STUDY GUIDE (No.

1) IN CRIMINAL LAW 1

1. Define:
 Law
 Criminal Law
 Crime
 Felony
 Offense

2. Are there COMMON LAW CRIMES in our jurisdiction? Explain.

3. Who must prosecute criminal actions? [Sec. 5, Rule 110, Rules of Criminal
Procedures]

4. What are the LIMITATIONS UPON THE POWER OF THE PHILIPPINE

CONGRESS to enact penal laws?

5. What are the three (3) characteristics of criminal laws? Explain.

RESEARCH:
 Schneckenburger v. Moran, July 31, 1936;
 Article VI, Sec. 11, 1987 Philippine Constitution;
 Article 3 of P.D. 1620, April 19, 1979;
 Sections 4, 5, 6, & 7 of R.A. No. 75, Oct. 21, 1946;
 Articles 3, 7, 8, 10 & 12 of R.A. 386, June 18, 1949 [Civil Code of the
Philippines];
 Section 15 (a) (b) (c) (d) of Rule 110, Rules of Criminal Procedure
2000;
 Pp v. Wong Cheng, Oct. 19, 1922 [French Rule & English Rule];
 U.S. v. Ah Sing, Oct. 10, 1917;
 Ang Beng v. The Commissioner of Immigration, Jan. 30, 1957; and
 Pp v. Crisanto Tamayo, March 19, 1935.

6. Rules of Construction of Penal Laws ---

 Aurora T. Aquino v. C.A., November 21, 1991;

7. PRO REO Doctrine ---

 Meaning;
 Pp. v. Alfonso Gatchalian, Sept. 30, 1958;
 Pp v. Yabut, June 26, 1992;
 Pp v. Tadepa, May 26, 1995; and
 Pp v. Malapayon, June 16, 2000.

8. Meaning of each of the following Legal Maxims ---

 IGNORANTIA LEGIS NEMINEM EXCUSAT
 IN DUBIIS REUS EST ABSOLVENDUS
 ACTUS NON FACIT REUM, NISI MENS SET REA
 PLUS PECCAT AUTHOR QUAM ACTOR
 EX VERBIS LEGIS
 A VERBA LEGIS NON EST RECEDENDUM
 DURA LEX SED LEX
 EXPRESSIO UNIUS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS
 IGNORANTIA FACTI EXCUSAT

9. Art. 2, RPC ---

------------------------------
Page 1 of 13
ATTY. AMADO V. DOMINGO, JR
  What are those felonies against National Security and the Law of
Nations?
 Distinguish from each other: TERRITORIALITY;
EXTRATERRITORIALITY; and EXTERRITORIALITY.

10. Meaning of DOLO and CULPA? What are there elements?

11. What do you understand by the following in relation to “FELONY?”

 Freedom;
 Intelligence;
 Intent;
 Negligence; and
 Imprudence.

12. Distinguish from each other: General Intent & Specific Intent.
Cases:
 Pp v. Oanis, July 27, 1943; and
 Tabuena v. Hon. Sandiganbayan and People, Feb. 17, 1997.

13. Distinguish: MALA EN SE & MALA PROHIBITA. Discuss fully.

 Pp v. Neri, Dec. 19, 1985

14. Article 4, RPC ---

Case:
 Pp v. Ural, March 27, 1974.

15. PROXIMATE CAUSE and REMOTE CAUSE ---

 Urbano v. IAC, Jan. 7, 1988;
 MERALCO v. Remoquillo, May 18, 1956; and
 El Pueblo de Filipinas v. Raymudo Relin, Feb. 28, 1947.

16. Art. 6, RPC ---

 Pp v. Go Kay, Dec. 19, 1957
 Pp v. Mauricio, Feb. 28, 2001

17. Distinguish FORMAL CRIMES from MATERIAL CRIMES.

18. Distinguish SUBJECTIVE PHASE from OBJECTIVE PHASE.

 Pp v. Palomares, (CA) 75 O.G. 5739.
 Padayuman v. Pp, Jan. 23, 2002.
 Pp v. Costales, Jan. 15, 2002.
 Pp. v. Billones, July 21, 1978
 Pp v. Kalao, March 17, 1934.
 U.S. v. Simeon, April 15, 1904.
 Pp v. PO3 Tan, June 21, 2001.
 Pp v. Aca-ac, April 20, 2001.
 Pp v. Fernandez, 54 Phil. 122.
 Pp v. Mercado, June 15, 1938.
 U.S. v. Adiao, Oct. 8, 1918.
 Pp v. Dino, 45 O.G. 3446.

19. Art. 11, RPC ---

 Pp v. Luague and Alcansare, Nov. 7, 1935
 Pp v. Jaurique, Feb. 21, 1946
 Pp v. Narvaez, April 20, 1983
------------------------------
Page 2 of 13
ATTY. AMADO V. DOMINGO, JR
  Arts. 429, 536, and 539 of the New Civil Code
 Pp v. Punzalan, August 6, 1987
 Pp v. Geneblazo, July 20, 2001
 Pp v. Ringor, Jr., 320 SCRA 342 (1999)
 Eslabon v. Pp, Feb. 24, 1984
 U. S. v. Batungbacal, 37 Phil. 382, 387
 Pp v. Galapin, 293 SCRA 474 (1998)
 Pp v. Catbagan, Feb. 23, 2004
 Pp v. Macaso, june 3, 1975
 Pp v. Basadre, Feb. 22, 2001
 Pp v. Bautista, Feb. 27, 2004
 Aradillos, 15 Jan. 2005
 People vs. Reyta, Jr., 13 CAR (25) 1190;1195 [1968]
 P.P. vs. FRUCTUOSO RABANDABAN, Feb 28, 1950 En Banc

20. SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION ---

 Pepito v. CA, July 8, 1999
 Pp v. Paga, 79 SCRA 570 (1977)
 Pp v. Nabore, 73 Phil. 434 (1941)

21. DEFENSE OF RELATIVES ---

 Pp v. Toring, Oct. 26, 1990
 U. S. v. Esmedia, Oct. 21, 1910

22. DEFENSE OF STRANGERS ---

 U. S. v. Aviado, GRN 13397, April 1, 1918
 Pp v. Valdez, GRN 37754, March 4, 1933

23. STATE OF NECESSITY ---

 ART. 859 [CODE OF COMMERCE]
 Art. 101, RPC
 Jarque vs. Smith, Bell & Co., November 11, 1930

24. FULFILLMENT OF A DUTY OR IN THE LAWFUL EXERCISE OF A

RIGHT OR OFFICE ---
 Pp v. Pajenado, et al., 30 Jan. 1976
 Pp v. Oanis, et al., 27 July 1943
 Valcorza v. Pp, 31 Oct. 1969

25. OBEDIENCE TO AN ORDER ISSUED BY A SUPERIOR FOR SOME

LAWFUL PURPOSE ---
 Tabuena vs. Hon. Sandiganbayan and People, Feb. 17, 1997
 Pp v. Margen, et al., March 30, 1950
 Pp. v. Beronilla, et al., [GRN L-4445 February 28, 1955]

26. Section 26, R.A. No. 9262 --- [BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME]

27. MINORITY ---

 R. A. 9344, JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT of 2006
 DISCERNMENT, meaning
 Corpus, et al. vs. Paje, et al., July 31, 1969
 People vs. Nepomuceno, Jr., November 11, 1998

28. IMBECILITY AND INSANITY ---

 VICARIOUS LIABILITY
------------------------------
Page 3 of 13
ATTY. AMADO V. DOMINGO, JR
  People vs. Talavera [G.R. No. 139967. July 19, 2001]

29. PURE ACCIDENT: ---

 People vs. Nepomuceno, Jr. November 11, 1998
 Biagtan, et al. vs. Insular Life Assurance Co., LTD., March 29, 1972

30. COMPULSION OF IRRESISTIBLE FORCE ---

 People vs. Joselito Del Rosario y Pascual, April 14, 1999

31. IMPULSE OF UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR:

 People vs. Fronda May 14, 1993
 People vs. Daganon, et al. November 13, 1986
 People vs. Petenia, et al. August 12, 1986

32. INSUPERABLE OR LAWFUL CAUSE ---

 People v. Badian, Sept. 30, 1936
 Medina vs. Orozco Jr. [GRN L-26723 December 22, 1966]

33. INSTIGATION [absolutory] and ENTRAPMENT [not absolutory]---

 People vs. Boco y Alejo et al. [GRN 129676 June 23, 1999]

34. ABSOLUTORY CAUSES –

 People v. Doria, GR No. 125299, January 22, 1999
 Article 332, RPC

35. CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MITIGATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY ---

(a) Distinction between the OMC and the PMC:
 People v. SPO1 Ulep, 20 Sept. 2000
 Lacanilao v. Court of Appeals, No. L-34940, June 27, 1988, 162 SCRA
563
(b) Minority (R.A. 9344, JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT of
2006
 Pp v. Daliray, 26 Jan. 2004
(c) Several mitigating circumstances
 Pepito et al. vs. CA et al., July 8, 1999
(d) Non-apllication of OMCs
 P.D. 1866, “Illegal possession of firearms, ammunition, etc.” as
amended by R.A.8294 --- Section 3
 R. A. No. 9262, Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children ---
Section 6 thereof, on penalties
(e) Incomplete justifying and exempting circumstances
 Pp v. Catbagan, Feb. 23, 2004
 People v. Bato, 15 Dec. 2000
 People vs. Cabellon and Gaviola [GRN 29221 August 8,
1928]
 De Luna vs. CA June 2, 1995 [GRN 111484 June 2,
1995]
(f) Praeter Intentionem
 Pp v. Regato, et al., 31 January 1984
(g) Sufficient provocation
 Navarro v. CA, Aug. 26, 1999
 People vs. Pagal, GRN L-32040 October 25, 1977
 Pp v. Alconga & Bracamonte, April 30, 1947
 Pp. v. Deguia, 20 April 1951
(h) Voluntary surrender

------------------------------
Page 4 of 13
ATTY. AMADO V. DOMINGO, JR
  Pp. v. Catbagan, 23 Feb. 2004; Pp v. Belaje, 23 Nov. 2000; People v.
Amamangpang, 291 SCRA 638, 654 (1998)
 Pp v. Abolidor, 18 Feb. 2004
 Pp v. Brecinio, 17 March 2004
 Pp. v. Juan (En Banc), 14 Jan. 2004
(i) Offender is deaf and dumb, blind
 Pp v. Garillo, GRN L-30281, 2 Aug. 1978
(j) Illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the will
power
 Pp v. Opuran, 17 March 2004
(k) Having acted in obedience to an order issued by a superior
 People vs. Bernal, et al., July 14, 1952

36. CIRCUMSTANCE WHICH AGGRAVATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY ---

 Pp v. Alde, 29 May 1975
 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, made effective on 01 December
2000, Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110
 Pp v. Catubig, August 23, 2001
 Pp v. Armando A. Regala, 5 April 2000 (G.R. No. 130508)
 Pp v. Torres, (EN BANC) March 16, 2004
 Section 25, Art. II of R.A. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
of 2002
 Section 1, par. 3 of P.D. 1866, as amended by R.A. 8294
 Pp v. Badajos, Jan. 15, 2004 and Pp v. Allawan, Feb. 13, 2004
 Art. 62, RPC
 Pp v. Catubig, August 23, 2001
 Pp v. Gutierrez, 8 Feb. 1999; People vs. Magdueño September 22,
1986
 Pp. v. Montinola, July 9, 2001; Pp v. Santos, 91 Phil. 320; Pp v. Daos,
27 April 1934; Pp v. Puesca, 05 Dec. 1978
 UNITED STATES VS. J. RAMOS ET AL. ,GRN 539 April 1, 1902
 People vs. Perreras, G.R. No. 139622. July 31, 2001
 Pp v. Cabato, April 15, 1988
 Pp v. Daniel, 75 O.G. 4834
 Pp v. Alcala, 40 Phil. 739
 Pp v. Mandolado, et al. 28 June 1983
 Pp v. Cabresos, May 26, 1995
 People vs. Ponciano, December 5, 1991
 Pp v. Lora, March 30, 1982]
 Pp v. Comendador, Sept. 18, 1980
 Pp v. Jaurigue, 21 Feb. 1946
 Navarro v. CA, et al., Aug. 26, 1999
 Pp v. Santos, 91 Phil. 320, May 21, 1952; Pp v. Daos, 27 April 1934; Pp
v. Puesca, 05 Dec. 1978]
 People vs. Fortich, GRN 80399-404, November 13, 1997
 [Pp v. Lao, Dec. 9, 1999
 Pp v. Lomerio, Feb. 28, 2000
 Pp v. Damaso, 20 May 1978
 Pp v. Egot, June 25, 1984
 Pp v. Pedroso, EN BANC, 30 July 1982. Note, this case effectively
overturned Ombao (Pp. v. Ombao, ist Div., Feb. 26, 1981)
 ERNESTO GARCES v. Pp, G.R. No. 173858, 2007 Jul 17, 3rd
Division
 Pp v. Lee, et al., Dec. 20, 1991

------------------------------
Page 5 of 13
ATTY. AMADO V. DOMINGO, JR
  Pp v. Ilane, 31 May 1938
 People vs. Arpa, et al., GRN L-26789 April 25, 1969
 Pp v. Hijapon, July 10, 2001
 Pp v. Abrera, Dec. 12, 1997; Pp v. Umbrero, et al., May 8, 1991
 Pp v. Agapinay, June 27, 1990
 Pp. v. Montejo, Nov. 21, 1988
 Pp. Romeo Barros, June 27, 1995
 U. S. vs. Blanco, 10 Phil., 298; U. S. vs. Hermosilla, 31 Phil., 405; Pp v.
Dos, Apr. 27, 1934)
 Pp v. Clariño, July 31, 2001
 Pp v. Cortes, July 11, 2001
 Moises Capalac, Oct. 23, 1982
 Pp v. Quiñola, May 5, 1999
 Pp v. Zea, et al., June 29, 1984]
 Pp v. Lee, Dec. 20, 1991; Pp v. Daos, Apr. 27, 1934
 Pp v. Cabato, April 18, 1988
 Pp v. Ferrera, June 18, 1987
 Pp v. Talay, Nov. 28, 1980
 Pp v. Rodico, Oct. 16, 1995
 Pp v. Gatcho, Feb. 26, 1981
 Pp v. Ortiz, July 7, 2001
 Pp v. Ducusin, August 8, 1929
 Pp v. Opuran, March 17, 2004
 Pp. v. Vera, Aug. 18, 1999
 Pp v. Macuha, July 16, 1999
 Pp v. Panida, et al., July 6, 1999; Pp v. Flores, EN BANC, Feb. 5, 2004
 Pp v. Abolidor, Feb. 18, 2004
 Pp v. Daliray, Jan. 26, 2004 (Note: killing a child of tender age is
treacherous. Treachery is indisputably presumed. [Pp v. Caritativo, April
1, 1996] The killing of a 6-year old child by an adult person is
treacherous. (People vs. Sancholes, 271 SCRA 527 [1997]. N.B.
Disregard of age is absorbed.
 Pp. v. Cachola, EN BANC, Jan. 21, 2004
 Pp v. Brecinio, March 17, 2004
 Pp v. Salvatierra, 257 SCRA 489]
 Pp v. Leal, June 29, 2001
 Pp. v. Ralph Velez Diaz, Dec. 8, 1999
 Pp. Carmina, Jan. 28, 1991
 Pp v. Siao, March 3, 2000; Pp v. Lao, Dec. 9, 1999
 Pp v. Velo, March 13, 1948
 Pp v. Bacule, Jan. 28, 2000
 Pp v. Veloso, Feb. 25, 1982
 People vs. Moreno, March 22,1993
 Pp v. Gatcho, Feb. 26, 1981
 Pp v. Panida, et al., July 6, 1999
 Pp v. Ilaoa, June 16, 1994

37. ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES

Relationship
 Pp v. Catubig, Aug. 23, 2001
 Art. 332, RPC
 Art. 59, The Child and Youth Welfare Code, P.D. 603

Intoxication
------------------------------
Page 6 of 13
ATTY. AMADO V. DOMINGO, JR
  Pp. v. Muerong, July 6, 2001
 Pp v. Cortes, July 11, 2001
 Pp v. Bato, Dec. 15, 2000

Degree of instruction and education/lack of education

 People vs. Retania, January 22, 1980, GRN L-34841
 People vs. Pujinio, et al., April 29, 1969
 People vs. Laspardas, October 23, 1979
 Garganera vs. Jocson, September 1, 1992
 Pp v. Ang, Oct. 8, 1985
 People vs. Mengote, July 25, 1975
 Pp v. Limaco, Jan. 9, 1951

38. PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR FELONIES

 Pp. v. Abdona Montilla, (CA) 52 O.G.4327
 People vs. Marquita et al. March 1, 2000
 People vs. Hatague April 7,1992
 People vs. Quiñones March 28, 1990
 People vs. Madera May 31, 1974
 People vs. Casey, et al. February 24, 1981
 People vs. Peralta, et al. October 29, 1968, 25 SCRA
759
 People vs. Dumayan May 21, 2001
 Pp v. Escober, Jan. 29, 1988

38.a. PRINCIPAL BY INDUCEMENT

 Pp v. Agapinay, 27 June 1990

 Chua vs. CA, August 28, 1996
 Pp v. Indanan, Jan. 29, 1913
 People vs. Parungao November 28, 1996, EN BANC
 People vs. Delfin, et al., July 31, 1961

38.b. PRINCIPALS BY INDISPENSABLE COOPERATION

 Samson vs. Court of Appeals, et al., March 31, 1958

 Pp v. Aplegido, et al., April 27, 1946
 People v. Cortes, September 3, 1993

39. ACCOMPLICES

 Pp v. Vera, Aug. 18, 1999

 People vs. Elefaño, Jr., et al., November 25, 1983
 Pp v. Pastores, et al., Aug. 31, 1971
 People vs. Tamayo, 44 Phil. 38
 Pp v. Chua Huy, Aug. 31, 1950
 Pp v. Marquita, et al., March 1, 2000 [Passive presence]

40. ACCESSORIES

 PD 1829, Obstruction of Justice, and PD 1612, Anti-fencing

 People v. Mantung, G.R. No. 130372, July 20,
 Pp v. Moana, et al., June 8, 2000
 Pp v. Tan, Aug. 26, 1999]
 Nueva, 74 O.G. 1424, Feb. 16, 1976
------------------------------
Page 7 of 13
ATTY. AMADO V. DOMINGO, JR
 Related Special Penal Laws are: PD 1829, Obstruction of Justice, and
PD 1612, Anti-Fencing
Title Three
PENALTIES
Chapter One
PENALTIES IN GENERAL
 EN BANC, G.R. No. L-17905, January 27, 1923, THE PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JUAN MORAN,
FRUCTUOSO CANSINO, and HILARIO ODA, defendants-appellants
 EN BANC, March 3, 1975, MAGTOTO vs. MANGUERA et al.
 Articles 89 and 344, RPC
 People vs. Salle, Jr., GRN 103567 December 4, 1995
 Pp v. Malinao, 16 Feb. 2004
 Pp v. De los Santos, March 27, 2001 vis-a-vis Lontok, Jr. v. Gorgonio,
April 30, 1979
 People vs. Tabaco, GRN 100382-100385, March 19, 1997
Compound (DELITO COMPUESTO)
Complex proper (DELITO COMPLEJO)
Continuing Crime (DELITO CONTINUADO)
 Santiago v. Garchitorina, G.R. 109265, 02 Dec. 1993
 Pp v. Sabalones, et al., 31 Aug. 1998

a. ABERATIO ICTUS
b. PRAETER INTENTIONEM
c. ERROR EN PERSONAE

 DELITO CONTINUADO, applied ---

People v. Tumlos, 67 Phil. 320 [1939].
People v. Jaranillo, 55 SCRA 563)
People v. De Leon, 49 Phil. 437 [1926]
People v. Sabbun, 10 SCRA 156 [1964]
People v. Lawas, 97 Phil. 975 [1955]
People v. Sabbun, 10 SCRA 156 [1964] in re special penal laws
 Supreme Court declined to apply the concept of Delito
Continuado in the following cases:
(1) People v. Dichupa, 113 Phil. 306 [1961]
(2) People v. Cid, 66 Phil. 354 [1938]
(3) People v. Ledesma, 73 SCRA 77 [1976]
(4) Gamboa v. Court of Appeals, 68 SCRA 308 ([1975]

 DELITO COMPUESTO
Pp v. Pama, [C.A.] 44 O.G. 3339 (1947)
Pp v. Macagaling, October 3, 1994
Pp v. de Leon, 49 Phil. 237
Pp v. Guillen, 47 O.G. No. 7, 3433
Pp v. Desierto, [C.A.] 45 O.G. 4542 (1948)
Pp v. Tabaco, GRN 100383-100385, March 19, 1997
People vs. Mision, February 26, 1991
Pp v. Pacificador, 6 Feb. 2002

 DELITO COMPLEJO

Pp v. Salvilla, 26 April 1990 “Necessary means”

Pp v. Ramos, 12 Oct. 1998; Cited in Pp v. Rimorin, et al., 16 May 2000
RA No. 7659
People v. Jose, et al., G.R. No. L- 28232, Feb. 6, 1971, 37 SCRA 450

------------------------------
Page 8 of 13
ATTY. AMADO V. DOMINGO, JR
 Pp v. Tami, May 2, 1995

PENALTIES

Divisible penalties are divided into three [3] equal portions. Each portion is
known as a period. If there is an ordinary mitigating circumstance [OMC], the penalty
is to be lowered by one period for every OMC, except where Art. 64, Paragraph 5
applies.
If there is an aggravating circumstance, the penalty should be increased by
one period for every attendant aggravating circumstance, but not to exceed the
maximum of the penalty prescribed for the crime committed.
If there is neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstance, the prescribed
penalty should be imposed, in its medium period where no period is mentioned.
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. [Art. 64]

A degree, on the other hand is a graduation of penalties. The graduated scales

of penalties are provided in Art. 71, thus:
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

SCALE NO. 2
1. Perpetual absolute disqualification
2. Temporary absolute disqualification
3. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted
for, and the right to follow a profession or calling
4. Public censure
5. Fine

Each penalty in the above scales is a DEGREE IN ITSELF.

Thus, one degree lower than death, the highest degree, is reclusion perpetua.

Many penalties, however, are composed of periods. Thus, where the penalty
for a crime is prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods. It is composed
of two [2] periods. One degree lower is just the next lower 2 periods, or arresto mayor
in its medium and maximum periods.
On the other hand, before the advent of GONZALES, if the penalty for a crime
is, say, reclusion temporal in its medium period the same is composed of one period
only. The penalty one degree lower is just the next lower period or reclusion temporal
minimum [See People vs. Gonzales, 73 Phil. 549, infra, which is governing. ].
Finally, if the penalty is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, as a
special case, this penalty is considered composed of 3 periods. One degree, lower is
just the next lower 3 periods or prision mayor maximum to reclusion temporal
medium. To illustrate:
1. Penalty composed of 3 periods: say, reclusion temporal maximum to death.
1. Death - - - - - - - - - prescribed
2. Reclusion perpetua - - - - penalty
------------------------------
Page 9 of 13
ATTY. AMADO V. DOMINGO, JR
 3. Reclusion temporal -- max
med
min one degree lower
4. Prision mayor ------ max
med
min two degrees lower
5. Prision correccional-- max
med
min
6. Arresto mayor
7. Destierro
8. Arresto menor
9. Public censure
10. Fine

2. Penalty composed of two periods:

4. Prision mayor --------max

med
min
5. Pris. Correccional----max
med prescribed
min penalty
6. Arresto mayor---------max
med one degree lower
min

3. Penalty composed of one period:

1. Death (Repealed by R.A. No. 9346, June 24, 2006)

2. Reclusion perpetua
3. Reclusion temporal---max
med -- Prescribed penalty
min

4. Prision mayor--------max
Prision correccional max --- One degree lower [Gonzales Doctrine]

G.R. Nos. L-4215-16 April 17, 1953

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. LEONARDO DOSAL
092 Phil 877

FIRST DIVISION
SYLLABUS
1. CRIMINAL LAW; PENALTIES, COMPUTATION OF. —
In determining the penalty next lower in degree for the purpose of applying the
law on indeterminate sentence, while some of the justices believe that said penalty
immediately lower should be prision mayor in its medium degree, the majority equally
hold that following the doctrine laid down in the case of People vs. Gonzales (73
Phil., 549), the penalty next lower in degree to prision mayor in its maximum
degree is and should be prision correccional in its maximum degree .
The penalty in criminal case No. 2109 (now L-4215) should therefore be not
less than four (4) years and nine (9) months and eleven (11) days of prision
correccional and not more than ten (10) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of
prision mayor. The indemnity to the heirs of the deceased Benito Fernandez should

------------------------------
Page 10 of 13
ATTY. AMADO V. DOMINGO, JR
be increased to P6,000. With these modifications, the decision appealed from is
hereby affirmed, with costs.

LEONIDAS EPIFANIO Y LAZARO, Petitioner

---versus---
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
G.R. NO. 157057, 2007 Jun 26, 3rd Division)

Accordingly, the imposable penalty for the crime of attempted murder,

following Article 51 of the Revised Penal Code, is prision correccional in its maximum
period to prision mayor in its medium period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence
Law, the minimum of the penalty to be imposed should be within the range of arresto
mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its medium period, and the
maximum of the penalty to be imposed should be within the range of prision
correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period. Since no
generic aggravating or mitigating circumstance attended the commission of the crime
of attempted murder, the penalty should be two (2) years and four (4) months of
prision correccional, as minimum; and eight (8) years of prision mayor, as maximum.
NOTE: The crime was committed on August 15, 1990 in Samal, Davao. The
penalty then imposable for MURDER was ---

Art. 248. Murder. — Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article
246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion
temporal in its maximum period to death, if committed with any of the following
attendant circumstances:

================================================================

HOW TO DIVIDE PENALTIES COMPOSED OF PERIODS IN THREE EQUAL

PERIODS

1. Prescribed penalty: Prision mayor maximum to reclusion temporal medium.

[3-period penalty]

1. Get the range of the penalty: 10 y and 1d to 17y and 4m

2. Subtract the minimum from the maximum

17y 4m
- 10y [do not include the day]
7y 4m

3. Divide the range by 3

7y 4m or 88 m 88 m  3 = 29 m and 10 d or 2y 5m 10d

4. min 10y 1d to 12y 5m 10d

med 12y 5m 11d to 14y 10m 20d
max 14y 10m 21d to 17y 4m 00d

2. Prescribed penalty: prision correccional in its minimum and medium

periods. [2-period penalty]

1. Range --- 6m 1d to 4y 2m

2. Subtract 4y 2m - 6m [do not include the day] = 3y 8m

3. 3y 8m  3 = 1y 2m 20d

------------------------------
Page 11 of 13
ATTY. AMADO V. DOMINGO, JR
 4. min 6m 1d to 1y 8m 20d
med 1y 8m 21d to 2y 11m 10d
max 2y 11m 11d to 4y 2m 00d

3. Prescribed penalty: Reclusion temporal medium [1-period penalty]

1. 14 years 8 months 1 day to 17 years 4 months

2. 17y 4m - 14y 8m = 2 years and 8 months

3. 2 year and 8 months divided by 3 = 10 months 20 days

4. min 14y 8m 1d to 15y 6m 20d

med 15y 6m 21d to 16y 5m 10d
max 16y 5m 11d to 17y 4m 00d

TABULATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE CHAPTER

Penalty Penalty to be Penalty to be Penalty to be Penalty to

prescribed for imposed upon imposed upon imposed upon the be imposed
the crime the principal in the principal in accessory in a upon the
a frustrated an attempted frustrated crime, accessory in
crime, and the crime, the and the accompli- an
accomplice in accessory in the ces in an attempted
a consummated attempted crime
consummated crime, and the crime
crime accomplices in a
frustrated crime
First Death Reclusion Reclusion Prision mayor Prision
Case perpetua temporal correccional

Second Reclusion Reclusion Prision mayor Prision Arresto

Case perpetua to temporal Correccional mayor
death
Third Reclusion Prision mayor Prision Arresto mayor in Fine and
case temporal in in its maximum correccional in its maximum
its maximum period to its maximum period to prision arresto
period to reclusion period to prision correccional in mayor in its
death temporal in its mayor in its its medium minimum
medium medium period. period. and medium
period. periods.
Fourth Prision mayor Prision Arresto mayor in Fine and arresto Fine
Case in its correccional in its maximum mayor in its
maximum its maximum period to prision minimum and
period to period to correccional in medium periods.
reclusion prision mayor its medium
temporal in in its medium period.
its medium period.
period.

------------------------------
Page 12 of 13
ATTY. AMADO V. DOMINGO, JR
TABULAR PRESENTATION:

PROVIDED THAT THE RAPE MERELY ACCOMPANIED THE ROBBERY

AND NOT IN FURTHERANCE OF OR PURSUANT TO THE CONSPIRACY. ALSO,
THE RAPE IS NOT A NECESSARY AND LOGICAL CONSEQUENCE OF THE
INTENDED CRIME.

A. CONSPIRACY:
All of these also apply to robbery with homicide. [See concurring opinion of J.
Gutierrez in the Escober case.]

1. XYZ --- CONSPIRED TO ROB. 2. XYZ CONSPIRED TO ROB.

XYZ --- ROB XYZ –-- ROB
XY --- RAPE “A” XY --- RAPE “A”
Z --- NO KNOWLEDGE ABOUT Z --- HAS KNOWLEDGE OF THE RAPE
THE RAPE –OR- HAS AND DID NOT ENDEAVOR TO PREVENT
KNOWLEDGE BUT ITS COMMISSION.
ENDEAVORS TO PREVENT ITS
COMMISSION -OR- NO CRIME: XYZ --- ROBBERY WITH RAPE
CHANCE TO PREVENT ITS
COMMISSION, E.G. BECAUSE
OF SUDDENNESS. [SEE:
OMPAD CASE]

CRIMES: XY --- ROBBERY WITH

RAPE
Z --- ROBBERY ONLY

B: B A N D

1. WXYZ --- ROB 2. WXYZ --- ROB

WXY --- RAPE “A” WXY --- RAPE “A”
Z --- ENDEAVORS TO PREVENT Z --- DID NOT ENDEAVOR TO PREVENT
THE RAPE. THE RAPE. [WITH OR WITHOUT
CRIMES: WXY --- ROBBERY W/ KNOWLEDGE IS IMMATERIAL
RAPE BECAUSE OF THE 2nd PAR. OF ART. 296.]
Z --- ROBBERY ONLY
CRIME: WXYZ --- ROBBERY W/ RAPE

AUTHORITIES

1. PP. VS. JUAN G. ESCOBER, ET AL., JAN. 29, 1988

2. PP. VS. SULPICIO DE LA CERNA, OCT. 30, 1967
3. U.S. VS. TIONGO, ET AL., MARCH 26, 1918
4. PP. VS. JUAN MORENO, MARCH 22, 1993
5. U.S. VS. JULIAN MACALALAD, OCT. 8, 1907
6. PP. VS. ADRIANO, 95 SCRA 107 [1980]
7. PP. VS. OMPAD, JAN. 31, 1969
8. PP. VS. VISCARRA, JULY 30, 1982 [SUDDENNESS OF THE KILLING]

------------------------------
Page 13 of 13
ATTY. AMADO V. DOMINGO, JR