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
Page 1
Atty. Amado V. Domingo, Jr.

9. Art. 2, RPC -- What are those felonies against National Security and the Law of
Nations?
Distinguish from each other: TERRITORIALITY; EX TERRITORIALITY;
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
Page 2
Atty. Amado V. Domingo, Jr.

Pp v. Jaurique, Feb. 21, 1946

Pp v. Narvaez, April 20, 1983
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]

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
Page 3
Atty. Amado V. Domingo, Jr.

28. IMBECILITY AND INSANITY -- VICARIOUS LIABILITY

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
Page 4
Atty. Amado V. Domingo, Jr.

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
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. Magdueo
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
Page 5
Atty. Amado V. Domingo, Jr.

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
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. Clario, July 31, 2001
Pp v. Cortes, July 11, 2001
Moises Capalac, Oct. 23, 1982
Pp v. Quiola, 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
Page 6
Atty. Amado V. Domingo, Jr.

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
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. Quiones
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. Elefao, Jr., et al., November 25, 1983
Pp v. Pastores, et al., Aug. 31, 1971
Page 7
Atty. Amado V. Domingo, Jr.

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
Related Special Penal Laws are: PD 1829, Obstruction of Justice, and
PD 1612, Anti-Fencing
Title Three
PE NALTI E S
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
Page 8
Atty. Amado V. Domingo, Jr.

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
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
3. Reclusion temporal -- max

Page 9
Atty. Amado V. Domingo, Jr.

med
min
4. Prision mayor ------ max
med
min
5. Prision correccional-- max
med
min
6. Arresto mayor
7. Destierro
8. Arresto menor
9. Public censure
10. Fine

one degree lower

two degrees lower

2. Penalty composed of two periods:

4. Prision mayor --------max
med
min
5. Pris. Correccional----max
med
min
6. Arresto mayor---------max
med
min

prescribed
penalty
one degree lower

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 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

Page 10
Atty. Amado V. Domingo, Jr.

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
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

First
Case

Penalty
prescribed for the
crime

Penalty to be
imposed upon the
principal
in
a
frustrated crime,
and
the
accomplice in a
consummated
crime

Death

Reclusion
perpetua

Penalty
to
be
imposed upon the
principal
in
an
attempted crime, the
accessory in the
consummated
crime,
and
the
accomplices in a
frustrated crime
Reclusion temporal

Page 11
Atty. Amado V. Domingo, Jr.

Penalty to be
imposed upon the
accessory in a
frustrated crime,
and the accomplices in an attempted
crime

Penalty to be
imposed upon
the accessory
in
an
attempted
crime

Prision mayor

Prision
correccional

Second
Case
Third
case

Fourth
Case

Reclusion
perpetua
to
death
Reclusion
temporal in its
maximum period
to
death

Reclusion
temporal

Prision mayor

Prision
Correccional

Arresto mayor

Prision mayor in
its
maximum
period to reclusion
temporal in its
medium period.

Prision correccional
in
its maximum
period to prision
mayor in its medium
period.

Arresto mayor in
its maximum
period to prision
correccional in
its medium period.

Fine

Prision mayor in
its
maximum
period
to
reclusion
temporal in its
medium period.

Prision
correccional in its
maximum period
to prision mayor
in its medium
period.

Arresto mayor in its

maximum period to
prision correccional
in
its
medium
period.

Fine and arresto

mayor in its
minimum and
medium periods.

and
arresto
mayor in its
minimum and
medium
periods.
Fine

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.
XYZ --- ROB
XY --- RAPE A
Z --- NO KNOWLEDGE ABOUT
THE
RAPE
ORHAS
KNOWLEDGE
BUT
ENDEAVORS TO PREVENT ITS
COMMISSION
-ORNO
CHANCE TO PREVENT ITS
COMMISSION, E.G. BECAUSE
OF
SUDDENNESS.
[SEE:
OMPAD CASE]

2. XYZ CONSPIRED TO ROB.

XYZ -- ROB
XY --- RAPE A
Z --- HAS KNOWLEDGE OF THE RAPE
AND DID NOT ENDEAVOR TO PREVENT
ITS COMMISSION.
CRIME: XYZ --- ROBBERY WITH RAPE

CRIMES: XY --- ROBBERY WITH

RAPE
Z --- ROBBERY ONLY
B: B A N D

Page 12
Atty. Amado V. Domingo, Jr.

1. WXYZ --- ROB

WXY --- RAPE A
Z --- ENDEAVORS TO PREVENT
THE RAPE.
CRIMES: WXY --- ROBBERY W/
RAPE
Z --- ROBBERY ONLY

2. WXYZ --- ROB

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

AUTHORITIES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

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

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

Page 13
Atty. Amado V. Domingo, Jr.