The chain of custody is comprised of four links, which include:

1) the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the
apprehending officer;

2) the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer;

3) the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist
for laboratory examination; and

4) the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.

Q: How do we compute the minimum, medium and maximum periods if the penalty imposable is:
Reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua.

Suggested Answer:

Penalty without specific form is that the periods of which is not fixed by Article 76, cannot becomputed
in accordance Article 65 and cannot be formed out of its components in accordance with the formation
rule Article 77 par. 1. The periods of a “penalty without a specific form” is determined in accordance
with the Article 77 par. 2, which provides:

Reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua is a penalty without a specific form(People vs. Romero, G. R.
No. 112985, April 21, 1999). Applying Article77, 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. Hence, reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua, a divisible
penalty shall be broken down as follows:

Minimum: 12years and 1 day to 16 years

Medium: 16years and 1 day to 20 years

Maximum: Reclusion perpetua

(See: People vs. Macabando, G.R. No. 188708, July 31, 2013; Gonzalesvs. People, G.R. NO. 159950,
February 12, 2007; People vs. Soriano, G.R. No.142565, July 29, 2003; People vs. Oliva, G.R. No.
122110, September 26, 2000; and People vs. Romero, G. R. No. 112985, April 21, 1999).
Suggested long answer:

There are four kinds of divisible penalty, to wit:

(1) penalty composed of three periods;
(2) penalty not composed of periods;
(3) complex penalty; and
(4) penalty without specific legal form. A divisible penalty, as distinguished from indivisible penalty, is
subject to the rules on application of penalties under Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code.

1
1.

Penalty composed of three periods -

Reclusion temporal, prision mayor, temporary disqualification,prision correccional, destierro,

suspension,arresto mayor, and arresto menor are penalties composed of three periods since they have
minimum, medium and maximum periods fixed by Article 76 of the Revised Penal Code. The duration
of the minimum, medium and maximum periods under Article 76 is one-third equal portion of the
respective penalties except arresto mayor. Under Article 76, the duration of the minimum period of
arrestomayor is only one month while that of the medium and maximum is two months.

2.

Penalty not composed of periods -Penalties with divisible duration, the periods of which are not fixed
by Article 76 are called “penalties not composed of three periods”; since Article 76 did not fix their
periods, it 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.

Example: Arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods, which is the penalty fixed for theft under
Article 309 (6), has a duration of 1 month and one day to 4 months. This penalty is not covered by
Article 76. The time included in the duration of this penalty, which is 3 months, shall be divided into
three equal portions. Duration of each portion is 1 month. Periods shall be formed from each
1-month-portion of the penalty. Hence, this is a divisible penalty,which can be broken down as follows:

Minimum: 1 month and 1 day to 2 months

Medium: 2 months and 1 day to 3 months

Maximum: 3 months and 1 day to 4 months.

3.

Complex penalty – Complex penalty is composed of three distinct penalty components. The periods of
complex penalty is formed in accordance with Article 77 par. 1, which provides:When the penalty is a
complex one composed of three distinct penalties. — In cases in which the law prescribes a penalty
composed of three distinct penalties,each one shall form a period; the lightest of them shall be the
minimum, the next the medium, and the most severe the maximum period.

Example: Reclusion temporal to death prescribed for treason committed by resident alien is a complex
penalty. This is a divisible penalty which can be broken down as follows

Minimum: Reclusion temporal (12 years and 1 day to 20 years)

2
Medium: Reclusion perpetua

Maximum: Death

here are two views on whether a penalty composed of three periods corresponding to different divisible
penalties

(such as prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period prescribed for
simple robbery under Article 294)is a complex penalty under Article 77 par. 1 or a divisible penalty not
composed of period under Article 65.

Ocampo vs. People, G.R. NO. 163705, July 30, 2007 and People vs. Abejero,G.R. No. L-13470, March
27, 1961, En Banc

The Supreme Court did not considered prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in
its medium period as complex penalty. Hence, the first view was adopted in imposing penalty for
robbery. But in People vs. Diamante, G.R. No. 180992, September 04, 2009, People vs. Dela Cruz,
G.R.No. 168173, December 24, 2008, En Banc, People vs. Lumiwan, G.R. Nos. 122753-56,
September 07, 1998, Peoplevs. Barrientos, G.R. No. 119835, January 28, 1998, En Banc, People
vs.Beringuel, G.R. Nos. 63753-54, December 21, 1990 People vs. Castillo, G.R. No.L-11793, May 19,
1961, En Banc; Peoplevs. Egido, G.R. No. L-4217, January 31, 1952, En banc, this penalty was treated
as complex. Hence, the second view was used in imposing penalty.

In People vs.Sicad, G.R. No. 133833, October 15, 2002, the Supreme Court did not consider prison
mayor in its maximum period and reclusion temporal in its medium as a complex penalty. Hence, the
Supreme Court considered the first view in imposing penalty. But In Peoplevs. Ducosin, G.R. No.
38332, December 14, 1933, Enbanc, Legrama vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 178626, June 13,2012;

Pil-ey vs. People, G.R. NO. 154941, July 09, 2007; People vs. Quitlong, G.R. No. 121562, July10,
1998; People vs. Martinada, G.R.Nos. 66401-03, February 13, 1991;; People vs. Noay, G.R. No.
122102, September25, 1998; People vs. Calpito, G.R. No.123298, November 27, 2003 treated this
penalty as a complex penalty.

The following penalties composed of three periods corresponding to different divisible penalties
were considered by theSupreme Court as complex penalties:

1. Arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its medium period ( People vs.
Corbes, G.R. No. 113470, March 26, 1997; Taervs. The Hon. CA, G.R. No. 85204, June 18, 1990);
2. Prision mayor in its medium period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period
(People vs. Gan, G. R. No. 44932, July 31, 1936;

3. Prision correccional in its medium period toprision mayor in its minimum period ( People vs.
Domondom, G. R. No. 41523, October 11, 1934;

3
4.Arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period
(Peoplevs. Tanyaquin, G. R. No. 37124, October 28, 1932; People vs.Moreno, G.R. No. 140033,
January 25, 2005)

Penalty without specific form is that the periods of which is not fixed by Article 76, cannot be computed
in accordance Article 65 and cannot be formed out of its components in accordance with the formation
rule Article 77 par. 1. The periods of a “penalty without a specific form” is determined in accordance
with the Article 77 par. 2, which provides:

Reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua is a penalty without a specific form(People vs. Romero, G. R.
No. 112985, April 21, 1999). 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. Hence, reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua, a divisible
penalty shall be broken down as follows:

Minimum: 12years and 1 day to 16 years

Medium: 16years and 1 day to 20 years

Maximum: Reclusion perpetua

(See: People vs. Macabando, G.R. No. 188708, July 31, 2013; Gonzalesvs. People, G.R. NO. 159950,
February 12, 2007; People vs. Soriano, G.R. No.142565, July 29, 2003; People vs. Oliva, G.R. No.
122110, September 26, 2000; andPeople vs. Romero, G. R. No. 112985, April 21, 1999).

People v. Macabando

G.R. No. 188708

July 31, 2013

FACTS:

At 4:00pm on December 21, 2001, appellant broke bottles on the road holding G.I. pipe, and shouted
that he wanted to get even (“manabla ko”). Afterwards, he uttered that he would burn his house.At 6:35
pm, Cornelio saw smoke coming from appellant’s house. He got a pail of water, and poured its contents
into the fire. Eric Quilantang, a neighbor, ran to the barangay headquarters to get a fire extinguisher.
When Eric approached the burning house, the appellant, who was carrying a traveling bag and a gun,
told him not to interfere; the appellant then fired 3 shots in the air. The appellant also told the people
around that whoever would put out the fire would be killed. Appellant’s Defense: He admitted that he felt
angry because one of his radio cassettes for sale had been stolen. He appellant claimed that he went
to sleep after looking for his missing radio cassette, and that the fire had already started when he woke
up. He denied making a threat to burn his house and maintained that he did not own a gun. He added

4
that the gunshots came from the explosion of firecrackers that he intended to use during the New Year
celebration. The prosecution charged the appellant with the crime of destructive arson under Article 320
of the RPC.

ISSUE:

Whether or not he is guilty of arson under PD 1613

HELD:

Article 320 contemplates the malicious burning of structures, both public and private, hotels,
buildings, edifices, trains, vessels, aircraft, factories and other military, government or commercial
establishments by any person or group of persons. PD 1613 governs simple arson. Section 3. Other
Cases of Arson. The penalty of Reclusion Temporal to Reclusion Perpetua shall be imposed if the
property burned is any of the following: 2. Any inhabited house or dwelling; P.D. No. 1613 contemplates
the malicious burning of public and private structures, regardless of size, not included in Article 320 of
the RPC, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659. This law punishes simple arson with a lesser penalty
because the acts that constitute it have a lesser degree of perversity and viciousness. Simple arson
contemplates crimes with less significant social, economic, political, and national security implications
than destructive arson. The elements of simple arson under Section 3(2) of P.D. No. 1613 are: (a) there
is intentional burning; and (b) what is intentionally burned is an inhabited house or dwelling.
Both these elements have been proven. The Information alleged that the appellant set fire to his own
house, and that the fire spread to other inhabited houses. These allegations were established during
trial through the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses which the trial and appellate courts found
credible and convincing, and through the report of the Bureau of Fire Protection which stated that
damaged houses were residential, and that the fire had been intentional. Moreover, the certification
from the City Social Welfare and Development Department likewise indicated that the burned houses
were used as dwellings. The appellant likewise testified that his burnt two-story house was used as a
residence. The acts committed under Art. 320 of The Revised Penal Code constituting Destructive
Arson are characterized as heinous crimes "for being grievous, odious and hateful offenses and which,
by reason of their inherent or manifest wickedness, viciousness, atrocity and perversity are repugnant
and outrageous to the common standards and norms of decency and morality in a just, civilized and
ordered society." On the other hand, acts committed under PD 1613 constituting Simple Arson are
crimes with a lesser degree of perversity and viciousness that the law punishes with a lesser penalty. In
other words, Simple Arson contemplates crimes with less significant social, economic, political and
national security implications than Destructive Arson.