.
---------------------------------------------------------
RULES FOR APPLICATION OF PENALTIES
RULES FOR GRADUATING PENALTIES
First rule: When the penalty is single and
indivisible.
- RULE: [THE PENALTY IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING] E.G. he
penalty immediately following reclusion perpetua is reclusion
temporal.
- A single and indivisible penalty is reclusion perpetua.
This is the penalty for kidnapping and failure to return
a minor. (Art. 270) In Scale No. 1 in Art. 71, the
penalty immediately following reclusion perpetua is
reclusion temporal. The penalty next lower in
degree, therefore, is reclusion temporal.
Second rule: When the penalty is
composed of two indivisible penalties.
- STILL THE IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING: RECLUSION TEMPORAL
- Two indivisible penalties are reclusion perpetua to
death. This is the penalty for parricide. (Art. 246) The
penalty immediately following the lesser of the
penalties, which is reclusion perpetua, is reclusion
temporal. (See Scale No. 1 in Art. 71)
When the penalty is composed of one or
more divisible penalties to be imposed to
their full extent.
- STILL THE IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING: RECLUSION TEMPORAL
- One divisible penalty to be imposed to its full extent
is reclusion temporal; and two divisible penalties to
be imposed to their full extent are prision
correccional to prision mayor. The penalty
immediately following the divisible penalty of
reclusion temporal in Scale No. 1 of Art. 71 is prision
mayor; and the penalty immediately following the
lesser of the penalties of prision correccional to
prisidn mayor is arresto mayor. (See Scale No. 1 in
Art. 71)
Third rule: When the penalty is composed
of two indivisible penalties and the
maximum period of a divisible penalty.
- Under the third rule, the penalty next lower is composed of
the medium and minimum periods of reclusion temporal and
the maximum of prision mayor. This is the penalty computed in
the case of People vs. Ong Ta, 70 Phil. 553, 555.
- The penalty for murder (Art. 248):
- reclusion temporal: maximum period
- divisible penalties
- Reclusion perpetua,
16
• __
- indivisible penalties
- Reclusion perpetua, being between
reclusion temporal and death, is
included in the penalty.
- to death.
- indivisible penalties
-
- The proper divisible penalty is reclusion temporal.
- The penalty immediately following
reclusion temporal is prision mayor.
- Under the third rule, the penalty next lower is
composed of:
- medium period reclusion temporal
- minimum period reclusion temporal and
- maximum period prision mayor.
- This is the penalty computed in the case of People
vs. Ong Ta, 70 Phil. 553, 555.
When the penalty is composed of one
indivisible penalty and the maximum
period of a divisible penalty.
- Example:
- Reclusion temporal maximum period
- to reclusion perpetua
- The same rule shall be observed in lowering the
penalty by one or two degrees.
Fourth rule: When the penalty
composed of several periods.
- FOURTH RULE: FOR THOSE WITH AT LEAST THREE PERIODS
- The word "several" in relation to the number of
periods,
- means consisting in more than two periods.
- Hence, the fourth rule contemplates a penalty
composed of at least three periods.
- RULE: The several periods must correspond to different
divisible penalties.
- RULE: the penalty contemplated in the fourth rule must
contain at least three periods.
- RULE: The penalty which is composed of several periods
corresponding to different divisible penalties:
- is prision mayor in its medium period
- to reclusion temporal in its minimum period.
- The period immediately following the minimum,
which is prision mayor in its medium period, is prision
mayor in its minimum period.
- The two periods next following are the maximum
and medium periods of prision correccional,
- the penalty next following in the scale prescribed in
Art. 71 since it cannot be taken from the penalty
prescribed.
Fifth rule: (by analogy, because "not
specially provided for in the four
preceding rules.") When the penalty has
two periods.
- RULE: one degree is formed by two periods
- In these cases, the penalty lower by one degree is
formed by two periods to be taken from the same
penalty prescribed, if possible, or from the periods of
the penalty numerically following the lesser of the
penalties prescribed.
- These cases are not covered by the fourth rule,
because the penalty contemplated in the fourth rule
must contain at least three periods.
- The penalty under the fifth rule (by analogy)
contains one or two periods only
is - APPLICABLE TO THOSE PENALTY WHICH INDICATED TO HAVE
TWO PERIODS ONLY WITHIN THE SAME PENALTY
- Certain offenses denned in the Code are punished
with a penalty composed of two periods, either of
the same penalty
- (1) For abduction (Art. 343) — prision correccional in
its minimum and medium periods;
- APPLICABLE TO THOSE PENALTY WHICH INDICATED TO HAVE
TWO PERIODS ONLY AMONG TWO THE PARALLEL PENALTY
- (2) For physical injuries (Art. 263, subsection 4) —
- arresto mayor in its maximum period
- to prision correccional in its minimum
period.
- EXAMPLE:
- The penalty next lower than
- prision correccional in its minimum and
medium periods
- is
- arresto mayor in its medium and maximum
periods.
17
• __

- BASIS: JURISPRUDENCE:
- In the case of U.S. vs. Fuentes, 4 Phil. 404,
405, it was held that the penalty next
lower in degree to
- prision correccional in its medium
period
- is
- arresto mayor in its medium period
- The reason for this ruling is that a degree
- RULE: When the penalty has one period. consists in one whole or one unit of the
- If the penalty is any one of the three periods of a
penalties enumerated in the graduated
divisible penalty, the penalty next lower in degree
shall be that period next following the given penalty. scales mentioned in Art. 71. To lower a
- Thus, the penalty immediately inferior to penalty by one degree, it is necessary to
- prision mayor in its maximum period keep a distance of one whole penalty or
- is
one unit of the penalties in Art. 71
- prision mayor in its medium period. (People
vs. Co Pao, 58 Phil. 545, 551) between one degree and another.
- If the penalty is
- reclusion temporal in its medium period,
- the penalty next lower in degree is
- RULE: [MITIGATING/AGGRAVATING] [RULES here take no regard
- reclusion temporal in its minimum period.
to the mitigating or aggravating circumstances]
(People vs. Gayrama, 60 Phil. 796, 810)

- Mitigating and aggravating circumstances are

disregarded in the application of the rules for
- RULE: The penalty prescribed by the Code for a felony is a
graduating penalties.
degree. [If the prescribed penalty is just one period, then for
- It will be noted that each paragraph of Art. 61 begins
that penalty it is considered as one degree.]
with the phrase, "When the penalty prescribed for the
- If the penalty prescribed for a felony is one of the
felony" or "crime."
three periods of a divisible penalty, that period
- Hence, in lowering the penalty, the penalty
becomes a degree, and the period immediately
prescribed by the Revised Penal Code for the
below is the penalty next lower in degree.
crime is the basis,
- EXAMPLE: If the penalty is
- without regard to the mitigating or
- reclusion temporal in its medium period,
aggravating circumstances which attended
- the penalty next lower in degree is
the commission of the crime.
- reclusion temporal in its minimum period.
(People vs. Gayrama, 60 Phil. 796, 810)
- RULE: [MITIGATING/AGGRAVATING] It is only after the penalty
next lower in degree is already determined that the mitigating
The rules prescribed in paragraphs 4 and 5 of Art. and/or aggravating circumstances should be considered.
61 may be simplified, as follows: ---------------------------------------------------------

(1) If the penalty prescribed by the Code consists

in three periods, corresponding to different
divisible penalties, the penalty next lower in
degree is the penalty consisting in the three
periods down in the scale.

(2) If the penalty prescribed by the Code consists

in two periods, the penalty next lower in degree is
the penalty consisting in two periods down in the
scale.

(3) If the penalty prescribed by the Code consists

in only one period, the penalty next lower in
degree is the next period down in the scale.

18