Criminal Law (10)

The Three-Fold Rule

Under this rule, when a convict is to serve successive penalties, he will not actually serve the penalties imposed by law. Instead, the most severe of the penalties imposed on him shall be multiplied by three and the period will be the only term of the penalty to be served by him. However, in no case should the penalty exceed 40 years.

This rule is intended for the benefit of the convict and so, you will only apply this provided the sum total of all the penalties imposed would be greater than the product of the most severe penalty multiplied by three but in no case will the penalties to be served by the convict be more than 40 years.

Although this rule is known as the Three-Fold rule, you cannot actually apply this if the convict is to serve only three successive penalties. The Three-Fold Rule can only be applied if the convict is to serve four or more sentences successively. If the sentences would be served simultaneously, the Three-Fold rule does not govern.

The chronology of the penalties as provided in Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code shall be followed.

It is in the service of the penalty, not in the imposition of the penalty, that the Three-Fold rule is to be applied. The three-Fold rule will apply whether the sentences are the product of one information in one court, whether the sentences are promulgated in one day or whether the sentences are promulgated by different courts on different days. What is material is that the convict shall serve more than three successive sentences.

For purposes of the Three-Fold Rule, even perpetual penalties are taken into account. So not only penalties with fixed duration, even penalties without any fixed duration or indivisible penalties are taken into account. For purposes of the Three-Fold rule, indivisible penalties are given equivalent of 30 years. If the penalty is perpetual disqualification, it will be given and equivalent duration of 30 years, so that if he will have to suffer several perpetual disqualification, under the Three-Fold rule, you take the most severe and multiply it by three. The Three-Fold rule does not apply to the penalty prescribed but to the penalty imposed as determined by the court.

Illustration:

Penalties imposed are –

One prision correcional – minimum – 2 years and 4 months

One arresto mayor - 1 month and 1 day to 6 months

One prision mayor - 6 years and 1 day to 12 years

Do not commit the mistake of applying the Three- Fold Rule in this case. Never apply the Three-Fold rule when there are only three sentences. Even if you add the penalties, you can never arrive at a sum higher than the product of the most severe multiplied by three.

The common mistake is, if given a situation, whether the Three-Fold Rule could be applied. If asked, if you were the judge, what penalty would you impose, for purposes of imposing the penalty, the court is not at liberty to apply the Three-Fold Rule, whatever the sum total of penalty for each crime committed, even if it would amount to 1,000 years or more. It is only when the convict is serving sentence that the prison authorities should determine how long he should stay in jail.

Illustration:

A district engineer was sentenced by the court to a term of 914 years in prison.

A person was sentenced to three death sentences. Significance: If ever granted pardon for 1 crime, the two remaining penalties must still be executed.

This rule will apply only if sentences are to be served successively.


Act No. 4013 (Indeterminate Sentence Law), as amended

Three things to know about the Indeterminate Sentence Law:

(1) Its purpose;

(2) Instances when it does not apply; and

(3) How it operates

Indeterminate Sentence Law governs whether the crime is punishable under the Revised Penal Code or a special Law. It is not limited to violations of the Revised Penal Code.

It applies only when the penalty served is imprisonment. If not by imprisonment, then it does not apply.



Purpose

The purpose of the Indeterminate Sentence law is to avoid prolonged imprisonment, because it is proven to be more destructive than constructive to the offender. So, the purpose of the Indeterminate Sentence Law in shortening the possible detention of the convict in jail is to save valuable human resources. In other words, if the valuable human resources were allowed prolonged confinement in jail, they would deteriorate. Purpose is to preserve economic usefulness for these people for having committed a crime -- to reform them rather than to deteriorate them and, at the same time, saving the government expenses of maintaining the convicts on a prolonged confinement in jail.

If the crime is a violation of the Revised Penal Code, the court will impose a sentence that has a minimum and maximum. The maximum of the indeterminate sentence will be arrived at by taking into account the attendant mitigating and/or aggravating circumstances according to Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code. In arriving at the minimum of the indeterminate sentence, the court will take into account the penalty prescribed for the crime and go one degree lower. Within the range of one degree lower, the court will fix the minimum for the indeterminate sentence, and within the range of the penalty arrived at as the maximum in the indeterminate sentence, the court will fix the maximum of the sentence. If there is a privilege mitigating circumstance which has been taken in consideration in fixing the maximum of the indeterminate sentence, the minimum shall be based on the penalty as reduced by the privilege mitigating circumstance within the range of the penalty next lower in degree.

If the crime is a violation of a special law, in fixing the maximum of the indeterminate sentence, the court will impose the penalty within the range of the penalty prescribed by the special law, as long as it will not exceed the limit of the penalty. In fixing the minimum, the court can fix a penalty anywhere within the range of penalty prescribed by the special law, as long as it will not be less than the minimum limit of the penalty under said law. No mitigating and aggravating circumstances are taken into account.

The minimum and the maximum referred to in the Indeterminate Sentence Law are not periods. So, do not say, maximum or minimum period. For the purposes of the indeterminate Sentence Law, use the term minimum to refer to the duration of the sentence which the convict shall serve as a minimum, and when we say maximum, for purposes of ISLAW, we refer to the maximum limit of the duration that the convict may be held in jail. We are not referring to any period of the penalty as enumerated in Article 71.

Courts are required to fix a minimum and a maximum of the sentence that they are to impose upon an offender when found guilty of the crime charged. So, whenever the Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable, there is always a minimum and maximum of the sentence that the convict shall serve. If the crime is punished by the Revised Penal Code, the law provides that the maximum shall be arrived at by considering the mitigating and aggravating circumstances in the commission of the crime according to the proper rules of the Revised Penal Code. To fix the maximum, consider the mitigating and aggravating circumstances according to the rules found in Article 64. This means –

(1) Penalties prescribed by the law for the crime committed shall be imposed in the medium period if no mitigating or aggravating circumstance;

(2) If there is aggravating circumstance, no mitigating, penalty shall be imposed in the maximum;

(3) If there is mitigating circumstance, no aggravating, penalty shall be in the minimum;

(4) If there are several mitigating and aggravating circumstances, they shall offset against each other. Whatever remains, apply the rules.

(5) If there are two or more mitigating circumstance and no aggravating circumstance, penalty next lower in degree shall be the one imposed.

Rule under Art 64 shall apply in determining the maximum but not in determining the minimum.

In determining the applicable penalty according to the Indeterminate Sentence Law, there is no need to mention the number of years, months and days; it is enough that the name of the penalty is mentioned while the Indeterminate Sentence Law is applied. To fix the minimum and the maximum of the sentence, penalty under the Revised Penal Code is not the penalty to be imposed by court because the court must apply the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The attendant mitigating and/or aggravating circumstances in the commission of the crime are taken into consideration only when the maximum of the penalty is to be fixed. But in so far as the minimum is concerned, the basis of the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code, and go one degree lower than that. But penalty one degree lower shall be applied in the same manner that the maximum is also fixed based only on ordinary mitigating circumstances. This is true only if the mitigating circumstance taken into account is only an ordinary mitigating circumstance. If the mitigating circumstance is privileged, you cannot follow the law in so far as fixing the minimum of the indeterminate sentence is concerned; otherwise, it may happen that the maximum of the indeterminate sentence is lower than its minimum.

In one Supreme Court ruling, it was held that for purposes of applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code and not that which may be imposed by court. This ruling, however, is obviously erroneous. This is so because such an interpretation runs contrary to the rule of pro reo, which provides that the penal laws should always be construed an applied in a manner liberal or lenient to the offender. Therefore, the rule is, in applying the Indetermiante Sentence Law, it is that penalty arrived at by the court after applying the mitigating and aggravating circumstances that should be the basis.

Crimes punished under special law carry only one penalty; there are no degree or periods. Moreover, crimes under special law do not consider mitigating or aggravating circumstance present in the commission of the crime. So in the case of statutory offense, no mitigating and no aggravating circumstances will be taken into account. Just the same, courts are required in imposing the penalty upon the offender to fix a minimum that the convict should serve, and to set a maximum as the limit of that sentence. Under the law, when the crime is punished under a special law, the court may fix any penalty as the maximum without exceeding the penalty prescribed by special law for the crime committed. In the same manner, courts are given discretion to fix a minimum anywhere within the range of the penalty prescribed by special law, as long as it will not be lower than the penalty prescribed.

Disqualification may be divided into three, according to –

(1) The time committed;

(2) The penalty imposed; and

(3) The offender involved.


The Indeterminate Sentence Law shall not apply to:

(1) Persons convicted of offense punishable with death penalty or life imprisonment;

(2) Persons convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason;

(3) Persons convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition, espionage;

(4) Persons convicted of piracy;

(5) Persons who are habitual delinquents;

(6) Persons who shall have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence;

(7) Those who have been granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive and shall have violated the term thereto;

(8) Those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year, but not to those already sentenced by final judgment at the time of the approval of Indeterminate Sentence Law.

Although the penalty prescribed for the felony committed is death or reclusion perpetua, if after considering the attendant circumstances, the imposable penalty is reclusion temporal or less, the Indeterminate Sentence Law applies (People v. Cempron, 187 SCRA 278).


Presidential Decree No. 968 (Probation Law)

Among the different grounds of partial extinction of criminal liability, the most important is probation. Probation is a manner of disposing of an accused who have been convicted by a trial court by placing him under supervision of a probation officer, under such terms and conditions that the court may fix. This may be availed of before the convict begins serving sentence by final judgment and provided that he did not appeal anymore from conviction.

Without regard to the nature of the crime, only those whose penalty does not exceed six years of imprisonment are those qualified for probation. If the penalty is six years plus one day, he is no longer qualified for probation.

If the offender was convicted of several offenses which were tried jointly and one decision was rendered where multiple sentences imposed several prison terms as penalty, the basis for determining whether the penalty disqualifies the offender from probation or not is the term of the individual imprisonment and not the totality of all the prison terms imposed in the decision. So even if the prison term would sum up to more than six years, if none of the individual penalties exceeds six years, the offender is not disqualified by such penalty from applying for probation.

On the other hand, without regard to the penalty, those who are convicted of subversion or any crime against the public order are not qualified for probation. So know the crimes under Title III, Book 2 of the Revised Penal Code. Among these crimes is Alarms and Scandals, the penalty of which is only arresto menor or a fine. Under the amendment to the Probation Law, those convicted of a crime against public order regardless of the penalty are not qualified for probation.

May a recidivist be given the benefit of Probation Law?

As a general rule, no.

Exception: If the earlier conviction refers to a crime the penalty of which does not exceed 30 days imprisonment or a fine of not more than P200.00, such convict is not disqualified of the benefit of probation. So even if he would be convicted subsequently of a crime embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code as that of the earlier conviction, he is not disqualified from probation provided that the penalty of the current crime committed does not go beyond six years and the nature of the crime committed by him is not against public order, national security or subversion.

Although a person may be eligible for probation, the moment he perfects an appeal from the judgment of conviction, he cannot avail of probation anymore. So the benefit of probation must be invoked at the earliest instance after conviction. He should not wait up to the time when he interposes an appeal or the sentence has become final and executory. The idea is that probation has to be invoked at the earliest opportunity.

An application for probation is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the trial court that renders the judgment. For the offender to apply in such court, he should not appeal such judgment.

Once he appeals, regardless of the purpose of the appeal, he will be disqualified from applying for Probation, even though he may thereafter withdraw his appeal.

If the offender would appeal the conviction of the trial court and the appellate court reduced the penalty to say, less than six years, that convict can still file an application for probation, because the earliest opportunity for him to avail of probation came only after judgment by the appellate court.

Whether a convict who is otherwise qualified for probation may be give the benefit of probation or not, the courts are always required to conduct a hearing. If the court denied the application for probation without the benefit of the hearing, where as the applicant is not disqualified under the provision of the Probation Law, but only based on the report of the probation officer, the denial is correctible by certiorari, because it is an act of the court in excess of jurisdiction or without jurisdiction, the order denying the application therefore is null and void.

Probation is intended to promote the correction and rehabilitation of an offender by providing him with individualized treatment; to provide an opportunity for the reformation of a penitent offender which might be less probable if he were to serve a prison sentence; to prevent the commission of offenses; to decongest our jails; and to save the government much needed finance for maintaining convicts in jail

Probation is only a privilege. So even if the offender may not be disqualified of probation, yet the court believes that because of the crime committed it was not advisable to give probation because it would depreciate the effect of the crime, the court may refuse or deny an application for probation.

Generally, the courts do not grant an application for probation for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law, because of the prevalence of the crime. So it is not along the purpose of probation to grant the convict the benefit thereof, just the individual rehabilitation of the offender but also the best interest of the society and the community where the convict would be staying, if he would be released on probation. To allow him loose may bring about a lack of respect of the members of the community to the enforcement of penal law. In such a case, the court even if the crime is probationable may still deny the benefit of probation.

Consider not only the probationable crime, but also the probationable penalty. If it were the non-probationable crime, then regardless of the penalty, the convict cannot avail of probation. Generally, the penalty which is not probationable is any penalty exceeding six years of imprisonment. Offenses which are not probationable are those against natural security, those against public order and those with reference to subversion.

Persons who have been granted of the benefit of probation cannot avail thereof for the second time. Probation is only available once and this may be availed only where the convict starts serving sentence and provided he has not perfected an appeal. If the convict perfected an appeal, he forfeits his right to apply for probation. As far as offenders who are under preventive imprisonment, that because a crime committed is not bailable or the crime committed, although bailable, they cannot afford to put up a bail, upon promulgation of the sentence, naturally he goes back to detention, that does not mean that they already start serving the sentence even after promulgation of the sentence, sentence will only become final and executory after the lapse of the 15-day period, unless the convict has waived expressly his right to appeal or otherwise, he has partly started serving sentence and in that case, the penalty will already be final and exeuctory, no right to probation can be applied for.

Probation shall be denied if the court finds:

(1) That the offender is in need of correctional treatment that can be provided most effectively by his commitment to an institution;

(2) That there is undue risk that during the period of probation the offender will commit another crime; or

(3) Probation will depreciate the seriousness of the crime.

The probation law imposes two kinds of conditions:

(1) Mandatory conditions; and

(2) Discretionary conditions.


Mandatory conditions:

(1) The convict must report to the Probation Officer (PO) designated in the court order approving his application for Probation within 72 hours from receipt of Notice of such order approving his application; and

(2) The convict, as a probationer, must report to the PO at least once a month during the period of probation unless sooner required by the PO.

These conditions being mandatory, the moment any of these is violated, the probation is cancelled.


Discretionary conditions:

The trial court which approved the application for probation may impose any condition which may be constructive to the correction of the offender, provided the same would not violate the constitutional rights of the offender and subject to this two restrictions: (1) the conditions imposed should not be unduly restrictive of the probationer; and (2) such condition should not be incompatible with the freedom of conscience of the probationer.


EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Always provide two classifications when answering this question.

Criminal liability is totally extinguished as follows:

(1) By the death of the convict as to personal penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefore is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment

(2) By service of sentence;

(3) By amnesty which completely extinguished the penalty and all its effects;

(4) By absolute pardon;

(5) By prescription of the crime;

(6) By prescription of the penalty;

(7) By the marriage of the offended women as in the crimes of rape, abduction, seduction and acts of lasciviousness.

Criminal liability is partially extinguished as follows:

(1) By conditional pardon;

(2) By commutation of sentence;

(3) For good conduct, allowances which the culprit may earn while he is serving sentence;

(4) Parole; and

(5) Probation.


Total extinction of criminal liability

Among the grounds for total extinction as well as those for partial extinction, you cannot find among them the election to public office. In one case, a public official was charged before the Sandiganbayan for violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. During the ensuing election, he was nevertheless re-elected by the constituents, one of the defenses raised was that of condonation of the crime by his constituents, that his constituents have pardoned him. The Supreme Court ruled that the re-election to public office is not one of the grounds by which criminal liability is extinguished. This is only true to administrative cases but not criminal cases.


Death of the offender

Where the offender dies before final judgment, his death extinguishes both his criminal and civil liabilities. So while a case is on appeal, the offender dies, the case on appeal will be dismissed. The offended party may file a separate civil action under the Civil Code if any other basis for recovery of civil liability exists as provided under Art 1157 Civil Code. (People v. Bayotas, decided on September 2, 1994)


Amnesty and pardon

The effects of amnesty as well as absolute pardon are not the same. Amnesty erases not only the conviction but also the crime itself. So that if an offender was convicted for rebellion and he qualified for amnesty, and so he was given an amnesty, then years later he rebelled again and convicted, is he a recidivist? No. Because the amnesty granted to him erased not only the conviction but also the effects of the conviction itself.

Suppose, instead of amnesty, what was given was absolute pardon, then years later, the offended was again captured and charged for rebellion, he was convicted, is he a recidivist?
Yes. Pardon, although absolute does not erase the effects of conviction. Pardon only excuses the convict from serving the sentence. There is an exception to this and that is when the pardon was granted when the convict had already served the sentence such that there is no more service of sentence to be executed then the pardon shall be understood as intended to erase the effects of the conviction.

So if the convict has already served the sentence and in spite of that he was given a pardon that pardon will cover the effects of the crime and therefore, if he will be subsequently convicted for a felony embracing the same title as that crime, he cannot be considered a recidivist, because the pardon wipes out the effects of the crime.

But if he was serving sentence when he was pardoned, that pardon will not wipe out the effects of the crime, unless the language of the pardon absolutely relieve the offender of all the effects thereof. Considering that recidivism does not prescribe, no matter how long ago was the first conviction, he shall still be a recidivist.

Illustrations:

When the crime carries with it moral turpitude, the offender even if granted pardon shall still remain disqualified from those falling in cases where moral turpitude is a bar.

Pedro was prosecuted and convicted of the crime of robbery and was sentenced to six years imprisonment or prision correccional. After serving sentence for three years, he was granted absolute pardon. Ten years later, Pedro was again prosecuted and convicted of the crime of theft, a crime embraced in the same title, this time he shall be a recidivist. On the other hand, if he has served all six years of the first sentence, and his name was included in the list of all those granted absolute pardon, pardon shall relieve him of the effects of the crime, and therefore even if he commits theft again, he shall not be considered a recidivist.

In Monsanto v. Factoran, Jr., 170 SCRA 191, it was held that absolute pardon does not ipso facto entitle the convict to reinstatement to the public office forfeited by reason of his conviction. Although pardon restores his eligibility for appointment to that office, the pardoned convict must reapply for the new appointment
.
Pardon becomes valid only when there is a final judgment. If given before this, it is premature and hence void. There is no such thing as a premature amnesty, because it does not require a final judgment; it may be given before final judgment or after it.


Prescription of crime and prescription of the penalty

Prescription of the crime begins, as a general rule on the day the crime was committed, unless the crime was concealed, not public, in which case, the prescription thereof would only commence from the time the offended party or the government learns of the commission of the crime.

“Commission of the crime is public” -- This does not mean alone that the crime was within public knowledge or committed in public.

Illustration:

In the crime of falsification of a document that was registered in the proper registry of the government like the Registry of Property or the Registry of Deeds of the Civil registry, the falsification is deemed public from the time the falsified document was registered or recorded in such public office so even though, the offended party may not really know of the falsification, the prescriptive period of the crime shall already run from the moment the falsified document was recorded in the public registry. So in the case where a deed of sale of a parcel of land which was falsified was recorded in the corresponding Registry of Property, the owner of the land came to know of the falsified transaction only after 10 years, so he brought the criminal action only then. The Supreme Court ruled that the crime has already prescribed. From the moment the falsified document is registered in the Registry of Property, the prescriptive period already commenced to run.

When a crime prescribes, the State loses the right to prosecute the offender, hence, even though the offender may not have filed a motion to quash on this ground the trial court, but after conviction and during the appeal he learned that at the time the case was filed, the crime has already prescribed, such accused can raise the question of prescription even for the first time on appeal, and the appellate court shall have no jurisdiction to continue, if legally, the crime has indeed prescribed.

The prevailing rule now is, prescription of the crime is not waivable, the earlier jurisprudence to the contrary had already been abrogated or overruled. Moreover, for purposes of prescription, the period for filing a complaint or information may not be extended at all, even though the last day such prescriptive period falls on a holiday or a Sunday.

For instance, light felony prescribes in 60 days or two months. If the 60th day falls on a Sunday, the filing of the complaint on the succeeding Monday is already fatal to the prosecution of the crime because the crime has already prescribed.

The rules on Criminal Procedure for purposes of prescription is that the filing of the complaint even at the public prosecutor’s office suspends the running of the prescriptive period, but not the filing with the barangay. So the earlier rulings to the contrary are already abrogated by express provision of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.

The prescription of the crime is interrupted or suspended –

(1) When a complaint is filed in a proper barangay for conciliation or mediation as required by Chapter 7, Local Government Code, but the suspension of the prescriptive period is good only for 60 days. After which the prescription will resume to run, whether the conciliation or mediation is terminated for not;

(2) When criminal case is filed in the prosecutor’s office, the prescription of the crime is suspended until the accused is convicted or the proceeding is terminated for a cause not attributable to the accused.

But where the crime is subject to Summary Procedure, the prescription of the crime will be suspended only when the information is already filed with the trial court. It is not the filing of the complaint, but the filing of the information in the trial which will suspend the prescription of the crime.

On the prescription of the penalty, the period will only commence to run when the convict has begun to serve the sentence. Actually, the penalty will prescribe from the moment the convict evades the service of the sentence. So if an accused was convicted in the trial court, and the conviction becomes final and executory, so this fellow was arrested to serve the sentence, on the way to the penitentiary, the vehicle carrying him collided with another vehicle and overturned, thus enabling the prisoner to escape, no matter how long such convict has been a fugitive from justice, the penalty imposed by the trial court will never prescribe because he has not yet commenced the service of his sentence. For the penalty to prescribe, he must be brought to Muntinlupa, booked there, placed inside the cell and thereafter he escapes.

Whether it is prescription of crime or prescription of penalty, if the subject could leave the Philippines and go to a country with whom the Philippines has no extradition treaty, the prescriptive period of the crime or penalty shall remain suspended whenever he is out of the country.

When the offender leaves for a country to which the Philippines has an extradition treaty, the running of the prescriptive period will go on even if the offender leaves Philippine territory for that country. Presently the Philippines has an extradition treaty with Taiwan, Indonesia, Canada, Australia, USA and Switzerland. So if the offender goes to any of these countries, the prescriptive period still continues to run.

In the case of the prescription of the penalty, the moment the convict commits another crime while he is fugitive from justice, prescriptive period of the penalty shall be suspended and shall not run in the meantime. The crime committed does not include the initial evasion of service of sentence that the convict must perform before the penalty shall begin to prescribe, so that the initial crime of evasion of service of sentence does not suspend the prescription of penalty, it is the commission of other crime, after the convict has evaded the service of penalty that will suspend such period.


Marriage

In the case of marriage, do not say that it is applicable for the crimes under Article 344. It is only true in the crimes of rape, abduction, seduction and acts of lasciviousness. Do not say that it is applicable to private crimes because the term includes adultery and concubinage. Marriages in these cases may even compound the crime of adultery or concubinage. It is only in the crimes of rape, abduction, seduction and acts of lasciviousness that the marriage by the offender with the offended woman shall extinguish civil liability, not only criminal liability of the principal who marries the offended woman, but also that of the accomplice and accessory, if there are any.

Co-principals who did not themselves directly participate in the execution of the crime but who only cooperated, will also benefit from such marriage, but not when such co-principal himself took direct part in the execution of the crime.

Marriage as a ground for extinguishing civil liability must have been contracted in good faith. The offender who marries the offended woman must be sincere in the marriage and therefore must actually perform the duties of a husband after the marriage, otherwise, notwithstanding such marriage, the offended woman, although already his wife can still prosecute him again, although the marriage remains a valid marriage. Do not think that the marriage is avoided or annulled. The marriage still subsists although the offended woman may re-file the complaint. The Supreme Court ruled that marriage contemplated must be a real marriage and not one entered to and not just to evade punishment for the crime committed because the offender will be compounding the wrong he has committed.


Partial extinction of criminal liability


Good conduct allowance

This includes the allowance for loyalty under Article 98, in relation to Article 158. A convict who escapes the place of confinement on the occasion of disorder resulting from a conflagration, earthquake or similar catastrophe or during a mutiny in which he has not participated and he returned within 48 hours after the proclamation that the calamity had already passed, such convict shall be given credit of 1/5 of the original sentence from that allowance for his loyalty of coming back. Those who did not leave the penitentiary under such circumstances do not get such allowance for loyalty. Article 158 refers only to those who leave and return.


Parole

This correspondingly extinguishes service of sentence up to the maximum of the indeterminate sentence. This is the partial extinction referred to, so that if the convict was never given parole, no partial extinction.


CIVIL LIABILITY OF THE OFFENDER


Civil liability of the offender falls under three categories:

(1) Restitution and restoration;

(2) Reparation of the damage caused; and

(3) Indemnification of consequential damages.


Restitution or restoration

Restitution or restoration presupposes that the offended party was divested of property, and such property must be returned. If the property is in the hands of a third party, the same shall nevertheless be taken away from him and restored to the offended party, even though such third party may be a holder for value and a buyer in good faith of the property, except when such third party buys the property from a public sale where the law protects the buyer.

For example, if a third party bought a property in a public auction conducted by the sheriff levied on the property of a judgment creditor for an obligation, the buyer of the property at such execution sale is protected by law. The offended party cannot divest him thereof. So the offended party may only resort to reparation of the damage done from the offender.

Some believed that this civil liability is true only in crimes against property, this is not correct. Regardless of the crime committed, if the property is illegally taken from the offended party during the commission of the crime, the court may direct the offender to restore or restitute such property to the offended party. It can only be done if the property is brought within the jurisdiction of that court.

For example, in a case where the offender committed rape, during the rape, the offender got on of the earrings of the victim. When apprehended, the offender was prosecuted for rape and theft. When the offender was asked why he got on of the earrings of the victim, the offender disclosed that he took one of the earrings in order to have a souvenir of the sexual intercourse. Supreme Court ruled that the crime committed is not theft and rape but rape and unjust vexation for the taking of the earring. The latter crime is not a crime against property, this is a crime against personal security and liberty under Title IX of Book II of the RPC. And yet, the offender was required to restore or restitute the earring to the offended woman.

Property will have to be restored to the offended party even this would require the taking of the property from a third person. Where personal property was divested from the offended party pursuant to the commission of the crime, the one who took the same or accepted the same would be doing so without the benefit of the just title. So even if the property may have been bought by the third person, the same may be taken from him and restored to the offended party without an obligation on the part of the offended party to pay him whatever he paid.

The right to recover what he has paid will be against the offender who sold it to him. On the other hand, if the crime was theft or robbery, the one who received the personal property becomes a fence, he is not only required to restitute the personal property but he incurs criminal liability in violation of the Anti-Fencing Law.

If the property cannot be restituted anymore, then the damage must be repaired, requiring the offender to pay the value thereof, as determined by the court. That value includes the sentimental value to the offended party, not only the replacement cost. In most cases, the sentimental value is higher than the replacement value. But if what would be restored is brand new, then there will be an allowance for depreciation, otherwise, the offended party is allowed to enrich himself at the expense of the offender. So there will be a corresponding depreciation and the offended party may even be required to pay something just to cover the difference of the value of what was restored to him.

The obligation of the offender transcends to his heirs, even if the offender dies, provided he died after judgment became final, the heirs shall assume the burden of the civil liability, but this is only to the extent that they inherit property from the deceased, if they do not inherit, they cannot inherit the obligations.

The right of the offended party transcends to heirs upon death. The heirs of the offended party step into the shoes of the latter to demand civil liability from the offender.


Reparation of the damage caused

In case of human life, reparation of the damage cause is basically P50,000.00 value of human life, exclusive of other forms of damages. This P50,000.00 may also increase whether such life was lost through intentional felony or criminal negligence, whether the result of dolo or culpa. Also in the crime of rape, the damages awarded to the offended woman is generally P30,000.00 for the damage to her honor. In earlier rulings, the amount varied, whether the offended woman is younger or a married woman. Supreme Court ruled that even if the offended woman does not adduce evidence or such damage, court can take judicial notice of the fact that if a woman was raped, she inevitably suffers damages. Under the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, a private prosecutor can recover all kinds of damages including attorney’s fee. The only limitation is that the amount and the nature of the damages should be specified. The present procedural law does not allow a blanket recovery of damages. Each kind of damages must be specified and the amount duly proven.


Indemnification of consequential damages

Indemnification of consequential damages refers to the loss of earnings, loss of profits. This does not refer only to consequential damages suffered by the offended party; this also includes consequential damages to third party who also suffer because of the commission of the crime.

The offender carnapped a bridal car while the newly-weds were inside the church. Since the car was only rented, consequential damage not only to the newly-weds but also to the entity which rented the car to them.

Most importantly, refer to the persons who are civilly liable under Articles 102 and 103. This pertains to the owner, proprietor of hotels, inns, taverns and similar establishments, an obligation to answer civilly for the loss or property of their guests.

Under Articloe 102, two conditions must be present before liability attaches to the inkeepers, tavernkeepers and proprietors:

(1) The guest must have informed the management in advance of his having brought to the premises certain valuables aside from the usual personal belongings of the guest; and

(2) The guest must have followed the rules and regulations prescribed by the management of such inn, tavern, or similar establishment regarding the safekeeping of said valuables.

The Supreme Court ruled that even though the guest did not obey the rules and regulations prescribed by the management for safekeeping of the valuables, this does not absolve management from the subsidiary civil liability. Non-compliance with such rules and regulations but the guests will only be regarded as contributory negligence, but it won’t absolve the management from civil liability.

Liability specially attaches when the management is found to have violated any law or ordinance, rule or regulation governing such establishment.

Even if the crime is robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons or committed by the inkeeper’s employees, management will be liable, otherwise, not liable because there is duress from the offender, liable only for theft and force upon things.

Under Article 103, the subsidiary liability of an employer or master for the crime committed by his employee or servant may attach only when the following requisites concur:

(1) The employer must be engaged in business or in trade or industry while the accused was his employee;

(2) At the time the crime was committed, the employee-employerr relationship must be existing between the two;

(3) The employee must have been found guilty of the crime charged and accordingly held civilly liable;

(4) The writ of execution for the satisfaction of the civil liability was returned unsatisfied because the accused-employee does not have enough property to pay the civil liability.

When these requisites concur, the employer will be subsidiarily civilly liable for the full amount that his employee was adjudged civilly liable. It is already settled in jurisprudence that there is no need to file a civil action against the employer in order to enforce the subsidiary civil liability for the crime committed by his employee, it is enough that the writ of execution is returned unsatisfied. There is no denial of due process of law because the liability of the employer is subsidiary and not primary. He will only be liable if his employee does not have the property to pay his civil liability, since it is the law itself that provides that such subsidiary liability exists and ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

Civil liability of the offender is extinguished in the same manner as civil obligation is extinguished but this is not absolutely true. Under civil law, a civil obligation is extinguished upon loss of the thing due when the thing involved is specific. This is not a ground applicable to extinction of civil liability in criminal case if the thing due is lost, the offender shall repair the damages caused.

When there are several offenders, the court in the exercise of its discretion shall determine what shall be the share of each offender depending upon the degree of participation – as principal, accomplice or accessory. If within each class of offender, there are more of them, such as more than one principal or more than one accomplice or accessory, the liability in each class of offender shall be subsidiary. Anyone of the may be required to pay the civil liability pertaining to such offender without prejudice to recovery from those whose share have been paid by another.

If all the principals are insolvent, the obligation shall devolve upon the accomplice(s) or accessory(s). But whoever pays shall have the right of covering the share of the obligation from those who did not pay but are civilly liable.

To relate with Article 38, when there is an order or preference of pecuniary (monetary) liability, therefore, restitution is not included here.

There is not subsidiary penalty for non-payment of civil liability.

Subsidiary civil liability is imposed in the following:

(1) In case of a felony committed under the compulsion of an irresistible force. The person who employed the irresistible force is subsidiarily liable;

(2) In case of a felony committed under an impulse of an equal or greater injury. The person who generated such an impulse is subsidiarily liable.

The owners of taverns, inns, motels, hotels, where the crime is committed within their establishment due to noncompliance with general police regulations, if the offender who is primarily liable cannot pay, the proprietor, or owner is subsidiarily liable.

Felonies committed by employees, pupils, servants in the course of their employment, schooling or household chores. The employer, master, teacher is subsidiarily liable civilly, while the offender is primarily liable.

In case the accomplice and the principal cannot pay, the liability of those subsidiarily liable is absolute.


COMPLEX CRIME

Philosophy behind plural crimes: The treatment of plural crimes as one is to be lenient to the offender, who, instead of being made to suffer distinct penalties for every resulting crime is made to suffer one penalty only, although it is the penalty for the most serious one and is in the maximum period. Purpose is in the pursuance of the rule of pro reo.

If be complexing the crime, the penalty would turn out to be higher, do not complex anymore.

Example: Murder and theft (killed with treachery, then stole the right).
Penalty: If complex – Reclusion temporal maximum to death.
If treated individually – Reclusion temporal to Reclusion Perpetua.

Complex crime is not just a matter of penalty, but of substance under the Revised Penal Code.

Plurality of crimes may be in the form of:

(1) Compound crime;

(2) Complex crime; and

(3) Composite crime.


A compound crime is one where a single act produces two or more crimes.

A complex crime strictly speaking is one where the offender has to commit an offense as a means for the commission of another offense. It is said that the offense is committed as a necessary means to commit the other offense. “Necessary” should not be understood as indispensable, otherwise, it shall be considered absorbed and not giving rise to a complex crime.

A composite crime is one in which substance is made up of more than one crime, but which in the eyes of the law is only a single indivisible offense. This is also known as special complex crime. Examples are robbery with homicide, robbery with rape, rape with homicide. These are crimes which in the eyes of the law are regarded only as a single indivisible offense.


Composite Crime/Special Complex Crime

This is one which in substance is made up of more than one crime but which in the eyes of the law is only a single indivisible offense. This is also known as a special complex crime. Examples are robbery with homicide, robbery with rape, and rape with homicide.

The compound crime and the complex crime are treated in Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. But in such article, a compound crime is also designated as a complex crime, but “complex crimes” are limited only to a situation where the resulting felonies are grave and/or less grave.

Whereas in a compound crime, there is no limit as to the gravity of the resulting crimes as long as a single act brings about two or more crimes. Strictly speaking, compound crimes are not limited to grave or less grave felonies but covers all single act that results in two or more crimes.

Illustration:

A person threw a hand grenade and the people started scampering. When the hand grenade exploded, no on was seriously wounded all were mere wounded. It was held that this is a compound crime, although the resulting felonies are only slight.

Illustration of a situation where the term “necessary” in complex crime should not be understood as indispensable:

Abetting committed during the encounter between rebels and government troops such that the homicide committed cannot be complexed with rebellion. This is because they are indispensable part of rebellion. (Caveat: Ortega says rebellion can be complexed with common crimes in discussion on Rebellion)

The complex crime lies actually in the first form under Article 148.

The first form of the complex crime is actually a compound crime, is one where a single act constitutes two or more grave and/or less grave felonies. The basis in complexing or compounding the crime is the act. So that when an offender performed more than one act, although similar, if they result in separate crimes, there is no complex crime at all, instead, the offender shall be prosecuted for as many crimes as are committed under separate information.

When the single act brings about two or more crimes, the offender is punished with only one penalty, although in the maximum period, because he acted only with single criminal impulse. The presumption is that, since there is only one act formed, it follows that there is only one criminal impulse and correctly, only one penalty should be imposed.

Conversely, when there are several acts performed, the assumption is that each act is impelled by a distinct criminal impulse and for ever criminal impulse, a separate penalty. However, it may happen that the offender is impelled only by a single criminal impulse in committing a series of acts that brought about more than one crime, considering that Criminal Law, if there is only one criminal impulse which brought about the commission of the crime, the offender should be penalized only once.

There are in fact cases decided by the Supreme Court where the offender has performed a series of acts but the acts appeared to be impelled by one and the same impulse, the ruling is that a complex crime is committed. In this case it is not the singleness of the act but the singleness of the impulse that has been considered. There are cases where the Supreme Court held that the crime committed is complex even though the offender performed not a single act but a series of acts. The only reason is that the series of acts are impelled by a single criminal impulse.


CONTINUED AND CONTINUING CRIMES

In criminal law, when a series of acts are perpetrated in pursuance of a single criminal impulse, there is what is called a continued crime. In criminal procedure for purposes of venue, this is referred to as a continuing crime.

The term “continuing crimes” as sometimes used in lieu of the term “continued crimes”, however, although both terms are analogous, they are not really used with the same import. “Continuing crime” is the term used in criminal procedure to denote that a certain crime may be prosecuted and tried not only before the court of the place where it was originally committed or began, but also before the court of the place where the crime was continued. Hence, the term “continuing crime” is used in criminal procedure when any of the material ingredients of the crime was committed in different places.

A “continued crime” is one where the offender performs a series of acts violating one and the same penal provision committed at the same place and about the same time for the same criminal purpose, regardless of a series of acts done, it is regarded in law as one.

In People v. de Leon, where the accused took five roosters from one and the same chicken coop, although, the roosters were owned by different persons, it was held that there is only one crime of theft committed, because the accused acted out of a single criminal impulse only. However performing a series of acts but this is one and the same intent Supreme Court ruled that only one crime is committed under one information.

In People v. Lawas, the accused constabulary soldiers were ordered to march with several muslims from one barrio to another place. These soldiers feared that on the way, some of the Muslims may escape. So Lawas ordered the men to tie the Muslims by the hand connecting one with the other, so no one would run away. When the hands of the Muslims were tied, one of them protested, he did not want to be included among those who were tied becase he was a Hajji, so the Hajji remonstrated and there was commotion. At the height of the commotion, Lawas ordered his men to fire, and the soldiers mechanically fired. Eleven were killed and several others were wounded. The question of whether the constabulary soldiers should be prosecuted for the killing of each under a separate information has reached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that the accused should be prosecuted only in one information, because a complex crime of multiple homicide was committed by them.

In another case, a band of robbers came across a compound where a sugar mill is located. The workers of said mill have their quarters within the compound. The band of robbers ransacked the different quarters therein. It was held that there is only one crime committed – multiple robbery, not because of Article 48 but because this is a continued crime. When the robbers entered the compound, they were moved by a single criminal intent. Not because there were several quarters robbed. This becomes a complex crime.

The definition in Article 48 is not honored because the accused did not perform a single act. There were a series of acts, but the decision in the Lawas case is correct. The confusion lies in this. While Article 48 speaks of a complex crime where a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave offenses, even those cases when the act is not a single but a series of acts resulting to two or more grave and less grave felonies, the Supreme Court considered this as a complex crime when the act is the product of one single criminal impulse.

If confronted with a problem, use the standard or condition that it refers not only to the singleness of the act which brought two or more grave and/less grave felonies. The Supreme Court has extended this class of complex crime to those cases when the offender performed not a single act but a series of acts as long as it is the product of a single criminal impulse.

You cannot find an article in the Revised Penal Code with respect to the continued crime or continuing crime. The nearest article is Article 48. Such situation is also brought under the operation of Article 48.

In People v. Garcia, the accused were convicts who were members of a certain gang and they conspired to kill the other gang. Some of the accused killed their victims in one place within the same penitentiary, some killed the others in another place within the same penitentiary. The Supreme Court ruled that all accused should be punished under one information because they acted in conspiracy. The act of one is the act of all. Because there were several victims killed and some were mortally wounded, the accused should be held for the complex crime of multiple homicide with multiple frustrated homicide. There is a complex crime not only when there is a single act but a series of acts. It is correct that when the offender acted in conspiracy, this crime is considered as one and prosecuted under one information. Although in this case, the offenders did not only kill one person but killed different persons, so it is clear that in killing of one victim or the killing of another victim, another act out of this is done simultaneously. Supreme Court considered this as complex. Although the killings did not result from one single act.

In criminal procedure, it is prohibited to charge more than one offense in an information, except when the crimes in one information constitute a complex crime or a special complex crime.

So whenever the Supreme Court concludes that the criminal should be punished only once, because they acted in conspiracy or under the same criminal impulse, it is necessary to embody these crimes under one single information. It is necessary to consider them as complex crimes even if the essence of the crime does not fit the definition of Art 48, because there is no other provision in the RPC.

Duplicity of offenses, in order not to violate this rule, it must be called a complex crime.

In earlier rulings on abduction with rape, if several offenders abducted the woman and abused her, there is multiple rape. The offenders are to be convicted of one count of rape and separately charged of the other rapes.

In People v. Jose, there were four participants here. They abducted the woman, after which, the four took turns in abusing her. It was held that each one of the four became liable not only for his own rape but also for those committed by the others. Each of the four offenders was convicted of four rapes. In the eyes of the law, each committed four crimes of rape. One of the four rapes committed by one of them was complexed with the crime of abduction. The other three rapes are distinct counts of rape. The three rapes are not necessary to commit the other rapes. Therefore, separate complaints/information.

In People v. Pabasa, the Supreme Court through Justice Aquino ruled that there is only one count of forcible abduction with rape committed by the offenders who abducted the two women and abused them several times. This was only a dissenting opinion of Justice Aquino, that there could be only one complex crimeof abduction with rape, regardless of the number of rapes committed because all the rapes are but committed out of one and the same lewd design which impelled the offender to abduct the victim.

In People v. Bojas, the Supreme Court followed the ruling in People v. Jose that the four men who abducted and abused the offended women were held liable for one crime – one count or forcible abudction with rape and distinct charges for rape for the other rapes committed by them.

In People v. Bulaong, the Supreme Court adopted the dissenting opinion of Justice Aquino in People v. Pabasa, that when several persons abducted a woman and abused her, regardless of the number of rapes committed, there should only be one complex crime of forcible abduction with rape. The rapes committed were in the nature of a continued crime characterized by the same lewd design which is an essential element in the crime of forcible abduction.

The abuse amounting to rape is complexed with forcible abduction because the abduction was already consummated when the victim was raped. The forcible abduction must be complexed therewith. But the multiple rapes should be considered only as one because they are in the nature of a continued crime.

Note: This is a dangerous view because the abductors will commit as much rape as they can, after all, only one complex crime of rape would arise.

In adultery, each intercourse constitutes one crime. Apparently, the singleness of the act is not considered a single crime. Each intercourse brings with it the danger of bringing one stranger in the family of the husband.

Article 48 also applies in cases when out of a single act of negligence or imprudence, two or more grave or less grave felonies resulted, although only the first part thereof (compound crime). The second part of Article 48 does not apply, referring to the complex crime proper because this applies or refers only to a deliberate commission of one offense to commit another offense.

However, a light felony may result from criminal negligence or imprudence, together with other grave or less grave felonies resulting therefrom and the Supreme Court held that all felonies resulting from criminal negligence should be made subject of one information only. The reason being that, there is only one information and prosecution only. Otherwise, it would be tantamount to splitting the criminal negligence similar to splitting a cause of action which is prohibited in civil cases.

Although under Article 48, a light felony should not be included in a complex crime, yet by virtue of this ruling of the Supreme Court, the light felony shall be included in the same information charging the offender with grave and/or less grave felonies resulting from the negligence of reckless imprudence and this runs counter to the provision of Article 48. So while the Supreme Court ruled that the light felony resulting from the same criminal negligence should be complexed with the other felonies because that would be a blatant violation of Article 48, instead the Supreme Court stated that an additional penalty should be imposed for the light felony. This would mean two penalties to be imposed, one for the complex crime and one for the light felony. It cannot separate the light felony because it appears that the culpa is crime itself and you cannot split the crime.

Applying the concept of the “continued crime”, the following cases have been treated as constituting one crime only:

(1) The theft of 13 cows belonging to two different persons committed by the accused at the same place and period of time (People v. Tumlos, 67 Phil. 320);

(1) The theft of six roosters belonging to two different owners from the same coop and at the same period of time (People v. Jaranillo);

(3) The illegal charging of fees for service rendered by a lawyer every time he collects veteran’s benefits on behalf of a client who agreed that attorney’s fees shall be paid out of such benefits (People v. Sabbun, 10 SCAR 156). The collections of legal fees were impelled by the same motive, that of collecting fees for services rendered, and all acts of collection were made under the same criminal impulse.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court declined to apply the concept in the following cases:

(1) Two Estafa cases, one which was committed during the period from January 19 to December, 1955 and the other from January 1956 to July 1956 (People v. Dichupa, 13 Phil 306). Said acts were committed on two different occasions;

(2) Several malversations committed in May, June and July 1936 and falsifications to conceal said offenses committed in August and October, 1936. The malversations and falsifications were not the result of one resolution to embezzle and falsify (People v. CIV, 66 Phil. 351);

(3) Seventy-five estafa cases committed by the conversion by the agents of collections from the customers of the employer made on different dates.

In the theft cases, the trend is to follow the single larceny doctrine, that is taking of several things, whether belonging to the same or different owners, at the same time and place, constitutes one larceny only. Many courts have abandoned the separate larceny doctrine, under which there was distinct larceny as to the property of each victim.

Also abandoned is the doctrine that the government has the discretion to prosecute the accused for one offense or for as many distinct offenses as there are victims (Santiago v. Justice Garchitorena, decided on December 2, 1993). Here, the accused was charged with performing a single act – that of approving the legalization of aliens not qualified under the law. The prosecution manifested that they would only file one information. Subsequently, 32 amended informations were filed. The Supreme Court directed the prosecution to consolidate the cases into one offense because (1) they were in violation of the same law – Executive Order No. 324; (2) caused injury to one party only – the government; and (3) they were done in the same day. The concept of delito continuado has been applied to crimes under special laws since in Article 10, the Revised Penal Code shall be supplementary to special laws, unless the latter provides the contrary.