PENALTIES

Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra

 COVERAGE

• Revised Penal Code, Title Three, Articles 21 to 88

Exclude the following provisions:

❖ Article 80 (repealed by Republic Act No. 9344)

❖ Articles 81 to 85 (because Republic Act No. 9346

expressly prohibits the imposition of death
penalty)

Note that Republic Act No. 9344 amended Article 68

• Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act No. 4103, as

amended by Act No. 4225 and Republic Act No. 4203)

• Probation Law (P.D. No. 968)

 Classification
(RPC, Article 25, in relation to Article 9)

• Article 25 classifies penalties into:

A. PRINCIPAL PENALTIES (those expressly

specified in the judgment of conviction); and

B. ACCESSORY PENALTIES (those deemed

included in the principal penalty and do not
have to be expressly specified in the
judgment of conviction)
 Classification
(RPC, Article 25, in relation to Article 9)

• PRINCIPAL PENALTIES may further be classified

according to gravity, to wit:

a. Capital Penalty (i.e., death);

b. Afflictive Penalties (i.e., reclusion perpetua, reclusion

temporal, perpetual or temporary absolute
disqualification, perpetual or temporary special
disqualification, prision mayor);

c. Correctional Penalties (i.e., prision correccional,

arresto mayor, suspension, destierro);

d. Light Penalties (i.e., arresto menor, public censure);

and

e. Penalties common to afflictive, correctional and light

penalties (i.e., fine, bond to keep the peace).
 Classification
(RPC, Article 25, in relation to Article 9)

• PRINCIPAL PENALTIES may further be classified

according to gravity.

* This classification corresponds to the classification of the

felonies in Article 9, into grave, less grave and light.

Art. 9. Grave felonies, less grave felonies and light felonies. —

GRAVE FELONIES are those to which the law attaches the capital
punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive,
in accordance with Art. 25 of this Code.

LESS GRAVE FELONIES are those which the law punishes with
penalties which in their maximum period are correctional, in accordance
with the above-mentioned article.

LIGHT FELONIES are those infractions of law for the commission of

which a penalty of arrest menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos or
both, is provided.
 Classification
(RPC, Article 25, in relation to Article 9)

• PRINCIPAL PENALTIES may also be classified

according to divisibility, to wit:

a. INDIVISIBLE PENALTIES – those that have no fixed

duration and therefore cannot be divided into periods,
such as:

▪ Death
▪ Reclusion Perpetua
(Under R.A. No. 7659, the duration of reclusion
perpetua is fixed at 20 years and 1 day to 40 years.
However, in People v. Lucas [G.R. Nos. 108172-73, 9
January 1995), the Supreme Court ruled that reclusion
perpetua shall remain an indivisible penalty)
▪ Perpetual absolute or special disqualification
▪ Public Censure
 Classification
(RPC, Article 25, in relation to Article 9)

• PRINCIPAL PENALTIES may also be classified

according to divisibility, to wit:

a. INDIVISIBLE PENALTIES

• People v. Jacinto
(G.R. No. 182239, 16 March 2011)

Under Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code, when the

offender is a minor under 18 years, the penalty next lower
than that prescribed by law shall be imposed, but always
in the proper period. However, for purposes of
determining the proper penalty because of the
privileged mitigating circumstance of minority, the
penalty of death is still the penalty to be reckoned
with. Thus, the proper imposable penalty for the
accused-appellant is reclusion perpetua.
 Classification
(RPC, Article 25, in relation to Article 9)

• PRINCIPAL PENALTIES may also be classified

according to divisibility, to wit:

b. DIVISIBLE PENALTIES – those that have a fixed

duration and therefore can be divided into three
periods, such as:

▪ Reclusion Temporal;
▪ Temporary special disqualification
▪ Prision Mayor;
▪ Prision Correccional;
▪ Arresto Mayor;
▪ Suspension;
▪ Destierro; and
▪ Arresto Menor .
 Classification
(RPC, Article 25, in relation to Article 9)

• ACCESSORY PENALTIES, which are deemed

included in the imposition of principal penalties, are
as follows:

▪ Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification;

▪ Perpetual or temporary special disqualification;
▪ Suspension from public office, the right to vote
and be voted for, the profession or calling;
▪ Civil interdiction;
▪ Indemnification;
▪ Forfeiture or confiscation of instruments and
proceeds of the offense; and
▪ Payment of costs.
 Penalty for Complex Crimes
(RPC, Art. 48)

ARTICLE 48. Penalty for Complex Crimes. —

When a single act constitutes two or more crimes,
or when an offense is a necessary means for
committing the other, the penalty for the most
serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be
applied in its maximum period.
 Order of Severity (RPC, Art. 70)

Successive service of sentence. — When the culprit has to

serve two or more penalties, he shall serve them simultaneously if
the nature of the penalties will so permit; otherwise, the following
rules shall be observed:

In the imposition of the penalties, the order of their respective

severity shall be followed so that they may be executed
successively or as nearly as may be possible, should a pardon
have been granted as to the penalty or penalties first imposed, or
should they have been served out.

For the purpose of applying the provisions of the next

preceding paragraph, the respective severity of the penalties
shall be determined in accordance with the following scale:

xxx xxx xxx

 Order of Severity (RPC, Art. 70)

xxx xxx xxx

1. Death,
2. Reclusion perpetua,
3. Reclusion temporal,
4. Prision mayor,
5. Prision correccional,
6. Arresto mayor,
7. Arresto menor,
8. Destierro,
9. Perpetual absolute disqualification,
10 Temporal absolute disqualification.
11. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be
voted for, the right to follow a profession or calling, and
12. Public censure.
 Order of Severity (RPC, Art. 70)

Notwithstanding the provisions of the rule next preceding,

the maximum duration of the convict's sentence shall not be
more than three-fold the length of time corresponding to the
most severe of the penalties imposed upon him. No other
penalty to which he may be liable shall be inflicted after the sum
total of those imposed equals the same maximum period.

Such maximum period shall in no case exceed forty years.

In applying the provisions of this rule, the duration of

perpetual penalties (pena perpetua) shall be computed at thirty
years. (As amended).
 Three-fold Rule

The maximum duration of the convict's sentence

shall not be more than threefold the length of time
corresponding to the most severe of the penalties
imposed upon him. No other penalty to which he may
be liable shall be inflicted after the sum total of those
imposed equals the same maximum period. Such
maximum period shall in no case exceed forty (40)
years.

In applying the provisions of this rule the duration of

perpetual penalties shall be computed at thirty years
(Art. 70).
 People v. Conrado Lucas
(G.R. Nos. 108172-73, 9 January 1995)

* Although Section 17 of R.A. No. 7659 has fixed the duration

of reclusion perpetua from twenty (20) years and one (1) day
to forty (40) years, there was no clear legislative intent to alter
its original classification as an indivisible penalty. It shall then
remain as an indivisible penalty.
 Graduated scales (RPC, Art. 71)
In the case in which the law prescribed a penalty lower or
higher by one or more degrees than another given penalty, the rules
prescribed in Article 61 shall be observed in graduating such
penalty. The lower or higher penalty shall be taken from the
graduated scale in which is comprised the given penalty. The
courts, in applying such lower or higher penalty, shall observe the
following graduated scales:

SCALE NO. 1
1. Death,
2. Reclusion perpetua,
3. Reclusion temporal,
4. Prision mayor,
5. Prision correccional,
6. Arresto mayor,
7. Destierro,
8. Arresto menor,
9. Public censure,
10. Fine.
 Graduated scales (RPC, Art. 71)

SCALE NO. 2

1. Perpetual absolute disqualification,

2. Temporal absolute disqualification
3. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be
voted for, the right to follow a profession or calling,
4. Public censure,
5. Fine.
 Rules for Graduating Penalties
(RPC, Article 61)

For the purpose of graduating the penalties which 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 the Revised Penal 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.
 Rules for Graduating Penalties
(RPC, Article 61)

3. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of one

or two indivisible penalties and the maximum period of another
divisible penalty, the penalty next lower in degree shall be composed
of the medium and minimum periods of the proper divisible penalty and
the maximum period of that immediately following in said respective
graduated scale.

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.
 Rules for Graduating Penalties
(RPC, Article 61)

5. When the law prescribes a penalty for a crime in some manner

not specially provided for in the four preceding rules, the courts,
proceeding by analogy, shall impose corresponding penalties upon
those guilty as principals of the frustrated felony, or of attempt to
commit the same, and upon accomplices and accessories.
 Rules for Graduating Penalties
(RPC, Article 61)
Tabulation of the Provisions of the Chapter
Effect of the Attendance of Mitigating or Aggravating
Circumstances and of Habitual Delinquency
(RPC, Article 62)

1. Aggravating circumstances which in themselves

constitute a crime specially punishable by law or which are
included by the law in defining a crime and prescribing the
penalty therefor shall not be taken into account for the purpose
of increasing the penalty.

1(a). When in the commission of the crime, advantage was

taken by the offender of his public position, the penalty to be
imposed shall be in its maximum regardless of mitigating
circumstances.

The maximum penalty shall be imposed if the offense was

committed by any group who belongs to an
organized/syndicated crime group.
Effect of the Attendance of Mitigating or Aggravating
Circumstances and of Habitual Delinquency
(RPC, Article 62)

An organized/syndicated crime group means a group of

two or more persons collaborating, confederating or mutually
helping one another for purposes of gain in the commission of
any crime.

2. The same rule shall apply with respect to any

aggravating circumstance inherent in the crime to such a
degree that it must of necessity accompany the commission
thereof.
Effect of the Attendance of Mitigating or Aggravating
Circumstances and of Habitual Delinquency
(RPC, Article 62)

3. Aggravating or mitigating circumstances which arise from

the moral attributes of the offender, or from his private relations
with the offended party, or from any other personal cause, shall
only serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of the principals,
accomplices and accessories as to whom such circumstances
are attendant.

4. The circumstances which consist in the material

execution of the act, or in the means employed to accomplish
it, shall serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of those
persons only who had knowledge of them at the time of the
execution of the act or their cooperation therein.
Effect of the Attendance of Mitigating or Aggravating
Circumstances and of Habitual Delinquency
(RPC, Article 62)

5. Habitual delinquency shall have the following effects:

(a) Upon a third conviction the culprit shall be sentenced to

the penalty provided by law for the last crime of which he be
found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision correccional
in its medium and maximum periods;

(b) Upon a fourth conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced

to the penalty provided for the last crime of which he be found
guilty and to the additional penalty of prision mayor in its
minimum and medium periods; and
 Effect of the Attendance of Mitigating or Aggravating
Circumstances and of Habitual Delinquency
(RPC, Article 62)

5. Habitual delinquency shall have the following effects:

(c) Upon a fifth or additional conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced

to the penalty provided for the last crime of which he be found guilty and
to the additional penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to
reclusion temporal in its minimum period.

Notwithstanding the provisions of this article, the total of the two

penalties to be imposed upon the offender, in conformity herewith, shall
in no case exceed 30 years.

For the purpose of this article, a person shall be deemed to be

habitual delinquent, if within a period of ten years from the date of his
release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical
injuries, robo, hurto, estafa or falsification, he is found guilty of any of
said crimes a third time or oftener.
 Imposition of fines
(RPC, Article 66)

In imposing fines, the courts may fix any amount

within the limits established by law; in fixing the
amount in each case attention shall be given, not only
to the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, but
more particularly to the wealth or means of the culprit.
 Penalty for Incomplete Accident
(RPC, Article 67)

When all the conditions required in circumstances

Number 4 of Article 12 of the RPC to exempt from
criminal liability are not present, the penalty of arresto
mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its
minimum period shall be imposed upon the culprit if he
shall have been guilty of a grave felony, and arresto
mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if of a less
grave felony.
 Penalty to be imposed upon a Minor
(Article 68 of the RPC, as amended by R.A. No. 9344)

While an offender over 9 years but under 15 years who

acts with discernment is not exempt from criminal liability under
Article 68, and a discretionary penalty shall be imposed which
shall always be lower by 2 degrees than that prescribed by law
for the crime committed, said offender is exempt from criminal
liability under R.A. No. 9344; hence, no penalty shall be
imposed.

When an offender is over 15 but under 18 years of age, the

penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be
imposed under Article 68, while under R.A. No. 9344, the
offender shall be exempt from criminal liability unless he/she
acted with discernment.
Penalty to be imposed when the crime committed is
not wholly excusable
(RPC, Article 69)

A penalty lower by one or two degrees than that

prescribed by law shall be imposed if the deed is not
wholly excusable by reason of the lack of some of the
conditions required to justify the same or to exempt from
criminal liability in the several cases mentioned in Article
11 and 12, provided that the majority of such conditions
be present. The courts shall impose the penalty in the
period which may be deemed proper, in view of the
number and nature of the conditions of exemption
present or lacking.
 Additional Penalty to be imposed upon
Public Officers who are guilty as Accessories
under Art 19, par. 3
(RPC, Article 58)

Those accessories falling within the terms of

paragraphs 3 of Article 19 of this Code who
should act with abuse of their public functions,
shall suffer the additional penalty of absolute
perpetual disqualification if the principal offender
shall be guilty of a grave felony, and that of
absolute temporary disqualification if he shall be
guilty of a less grave felony.
 Penalty for Impossible Crime
(RPC, Article 59)

When the person intending to commit an offense has

already performed the acts for the execution of the same
but nevertheless the crime was not produced by reason
of the fact that the act intended was by its nature one of
impossible accomplishment or because the means
employed by such person are essentially inadequate to
produce the result desired by him, the court, having in
mind the social danger and the degree of criminality
shown by the offender, shall impose upon him the
penalty of arresto mayor or a fine from 200 to 500
pesos.
 Diagram of Application of Articles 50 to 57

Principals Accomplices Accessories

Consummated 0 1 2

Frustrated 1 2 3

Attempted 2 3 4

Note: “0” represents the penalty prescribed by law in

defining a crime, which is to be imposed on the principal in a
consummated offense, in accordance with Article 46 of the
RPC. The other figures represent the degrees to which the
penalty must be lowered, to meet the different situations
anticipated by law.
 Exceptions to the rules under Articles 50 to 57

1. The provisions contained in Articles 50 to 57, inclusive,

shall not be applicable to cases in which the law
expressly prescribes the penalty provided for a
frustrated or attempted felony, or to be imposed upon
accomplices or accessories (RPC, Article 60).

2. The courts, in view of the facts of the case, may impose

upon the person guilty of the frustrated crime of
parricide, murder or homicide, defined and penalized in
the preceding articles, a penalty lower by one degree
than that which should be imposed under the provision
of Article 50. The courts, considering the facts of the
case, may likewise reduce by one degree the penalty
which under article 51 should be imposed for an attempt
to commit any of such crimes (RPC, Article 250).
 Bases for the determination of the extent of penalty
to be imposed under the RPC

1. The stage reached by the crime in its development

(either attempted, frustrated or consummated);

2. The participations therein of the persons liable; and

3. The aggravating or mitigating circumstances which

attended the commission of the crime.

In the different stages of execution in the commission of

the crime and in the participation therein of the persons
liable, the penalty is graduated by degree.
 Duration of Penalties (Art. 27)

The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be from twenty

(20) years and one (1) day to forty (40) years.

The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be from twelve

(12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years.

The duration of the penalties of prision mayor and

temporary disqualification shall be from six (6) years and
one (1) day to twelve (12) years, except when the penalty of
disqualification is imposed as an accessory penalty, in which
case, its duration shall be that of the principal penalty.
 Subsidiary Imprisonment

If the convict has no property with which to meet the

fine, he shall be subject to a subsidiary personal liability at
the rate of one day for each eight pesos, subject to the
following rules:

1. If the principal penalty imposed be prision

correccional or arresto and fine, he shall remain under
confinement until his fine referred in the preceding
paragraph is satisfied, but his subsidiary imprisonment shall
not exceed one-third of the term of the sentence, and in no
case shall it continue for more than one year, and no
fraction or part of a day shall be counted against the
prisoner.
 Subsidiary Imprisonment

2. When the principal penalty imposed be only a fine,

the subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed six months, if
the culprit shall have been prosecuted for a grave or less
grave felony, and shall not exceed fifteen days, if for a light
felony.

3. When the principal penalty imposed is higher than

prision correccional, no subsidiary imprisonment shall be
imposed upon the culprit.
 Subsidiary Imprisonment

4. If the principal penalty imposed is not to be

executed by confinement in a penal institution, but such
penalty is of fixed duration, the convict, during the period
of time established in the preceding rules, shall continue to
suffer the same deprivation as those of which the principal
penalty consists.

5. The subsidiary personal liability which the convict

may have suffered by reason of his insolvency shall not
relieve him from the fine in case his financial
circumstances should improve.
 Adoption of the technical nomenclature of Spanish penalty

RPC is not generally applicable to malum prohibitum. However, when a special law,
which punished malum prohibitum, adopts the technical nomenclature of the
penalties in RPC, the provisions under this Code shall apply (People vs. Simon, G.R.
No. 93028, July 29, 1994) such as: (1) Article 68 on the privilege mitigating
circumstance of minority; (2) Article 64 on application on penalty in its minimum
period if there is confession; and (3) Article 160 on special aggravating circumstance
of quasi-recidivism.

RA No.7080 and RA No. 10591 adopt the nomenclature of the penalties in RPC.
Hence, minority, confession (Jacaban vs. People, G.R. No. 184955, March 23, 2015;
Malto vs. People, G.R. No. 164733, September 21, 2007) or quasi-recidivism shall
be considered in plunder and illegal possession of loose firearm.

Under Section 98 of RA No. 9165, the provisions of RPC shall not apply except in
the case of minor offenders. Hence, if the accused is a minor, privilege mitigating
circumstance of minority (People vs. Mantalaba G.R. No. 186227, July 20, 2011;
People vs. Musa, G.R. No. 199735, October 24, 2012; Asiatico vs. People, G.R No.
195005, September 12, 2011), confession or quasi-recidivism (People vs. Salazar,
G.R. No. 98060, January 27, 1997) shall be considered in crime involving dangerous
drugs. In this case, life imprisonment shall be considered as reclusion perpetua. If
the accused is an adult, these circumstances shall not be appreciated.
 Adoption of the technical nomenclature of Spanish penalty

If the special law (such as RA No. 6325 on hijacking and RA No. 3019 one
corruption) did not adopt the technical nomenclature of penalties in RPC, the latter
shall not apply. Mitigating circumstance of confession shall not be appreciated since
the penalty not borrowed from RPC cannot be applied in its minimum period. The
crime has no attempted or frustrated stage since penalty not borrowed from RPC
cannot be graduated one or two degrees lower.

Mitigating circumstance of old age can only be appreciated if the accused is over 70
years old at the time of the commission of the crime under RA No. 3019 and not at
the time of promulgation of judgment (People vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 177105-06,
August 12, 2010, J. Bersamin). Moreover, this mitigating circumstance of old age
cannot be appreciated in crime punishable by RA No. 3019 since this law did not
adopt the technical nomenclature of the penalties of the RPC.
 Incorrect Penalty

The court should prescribe the correct penalties in

complex crimes in strict observance of Article 48 of
the Revised Penal Code. In estafa through
falsification of commercial documents, the court
should impose the penalty for the graver offense in
the maximum period. Otherwise, the penalty
prescribed is invalid, and will not attain finality (De
Castro vs. People, G.R. No. 171672, February 02,
2015, J. Bersamin).
 De Castro vs. People
(G.R. No. 171672, February 02, 2015, J. Bersamin)

The guilt of the petitioner for four counts of estafa through falsification of a
commercial document was established beyond reasonable doubt. As a bank
teller, she took advantage of the bank depositors who had trusted in her
enough to leave their passbooks with her upon her instruction.

In the four criminal cases involved in this appeal, the falsification of

commercial documents is punished with prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods (i.e., two years, four months and one day to six years)
and a fine of P5,000.00. In contrast, the estafa is punished according to the
value of the defraudation.

In Criminal Case No. 94-5524, estafa was the graver felony because the
amount of the fraud was P20,000.00; hence, the penalty for estafa is to be
imposed in its maximum period. However, the RTC and the CA fixed the
indeterminate sentence of two years, 11 months and 10 days of prison
correccional, as minimum, to six years, eight months and 20 days of prision
mayor, as maximum. Such maximum of the indeterminate penalty was short by
one day, the maximum period of the penalty being six years, eight months
and 21 days to eight years. Thus, the indeterminate sentence is corrected
to three years of prison correccional, as minimum, to six years, eight
months and 21 days of prision mayor, as maximum.
 De Castro vs. People
(G.R. No. 171672, February 02, 2015, J. Bersamin)

In Criminal Case No. 94-5525, involving P2,000.00, the estafa is

punished with four months and one day of arresto mayor in its maximum
period to two years and four months of prision correccional in its minimum
period. The falsification of commercial document is penalized with prision
correccional in its medium and maximum periods (i.e., two years, four
months and one day to six years) and a fine of P5,000.00. The latter
offense is the graver felony, and its penalty is to be imposed in the
maximum period, which is from four years, nine months and 11 days to
six years plus fine of P5,000.00. The penalty next lower in degree
is arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its
minimum period (i.e., four months and one day to two years and four
months). Thus, the indeterminate sentence of three months of arresto
mayor, as minimum, to one year and eight months of prision
correccional, as maximum that both the RTC and the CA fixed was
erroneous. The SC rectified the error by prescribing in lieu thereof the
indeterminate sentence of two years of prision correccional, as minimum,
to four years, nine months and 11 days of prision correccional plus
fine of P5,000.00, as maximum.
 De Castro vs. People
(G.R. No. 171672, February 02, 2015, J. Bersamin)

In Criminal Case No. 94-5526, involving P10,000.00, the RTC and the
CA imposed the indeterminate sentence of four months and 20 days
of arresto mayor, as minimum, to two years, 11 months and 10 days
of prision correccional, as maximum. However, the penalty for the
falsification of commercial documents is higher than that for the estafa. To
accord with Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for
falsification of commercial documents (i.e., prision correccional in its
medium and maximum periods and a fine of P5,000.00) should be
imposed in the maximum period. Accordingly, the SC revised the
indeterminate sentence so that its minimum is two years and four months
of prision correccional, and its maximum is five years of prision
correccional plus fine of P5,000.00.
 De Castro vs. People
(G.R. No. 171672, February 02, 2015, J. Bersamin)

In Criminal Case No. 94-5527, where the amount of the fraud was
P35,000.00, the penalty for estafa (i.e., prision correccional in its maximum
period to prision mayor in its minimum period, or four years, two months
and one day to eight years) is higher than that for falsification of
commercial documents. The indeterminate sentence of two years, 11
months and 10 days of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight years
of prision mayor, as maximum, was prescribed. Considering that the
maximum period ranged from six years, eight months and 21 days to eight
years, the CA should have clarified whether or not the maximum of eight
years of prision mayor already included the incremental penalty of one
year for every P10,000.00 in excess of P22,000.00. Absent the
clarification, we can presume that the incremental penalty was not yet
included. Thus, in order to make the penalty clear and specific, the
indeterminate sentence is hereby fixed at four years of prision correccional,
as minimum, to six years, eight months and 21 days of prision mayor, as
maximum, plus one year incremental penalty. In other words, the maximum
of the indeterminate sentence is seven years, eight months and 21 days
of prision mayor.
 Incorrect Penalty

In Fransdilla vs. People, (GR No. 197562, April 20, 2015, J.

Bersamin), the trial judge fixed the indeterminate sentence at
"imprisonment of 12 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months
of reclusion temporal as minimum to 17 years, 4 months and 1 day to
20 years of reclusion temporal as maximum". This is a patent
elementary error. Considering that the clear objective of the ISLAW is
to have the convict serve the minimum penalty before becoming
eligible for release on parole, both the minimum and the maximum
penalties must be definite, not ranging. This objective cannot be
achieved otherwise, for determining when the convict would be eligible
for release on parole would be nearly impossible if the minimum and
the maximum were as indefinite as the RTC fixed the indeterminate
sentence. Indeed, that the sentence is an indeterminate one relates
only to the fact that such imposition would leave the period between
the minimum and the maximum penalties indeterminate "in the sense
that he may, under the conditions set out in said Act, be released from
serving said period in whole or in part."
 Incorrect Penalty

In People vs. Fontanilla, G.R. No. 177743, January 25, 2012, J.

Bersamin - The trial court sentenced the accused to suffer
reclusion perpetua to death for murder. This is erroneous.
Reclusion perpetua and death should not be imposed as a
compound, alternative or successive penalty for a single felony. In
short, the imposition of one precluded the imposition of the other.

Article 64 of RPC provides the rules on application of divisible

penalty. Under this provision, the penalty prescribed for a felony
shall be applied in its proper imposable period based on the
presence of modifying circumstances.
 Incorrect Penalty

Under Article 349 of RPC, the penalty for bigamy

is prision mayor. In the absence of modifying
circumstances, prision mayor pursuant to Article 64 shall be
applied in its medium period, which ranges from 8 years and
1 day to 10 years. Applying the ISLAW, the minimum of the
indeterminate sentence should be within the range of prision
correccional, the penalty next lower than that prescribed for
the offense, which is from 6 months and 1 day to 6 years.
Accordingly, the indeterminate sentence of 2 years and 4
months of prision correccional, as minimum, to 8 years and 1
day of prision mayor as maximum is proper. (Lasanas vs.
People, G.R. No. 159031, 23 June 2014, J. Bersamin)
 Incorrect Penalty

Under Article 249 of RPC, the penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal.
In the absence of any modifying circumstances, reclusion temporal shall be
applied in its medium period, which ranges from 14 years, 8 months and 1
day to 17 years and 4 months. Applying Article 64, within the limits of the
medium period of reclusion temporal, the courts shall determine the extent of
the penalty according to the number and nature of the aggravating and
mitigating circumstances and the greater or lesser extent of the evil produced
by the crime. Thus, the court could not impose the highest penalty of the
medium period of reclusion temporal, and that, is 17 years and 4 months
without specifying the justification for so imposing. Without proper
justification, the court should impose the lowest penalty of the medium period
of reclusion temporal, and that is, 14 years, 8 months. Since ISLAW is
applicable, 14 years, 8 months shall be considered as the maximum penalty
while the minimum penalty shall be fixed within the limits of prision mayor,
which ranges from 6 years and 1 day to 12 years. Hence, the accused is
sentenced to suffer 10 years of prision mayor as minimum indeterminate
penalty to 14 years, 8 months of reclusion temporal as maximum penalty.
(Ladines vs. People, G.R. No. 167333, 11 January 2016, J. Bersamin)
 Probation Law
(P.D. No. 968, as amended)

Definition

"Probation" is a disposition under which a

defendant, after conviction and sentence, is released
subject to conditions imposed by the court and to the
supervision of a probation officer.
 Probation Law
(P.D. No. 968, as amended)

Disqualified Offenders (Sec. 9) – The benefits of this law

shall not extend to those:

(a) sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of

more than six years;

(b) convicted of any offense against the security of the

State;

(c) who have previously been convicted by final judgment of

an offense punished by imprisonment of not less than one
(1) month and one (1) day and/or a fine of not less than Two
Hundred (200) Pesos;
 Probation Law
(P.D. No. 968, as amended)

Disqualified Offenders (Sec. 9) – The benefits of this

law shall not extend to those:

(d) who have been once on probation; and

(e) who are already serving sentence at the time the

substantive provisions of this law became applicable.
 Probation Law
(P.D. No. 968, as amended)

Francisco v. Court of Appeals

(G.R. No. 108747; 6 April 1995)

Probation is a special privilege granted by the state to a penitent

qualified offender. It essentially rejects appeals and encourages an
otherwise eligible convict to immediately admit his liability and save the
state of time, effort and expenses to jettison an appeal. The law
expressly requires that an accused must not have appealed his
conviction before he can avail of probation. This outlaws the
element of speculation on the part of the accused — to wager on the
result of his appeal — that when his conviction is finally affirmed on
appeal, the moment of truth well-nigh at hand, and the service of his
sentence inevitable, he now applies for probation as an "escape hatch"
thus rendering nugatory the appellate court's affirmance of his
conviction. Consequently, probation should be availed of at the first
opportunity by convicts who are willing to be reformed and
rehabilitated, who manifest spontaneity, contrition and remorse.
 Probation Law
(P.D. No. 968, as amended)

Lagrosa v. People
(GR. No. 152044, 3 July 2003)

Petitioners Domingo Lagrosa and Osias Baguin were convicted by the

Regional Trial Court of Tagbilaran of violating Section 68 of P.D 705, as
amended (the Revised Forestry Code), for having in their possession forest
products without the requisite permits. The trial court sentenced them to suffer
the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from two (2) years, four (4) months
and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years of
prision mayor, as maximum.

Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) which modified and

reduced the penalty to an indeterminate penalty ranging from six (6) months
and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to one (1) year, eight (8)
months and twenty one (21) days of prision correccional, as maximum. They
then filed for Probation with the trial court but such was denied. The CA, upon
petition for certiorari, affirmed the decision of the trial court. Aggrieved, the
petitioners raised the issue to the Supreme Court asserting that the application
for probation was made at the first opportunity.
 Probation Law
(P.D. No. 968, as amended)

Lagrosa v. People
(GR. No. 152044, 3 July 2003)

Petitioners contend that they should be allowed to apply for

probation even if they had already appealed the decision of the trial
court. They argue that their case should be considered an exception to
the general rule which excludes an accused who has appealed his
conviction from the benefits of probation. To bolster this assertion,
petitioners claim that what prompted them to appeal the decision of the
trial court was the erroneous penalty imposed by the trial court.[
 Probation Law
(P.D. No. 968, as amended)

Lagrosa v. People
(GR. No. 152044, 3 July 2003)

HELD: The petitioners may not be granted probation.

The trial court sentenced petitioners to a maximum term of
eight years, which was beyond the coverage of the
Probation Law. They only became eligible for probation after
the Court of Appeals modified the judgment of the trial court
and reduced the maximum term of the penalty imposed on
them to one year, eight months and twenty-one days. Having
appealed from the judgment of the trial court and having
applied for probation only after the Court of Appeals had
affirmed their conviction, petitioners were clearly precluded
from the benefits of probation.
 Probation Law
(P.D. No. 968, as amended)

Lagrosa v. People
(GR. No. 152044, 3 July 2003)

HELD: The Supreme Court held that petitioners are not being
candid when they claimed that what prompted them to appeal the
decision of the trial court was the erroneous penalty it imposed.
The fact that petitioners put the merits of their conviction in
issue on appeal belies their claim that their appeal was
prompted by what was admittedly an incorrect penalty.
Certainly, the protestations of petitioners connote a profession of
guiltlessness, if not complete innocence, and do not simply assail
the propriety of the penalties imposed. For sure, petitioners never
manifested that they were appealing only for the purpose of
correcting a wrong penalty to reduce it to within probationable
range.
 Probation Law
(P.D. No. 968, as amended)

Lagrosa v. People
(GR. No. 152044, 3 July 2003)

HELD: Hence, upon interposing an appeal, more so after

asserting their innocence therein, petitioners should be
precluded from seeking probation. By perfecting their appeal,
petitioners ipso facto relinquished the alternative remedy of
availing of the Probation Law, the purpose of which is simply
to prevent speculation or opportunism on the part of an
accused who, although already eligible, does not at once
apply for probation, but did so only after failing in his appeal.
 Probation Law
(P.D. No. 968, as amended)

Arnel Colinares v. People

(G.R. No. 182748; 13 December 2011)

The accused was convicted by the RTC for Frustrated Homicide

punishable by imprisonment of more than six (6) years. On appeal, the
Supreme Court found him guilty of Attempted Homicide which offense
is punishable by less than six (6) years imprisonment. The accused
then applied for probation. The Supreme Court held that the
accused should be granted probation although he appealed from
the judgment of conviction. The ruling in Francisco does not
apply because Arnel Colinares has no right to choose whether or
not to appeal or apply for probation since the stiff penalty that the
trial court imposed on him denied him that choice. It was only after
he appealed the judgment of conviction that he was granted the right
to apply for probation. The ruling in Francisco remains that those who
will appeal from judgments of conviction, when they have the option to
try for probation, forfeit their right to apply for that privilege.
 Probation Law
(P.D. No. 968, as amended)

Padua v. People
(G.R. No. 168546, 23 July 2008)

Michael Padua was charged and convicted for violation of Section

5, Article II of Rep. Act No. 9165 for selling dangerous drugs. Under
Section 24 of Rep. Act No. 9165, any person convicted of drug
trafficking cannot avail of the privilege of probation. The law
considers the users and possessors of illegal drugs as victims while
the drug traffickers and pushers as predators. Hence, while drug
traffickers and pushers, like Michael Padua, are categorically
disqualified from availing the law on probation, youthful drug
dependents, users and possessors alike, are given the chance to
mend their ways.

Thus, while the provisions of R.A. 9165, particularly Section 70

thereof, deals with Probation or Community Service for First-
Time Minor Offender in Lieu of Imprisonment, minor Michael
Padua who was charged and convicted of violating Section 5,
Article II, R.A. 9165, cannot avail of probation.
 Probation Law
(P.D. No. 968, as amended)

Section 42 of R.A. No. 9344 provides:

Probation as an Alternative to Imprisonment. -

The court may, after it shall have convicted and
sentenced a child in conflict with the law, and upon
application at any time, place the child on probation in
lieu of service of his/her sentence taking into account the
best interest of the child. For this purpose, Section 4 of
Presidential Decree No. 968, otherwise known as the
"Probation Law of 1976", is hereby amended
accordingly.
 Probation Law
(P.D. No. 968, as amended)

Period of Probation (Sec. 14)

(a) The period of probation of a defendant sentenced to a

term of imprisonment of not more than one year shall
not exceed two years, and in all other cases, said
period shall not exceed six years.

(b) When the sentence imposes a fine only and the

offender is made to serve subsidiary imprisonment in
case of insolvency, the period of probation shall not be
less than nor to be more than twice the total number of
days of subsidiary imprisonment as computed at the
rate established in the RPC.
 Probation Law
(P.D. No. 968, as amended)

Arrest of Probationer (Sec. 15)

• At any time during probation, the court may issue a

warrant for the arrest of a probationer for violation of any of
the conditions of probation.
• The probationer, once arrested and detained, shall
immediately be brought before the court for a hearing,
which may be informal and summary, of the violation
charged.
• The defendant may be admitted to bail pending such
hearing. In such a case, the provisions regarding release
on bail of persons charged with a crime shall be applicable
to probationers arrested.
 Probation Law
(P.D. No. 968, as amended)

Arrest of Probationer (Sec. 15)

• If the violation is established, the court may revoke or

continue his probation and modify the conditions thereof.
If revoked, the court shall order the probationer to serve
the sentence originally imposed.

• An order revoking the grant of probation or modifying the

terms and conditions thereof shall not be appealable.
 Probation Law
(P.D. No. 968, as amended)

Termination of Probation; Exception (Sec. 16)

• After the period of probation and upon consideration

of the report and recommendation of the probation
officer, the court may order the final discharge of the
probationer upon finding that he has fulfilled the terms
and conditions of his probation and thereupon the
case is deemed terminated.
 Probation Law
(P.D. No. 968, as amended)

Termination of Probation; Exception (Sec. 16)

• The final discharge of the probationer shall operate

to restore to him all civil rights lost or suspend as a
result of his conviction and to fully discharge his
liability for any fine imposed as to the offense for
which probation was granted.

• The probationer and the probation officer shall each

be furnished with a copy of such order.
 Indeterminate Sentence Law

(a) Application on the imposed sentence

In imposing a prison sentence for an offense

punished by the Revised Penal Code, or its
amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to
an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of
which shall be that which, in view of the attending
circumstances, could be properly imposed under the
rules of said Code, and the minimum which shall be
within the range of the penalty next lower to that
prescribed by the Code for the offense.
 Indeterminate Sentence Law

(a) Application on the imposed sentence

If the offense is punished by any other law

(Special Law), the court shall sentence the accused to
an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which
shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the
minimum shall not be less than the minimum term
prescribed by the same.
 Indeterminate Sentence Law

(b) Coverage

The Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable

to:

a. Those convicted of offenses punished with death

penalty or life imprisonment;

b. Those convicted of treason, conspiracy or

proposal to commit treason or espionage;
 Indeterminate Sentence Law

(b) Coverage

The Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable

to:

c. Those convicted of misprision of treason,

rebellion, sedition or coup d' etat;

d. Those convicted of piracy or mutiny on the high

seas or Philippine waters;
 Indeterminate Sentence Law

(b) Coverage

The Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable

to:

e. Those who are habitual delinquents, i.e., those

who, within a period of ten (10) years from the date of
release from prison or last conviction of the crimes of
serious or less serious physical injuries, robbery, theft,
estafa, and falsification, are found guilty of any of said
crimes a third time or oftener;
 Indeterminate Sentence Law

(b) Coverage

The Indeterminate Sentence Law is not

applicable to:

f. Those who escaped from confinement or evaded

sentence;

g. Those who having been granted conditional

pardon by the President of the Philippines shall have
violated any of the terms thereof;
 Indeterminate Sentence Law

(b) Coverage

The Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable to:

h. Those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not

exceed one (1) year or those with definite sentence;

i. Those convicted of offenses punished with reclusion

perpetua, or whose sentences were reduced to reclusion
perpetua by reason of Republic Act No. 9346 enacted on June
24, 2006, amending Republic Act No. 7659 dated January 1,
2004; and

j. Those convicted for violation of the laws on terrorism,

plunder and transnational crimes.
 Indeterminate Sentence Law

Conditions of Parole

Every prisoner released from confinement on parole

shall report personally to such government officials or other
parole officers appointed by the Board of Indeterminate
Sentence for a period of surveillance equivalent to the
remaining portion of the maximum sentence imposed upon
him or until final release and discharge by the Board of
Indeterminate Sentence. The officials so designated shall
keep such records and make such reports and perform such
other duties as may be required by said Board (Sec. 6).
 Indeterminate Sentence Law

Conditions of Parole

The limits of residence of such paroled prisoner during

his parole may be fixed and from time to time changed by
the said Board in its discretion. If during the period of
surveillance such paroled prisoner shall show himself to be
a law-abiding citizen and shall not violate any law, the Board
of Indeterminate Sentence may issue a final certificate of
release in his favor, which shall entitle him to final release
and discharge (Sec. 6).
 Indeterminate Sentence Law

Conditions of Parole

Whenever any prisoner released on parole, during the

period of surveillance, violate any of the conditions of his
parole, the Board of Indeterminate Sentence may issue
an order for his re-arrest which may be served in any part
of the Philippines by any police officer. In such case the
prisoner so re-arrested shall serve the remaining
unexpired portion of the maximum sentence for which he
was originally committed to prison, unless the Board of
Indeterminate Sentence shall, in its discretion, grant a
new parole to the said prisoner (Sec. 8).
 Mandatory application of ISLAW
The application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law is mandatory to both the
Revised Penal Code and the special laws (Romero vs. People, G.R No.
171644, November 23, 2011). However, the Supreme Court, in People vs. Nang
Kay, G.R. No. L-3565, April 20, 1951, has provided an exception. In this case,
the accused pleased guilty to offense where the law prescribed a penalty of 5 to
10 years imprisonment. The court sentenced the accused to suffer 5 years of
imprisonment. The Supreme Court sustained the penalty. Fixing the penalty at
the minimum limit without applying Act No. 4103 is favorable to the accused
since the accused shall be automatically released upon serving 5 years of
imprisonment. Applying Act No. 4103 would lengthen the penalty because the
indeterminate maximum penalty must be necessarily more than 5 years (People
vs. Arroyo, G.R. No. L-35584-85, February 13, 1982). However, the Nang Kay
principle is not applicable where the crime is punishable under the Revised
Penal Code. The application of ISLAW is always mandatory if the penalty is
prescribed by RPC since it is favorable to the accused. It is favorable to the
accused since in fixing the minimum penalty, the prescribed penalty under the
Code shall be lowered by one degree. On the other hand, in fixing the minimum
penalty for offense under special law involved in the Nang Kay case, the prescribed
penalty shall not be lowered (People vs. Judge Lee, Jr, G.R. No. 66859, September
12, 1984).
 Mandatory application of ISLAW

The Nang Kay principle is not also applicable where the accused does not
deserve a lenient penalty. In Batistis vs. People, G.R. No. 181571,
December 16. 2009, the SC through Justice Bersamin said the Nang Kay
exception is not applicable where there is no justification for lenity towards
the accused since he did not voluntarily plead guilty, and the crime
committed is a grave economic offense because of the large number of
fake Fundador confiscated.
 Rules for the Application of Indivisible Penalties
(RPC, Article 63)

• In all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible

penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any
mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended
the commission of the deed.

• In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of

two indivisible penalties, the following rules shall be observed in
the application thereof:

1. When in the commission of the deed there is present only one

aggravating circumstance, the greater penalty shall be applied.

2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating

circumstances in the commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall
be applied.
 Rules for the Application of Indivisible Penalties
(RPC, Article 63)

3. When the commission of the act is attended by some

mitigating circumstances and there is no aggravating circumstance,
the lesser penalty shall be applied.

4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances attended

the commission of the act, the court shall reasonably allow them to
offset one another in consideration of their number and importance,
for the purpose of applying the penalty in accordance with the
preceding rules, according to the result of such compensation.
 Rules for the Application of Indivisible Penalties

Special Mitigating Circumstance

Accused was found guilty of parricide punishable by the penalty of

reclusion perpetua to death. Applying the rules for application of indivisible
penalties (Article 63), the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be
applied if there are two mitigating circumstance. The penalty cannot be
lowered to reclusion temporal, no matter how many mitigating
circumstances are present. The special mitigating circumstance is found in
rules for application of divisible penalties (Article 64), which is not
applicable because the penalty is not divisible (People v. Takbobo, G.R.
No. 102984, June 30, 1993). The Takbobo principle is also applicable if the
penalty prescribed by law for the crime committed is a single indivisible
penalty such as reclusion perpetua.

If there are three mitigating circumstance and one aggravating

circumstance, special mitigating circumstance for purposes of graduating
the penalty shall not be appreciated. Although there are two remaining
mitigating circumstances after applying the off-set rule, the penalty shall not
be lowered by one degree because the appreciation of special
circumstance requires that there is no aggravating circumstance.
 Rules for the Application of Indivisible Penalties

Offset Rule

Only ordinary aggravating and mitigating circumstances are subject to

the offset rule. Privileged mitigating circumstance of minority cannot be
off-set by ordinary aggravating circumstance (Aballe v. People, G.R. No.
L-64086, March 15, 1990). If privileged mitigating circumstance and
ordinary aggravating circumstance attended the commission of felony, the
former shall be taken into account in graduating penalty; the latter in
applying the graduated penalty in its maximum period (People v.
Lumandong, G.R. NO. 132745, March 9, 2000, En Banc). Quasi-recidivism
is a special circumstance and cannot be offset by a generic mitigating
circumstance (People v. Macariola, G.R. No. L-40757, January 24, 2983).
The circumstance of treachery, which qualifies the killing into murder,
cannot be offset by a generic mitigating circumstance voluntary surrender
(people v. Abletes and Pamero, G.R. No. L-33304, July 31, 1974).
 Application of Divisible Penalties

There are four kinds of divisible penalty, which are

governed by Article 64, to wit:

(1) Penalty composed of three periods fixed in

accordance with Article 76;
(2) Penalty not composed of three periods computed in
accordance with Article 65;
(3) Complex penalty under Article 77, par. 1; and
(4) Penalty without specific legal form under Article 77,
par. 2
 Rules for the Application of Penalties which contain
Three Periods
(RPC, Article 64)

In cases in which the penalties prescribed by law contain three

periods, whether it be a single divisible penalty or composed of three
different penalties, each one of which forms a period in accordance
with the provisions of Articles 76 and 77, the court shall observe for
the application of the penalty the following rules, according to
whether there are or are not mitigating or aggravating circumstances:

1. When there are neither aggravating nor mitigating

circumstances, they shall impose the penalty prescribed by law in its
medium period.

2. When only a mitigating circumstances is present in the

commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its minimum
period.
 Rules for the Application of Penalties which contain
Three Periods
(RPC, Article 64)

3. When only an aggravating circumstance is present in the

commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its maximum
period.

4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances are

present, the court shall reasonably offset those of one class against
the other according to their relative weight.

5. When there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no

aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall impose the
penalty next lower to that prescribed by law, in the period that it may
deem applicable, according to the number and nature of such
circumstances.
 Rules for the Application of Penalties which contain
Three Periods
(RPC, Article 64)

6. Whatever may be the number and nature of the aggravating

circumstances, the courts shall not impose a greater penalty than that
prescribed by law, in its maximum period.

7. Within the limits of each period, the court shall determine the
extent of the penalty according to the number and nature of the
aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the greater and lesser
extent of the evil produced by the crime.
 Penalty Containing Three Periods

Article 76 of RPC expressly fixed the range of the period

for reclusion temporal, prision mayor, temporary
disqualification, prision correccional, destierro, suspension,
arresto mayor, and arresto menor. To find the range of the
periods of any of the aforesaid penalties, one will simply read
Article 76. If the crime committed is homicide and there is one
mitigating circumstance of confession, the prescribed penalty
of reclusion temporal shall be applied in its minimum period
because of Article 64. Article 76 expressly states that the
range of the minimum period of reclusion temporal is from 12
years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months. Within the range
of this period, the maximum indeterminate penalty shall be
fixed.
 Penalty Containing Three Periods

The range of the minimum, medium and maximum

periods fixed in accordance with Article 76 is one-third equal
portion of the respective penalties except arresto mayor.
Under Article 76, the minimum period of arresto mayor
ranges from 1 month and 1 day to 2 months; medium period
ranges from 2 month and 1 day to 4 months; and maximum
period ranges from 4 months and 1 day to 6 months. Hence,
the time included in the duration of the minimum period of
arresto mayor is only one month while that of the medium
and maximum is two months.
 Penalty Containing Three Periods

Determining the legal duration of the minimum,

medium and maximum periods of each penalty.

The legal duration of each period of a penalty is determined by

dividing the duration of the penalty by three periods. The quotient is
then added to the start of the duration of each penalty.

Illustration:

Prision mayor – 6 years and 1 day as minimum to 12 years as

maximum.

Step 1: Subtract the minimum / lower limit (disregarding 1 day) from

the maximum / upper limit.

Thus: 12 years – 6 years = 6 years

 Penalty Containing Three Periods

Determining the legal duration of the minimum,

medium and maximum periods of each penalty.

Step 2: Divide the difference of 6 years by 3 periods. The quotient is

2 years.

Step 3: Add 2 years to the start of the minimum period of 6 years.

The minimum period of prision mayor is 6 years and 1 day to 8
years; 1 day is added to the lower limit of the minimum period to
distinguish it from the maximum period of prision correccional.

Step 4: To distinguish the lower limit of the medium period from the
upper limit of the minimum period, add 1 day to 8 years, which is
the upper limit of the minimum period. Thereafter, add 2 years. The
duration of the medium period of prision mayor is 8 years and 1 day
to 10 years.
 Penalty Containing Three Periods

Determining the legal duration of the minimum,

medium and maximum periods of each penalty.

Step 5: To get the maximum period, add 1 day to 10 years, which is

the upper limit of the medium period of prision mayor. Thereafter,
add 2 years. The duration of the maximum period of prision mayor
is 10 years and 1 day to 12 years.

The same formula and procedure are followed in computing the

duration of the period of the other penalties.
 Rule in cases in which the Penalty is Not Composed
of Three Periods
(RPC, Article 65)

In cases in which the penalty prescribed by law is not

composed of three periods, the courts shall apply the
rules contained in the foregoing articles, dividing into
three equal portions of time included in the penalty
prescribed, and forming one period of each of the three
portions.
 Penalty Not Composed of Three Periods

Penalties with divisible duration, the periods of which are

not expressly mentioned in Article 76 are called “penalties not
composed of three periods”; since Article 76 has not fixed the
duration of their periods, they must be computed in
accordance with Article 65. Under this provision, the time
included in the duration of penalty shall be divided into three
equal portions and periods shall be formed from each portion.

The penalty for malversation under paragraph 2 of Article

217 of the RPC is prision mayor in its minimum and medium
period. The range of this penalty is not found in Article 76.
Considering that this penalty is not composed of three
periods, the time included in the penalty prescribed should be
divided into three equal portions, which each portion forming
one period, pursuant to Article 65 (Zafra v. People, G.R. No.
176317, July 23, 2014, J. Bersamin).
 Penalty Not Composed of Three Periods

The duration of “prision mayor in its minimum and medium

period” is 6 years and 1 day to 10 years. To determine “the
time included in the duration,” deduct “one day” and the
lower limit of the prescribed penalty from its upper limit.

10 years------------------upper limit
-6 years and 1 day-----lower limit
-1 .
4 years-------------------time included in the duration of
penalty

Fours years, which is “the time included in the duration” shall

be divided into three equal portions.

4 years/3 = 1 year and 4 months-----1/3 portion of the

penalty
 Penalty Not Composed of Three Periods

The minimum, medium and maximum periods shall be formed out

of 3 equal portions of the penalty. The time included in the duration
of each period is 1 year and 4 months.

6 years
+1 year and 4 months
7 years and 4 months
+1 year and 4 months
8 years and 8 months
+1 year and 4 months
10 years

Thus, the minimum period of the prescribed penalty of “prision

mayor in its minimum and medium periods” ranges from 6 years
and 1 day to 7 years and 4 months; its medium period ranges from
7 years, 4 months and 1 day to 8 years and 8 months; its maximum
period ranges from 8 years , 8 months and 1 day to 10 years (Zafra
v. People, G.R. No. 176317, July 23, 2014, J. Bersamin).
 Complex Penalty

Complex penalty is composed of three distinct penalties. The periods of

complex penalty is formed in accordance with Article 77, par. 1.
Applying this provision, each of the components of the complex
penalty shall form a period; the lightest of them shall be the
minimum, the next the medium, and the most severe the maximum
period.

Reclusion temporal to death prescribed for treason committed by

resident alien under Article 114 of the RPC is a complex penalty. This
penalty is composed of three distinct penalties, namely: reclusion
temporal, reclusion perpetua and death penalty. Out of these three
components, periods shall be formed in accordance with Article 77, par.
1. Thus, reclusion temporal, which is the lightest of the three, shall be
minimum period of penalty of reclusion temporal to death; reclusion
perpetua, which is the next penalty, shall be the medium period; death
penalty, which is the most severe, shall be the maximum period. Thus,
in the absence of modifying circumstances, reclusion temporal to death
prescribed for treason shall be applied in its medium period, and that is,
reclusion perpetua.
 Complex Penalty

Prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its

medium period prescribed for simple robbery under Article 294 of RPC
is a complex penalty since it is composed of three distinct penalties.
Thus, prision correccional in its maximum period, which is the lightest
of the three, shall be minimum period of this prescribed penalty. Prision
mayor in its minimum period, which is the most severe, shall be the
maximum period. In sum, prision correccional in its maximum period to
prision mayor in its medium period prescribed for robbery shall be
broken down as follows:

Minimum: Prision correccional in its maximum period

(4 years, 2 months and 1 day to 6 years)
Medium: Prision mayor in its minimum period
(6 years and 1 day to 8 years)
Maximum: Prision mayor in its medium period
(8 years and 1 day to 10 years)
See: People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 168173, December 24, 2008, En Banc, People v. Barrientos, G.R. No. 119835, January 28,
1998, En Banc, People v. Castillo, G.R. No. L-11793, May 19, 1961, En Banc, People v. Diamante, G.R. No. 180992, September
4, 2009, and People v. Lumiwan, G.R. Nos. 122753-56, September 7, 1998.
 Complex Penalty

Reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua

prescribed for sexual abuse under Section 5 (b) of RA No. 7610 is a
complex penalty since it is composed of three distinct penalties.
Applying Article 77, par, 1, this complex penalty can be broken down as
follows:

Minimum: Reclusion temporal in its medium period

(14 years, 8 months and 1 day to 17 years and 4 months)
Medium: Reclusion temporal in its maximum period
(17 years, 4 months and 1 day to 20 years)
Maximum: Reclusion perpetua

See: People v. Morante, G.R. No. 187732, November 28, 2012

 Penalty Without Specific Legal Form
Reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua prescribed for mutilation under Article 262
is a penalty without a specific form (People v. Romero, G.R. No. 112985, April 21,
1999). The duration of its periods is not fixed by Article 76. This penalty cannot be
divided into three equal portions in accordance with Article 65 since it has an
indivisible component, and that, is reclusion perpetua. It is not a complex penalty
under Article 77, par. 1 since it merely is merely composed of two distinct penalties.
Thus, its periods shall be determined in accordance with Article 77, par. 2, which
provides that the periods shall be distributed, applying for analogy the prescribed
rules. Applying Article 77, par. 1 by analogy, the maximum period shall be formed out
of the most severe penalty, and that is, reclusion perpetua. Applying Article 65 by
analogy, the duration of reclusion temporal shall be divided into two equal portions
and minimum and medium periods shall be formed from each portion. Applying
Article 77, par. 3, reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua is broken as follows:

Minimum: Lower half of reclusion temporal

(12 years and 1 day to 16 years)
Medium: Higher half of reclusion temporal
(16 years and 1 day to 20 years)
Maximum: Reclusion perpetua

See: People v. Macabando, G.R. No. 188708, July 31, 2013; People v. Romero, G.R. No. 112985, April 21, 1999; Gonzales v.
People, G.R. No. 159950, February 12, 2007; and People v. Olivia, G.R. No. 122110, September 26, 2000
 Penalty Without Specific Legal Form
Reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua prescribed for
malversation under Article 217 is a penalty without specific form. The duration of its
periods is not fixed by Article 76. This penalty cannot be divided into three equal
portions in accordance with Article 65 since reclusion perpetua component is not
divisible. It is not a complex penalty under Article 77, par. 1 since it is merely
composed of two distinct penalties. Thus, its periods shall be determined in
accordance with Article 77, par. 2. Applying this provision, the maximum period shall
be formed out of the most severe penalty, and that is, reclusion perpetua. The
duration of reclusion temporal in its maximum period shall be divided into two equal
portions, and minimum and medium periods shall be formed from each portion. In
sum, reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua is broken down
as follows:

Minimum: Lower half of reclusion temporal in its maximum period

(17 years, 4 months and 1 day to 18 years and 8 months)
Medium: Higher half of reclusion temporal in its maximum period
(18 years, 8 months and 1 day to 20 years)
Maximum: Reclusion perpetua

See: Estepa v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 59670, February 15, 1990, Torres v. People, G.R. No. 175074, August 31, 2011,
Cabarlo v. People, G.R. No. 172274, November 16, 2006; Mesina v. People, G.R. No. 162489, June 17, 2015, Bersamin.
 Penalty of offense under special law

The penalty for possession of dangerous drugs is 12 years and 1 day to 20 years of
imprisonment. The court cannot impose a straight penalty of 12 years and 1 day
since the application of indeterminate sentence law is mandatory (unless the
accused deserves a lenient penalty by confessing pursuant to the Nang Kay
principle). Applying the ISLAW, the minimum indeterminate penalty shall not be less
than 12 years and 1 day while the maximum shall not exceed 20 years. Thus, the
court can sentence the accused to suffer 15 years of imprisonment as minimum to
18 years as maximum (Asiatico vs. People. G.R No. 195005, September 12, 2011;
Escalante vs. People, G.R. No. 192727, January 9, 2013)

Under Section 9 of RA 3019, the penalty for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 is
imprisonment for not less than 6 years and 1 months and not more than 15 years.
Applying the ISLAW, the minimum indeterminate penalty shall not be less than 6
years and 1 month while the maximum shall not exceed 15 years. Thus, the court
can sentence the accused to suffer 6 years and 1month of imprisonment as
minimum to 10 years as maximum (People vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 177105-06, August
12, 2010, Bersamin)
THANK YOU!