People vs.

Gaffud
G.R. No. 168050. September 19, 2008
Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines
Accused-appellant: Bernardino Gaffud
Ponente: C.J. Puno
FACTS:
Accused-appellant Bernardino Gaffud, Jr. was found guilty of two (2) counts of murder for
killing Manuel Salvador and Analyn Salvador by means of fire. Evidence for the prosecution
presented the following:
1) That on the night of May 10, 1994, Orly Salvador, while on his way to the house of his uncle
Manuel Salvador, heard two gunshots and thereafter saw the house of his uncle burning. He
saw three persons within the vicinity of the burning house, one of whom he identified as
appellant Gaffud, Jr.
2) That Dan Dangpal, neighbor of the deceased, at about 8:00 PM that evening, heard
successive gunshots and saw the deceaseds house burning.
3) That prior the incident, Barangay Captain Potado Ballang saw the appellant a few meters
away from the house of the deceased.
4) That earlier that day, Dominga Salvador, common-law wife of Manuel Salvador and
mother of Analyn Salvador, went to the house of the appellant to inquire about her husbands
share in the construction of the barangay hall. Dominga also related that had earlier filed a
complaint against the appellant and his brother for slaughtering her pig.
In his appeal, the appellant argued that the court failed to rule and resolve whether or not
conspiracy existed, despite the fact that there was no proof as to what overt acts he
committed which would constitute the crime of murder.
ISSUE:
1)

Whether

or

not

there

was

conspiracy.

2) Whether or not accused-appellant should be held liable for two (2) separate counts of
murder or for the complex crime of double murder.
HELD:
1) Conspiracy, in this case, is not essential. The rule is that in the absence of evidence
showing the direct participation of the accused in the commission of the crime, conspiracy
must be established by clear and convincing evidence in order to convict the accused. In the
case at bar, however, direct participation of accused-appellant in the killing of the victims
was established beyond doubt by the evidence of the prosecution. Thus, a finding of
conspiracy is no longer essential for the conviction of accused-appellant.

2) No. The Court ruled that in a complex crime, although two or more crimes are actually
committed, they constitute only one crime in the eyes of the law as well as in the conscience
of the offender. The burning the house of Manuel Salvador, with the main objective of killing
the latter and his daughter, resulting in their deaths resulted in the complex crime of double
murder. Hence, there is only one penalty imposed for the commission of a complex crime.

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7659

AN ACT TO IMPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY ON CERTAIN HEINOUS CRIMES,
AMENDING FOR THAT PURPOSE THE REVISED PENAL LAWS, AS AMENDED, OTHER
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
WHEREAS, the Constitution, specifically Article III, Section 19 paragraph (1) thereof, states
"Excessive fines shall not be imposed nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted.
Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous
crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. . .";
WHEREAS, the crimes punishable by death under this Act are heinous for being grievous,
odious and hateful offenses and which, by reason of their inherent or manifest wickedness,
viciousness, atrocity and perversity are repugnant and outrageous to the common standards
and norms of decency and morality in a just, civilized and ordered society;
WHEREAS, due to the alarming upsurge of such crimes which has resulted not only in the
loss of human lives and wanton destruction of property but also affected the nation's efforts
towards sustainable economic development and prosperity while at the same time has
undermined the people's faith in the Government and the latter's ability to maintain peace
and order in the country;
WHEREAS, the Congress, in the justice, public order and the rule of law, and the need to
rationalize and harmonize the penal sanctions for heinous crimes, finds compelling reasons
to impose the death penalty for said crimes;
Now, therefore,
Section 1. Declaration of Policy. - It is hereby declared the policy of the State to foster and
ensure not only obedience to its authority, but also to adopt such measures as would
effectively promote the maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty and
property, and the promotion of the general welfare which are essential for the enjoyment by
all the people of the blessings of democracy in a just and humane society;
Section 2. Article 114 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, is hereby amended to read
as follows:
"Art. 114. Treason. - Any Filipino citizen who levies war against the Philippines or
adheres to her enemies giving them aid or comfort within the Philippines or
elsewhere, shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death and shall pay a fine not
to exceed 100,000 pesos."

No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses at

least to the same overt act or on confession of the accused in open court.
Likewise, an alien, residing in the Philippines, who commits acts of treason as
defined in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be punished by reclusion temporal to death
and shall pay a fine not to exceed 100,000 pesos."
Section 3. Section Three, Chapter One, Title One of Book Two of the same Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
"Section Three. - Piracy and mutiny on the high seas or in the Philippine waters
Art. 122. Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas or in Philippine waters. - The
penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be inflicted upon any person who, on the high
seas, or in Philippine waters, shall attack or seize a vessel or, not being a member of
its complement nor a passenger, shall seize the whole or part of the cargo of said
vessel, its equipment or passengers.
The same penalty shall be inflicted in case of mutiny on the high seas or in Philippine
waters."
Art. 123. Qualified piracy. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be
imposed upon those who commit any of the crimes referred to in the preceding
article, under any of the following circumstances:
1. Whenever they have seized a vessel by boarding or firing upon the same;
2. Whenever the pirates have abandoned their victims without means of
saving themselves or;
3. Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, physical injuries
or rape."
Section 4. There shall be incorporated after Article 211 of the same Code a new article to
read as follows:
"Art. 211-A. Qualified Bribery. - If any public officer is entrusted with law enforcement
and he refrains from arresting or prosecuting an offender who has committed a crime
punishable by reclusion perpetua and/or death in consideration of any offer, promise,
gift or present, he shall suffer the penalty for the offense which was not prosecuted.
If it is the public officer who asks or demands such gift or present, he shall suffer the
penalty of death."
Section 5. The penalty of death for parricide under Article 246 of the same Code is hereby
restored, so that it shall read as follows:
"Art. 246. Parricide. - Any person who shall kill his father, mother, or child, whether
legitimate of illegitimate, or any of his ascendants, or descendants, or his spouse,
shall be guilty of parricide and shall be punished by the penalty of reclusion perpetua
to death."

Section 6. Article 248 of the same Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
"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
perpetua, to death if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:
1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of
armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or
persons to insure or afford impunity.
2. In consideration of a price, reward or promise.
3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a
vessel, derailment or assault upon a railroad, fall of an airship, or by means
of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste
and ruin.
4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding
paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone,
epidemic or other public calamity.
5. With evident premeditation.
6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the
victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse."
Section 7. Article 255 of the same Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Art. 255. Infanticide. - The penalty provided for parricide in Article 246 and for
murder in Article 248 shall be imposed upon any person who shall kill any child less
than three days of age.
If any crime penalized in this Article be committed by the mother of the child for the
purpose of concealing her dishonor, she shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in
its medium and maximum periods, and if said crime be committed for the same
purpose by the maternal grandparents or either of them, the penalty shall be
reclusion temporal."
Section 8. Article 267 of the same Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Art. 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. - Any private individual who shall
kidnap or detain another, or in any other manner deprive him of his liberty, shall
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death:
1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than three days.
2. If it shall have been committed simulating public authority.
3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted upon the person
kidnapped or detained; or if threats to kill him shall have been made.

4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, except when the

accused is any of the parents, female or a public officer.
The penalty shall be death penalty where the kidnapping or detention was committed
for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any other person, even if none
of the circumstances above-mentioned were present in the commission of the
offense.
When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention or is raped, or is
subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty shall be imposed."
Section 9. Article 294 of the same Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Art. 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons - Penalties. - Any
person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of any person
shall suffer:
1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion
of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed, or when the
robbery shall have been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or
arson.
2. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion
perpetua, when or if by reason or on occasion of such robbery, any of the
physical injuries penalized in subdivision I of Article 263 shall have been
inflicted.
3. The penalty of reclusion temporal, when by reason or on occasion of the
robbery, any of the physical injuries penalized in subdivision 2 of the article
mentioned in the next preceding paragraph, shall have been inflicted.
4. The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal
in its medium period, if the violence or intimidation employed in the
commission of the robbery shall have been carried to a degree clearly
unnecessary for the commission of the crime, or when in the course of its
execution, the offender shall have inflicted upon any person not responsible
for its commission any of the physical injuries covered by subdivisions 3 and
4 of said Article 263.
5. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor
in its medium period in other cases."
Section 10. Article 320 of the same Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Art. 320. Destructive Arson. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be
imposed upon any person who shall burn:
1. One (1) or more buildings or edifices, consequent to one single act of
burning, or as a result of simultaneous burnings, committed on several or
different occasions.

2. Any building of public or private ownership, devoted to the public in general

or where people usually gather or congregate for a definite purpose such as,
but not limited to, official governmental function or business, private
transaction, commerce, trade, workshop, meetings and conferences, or
merely incidental to a definite purpose such as but not limited to hotels,
motels, transient dwellings, public conveyances or stops or terminals,
regardless of whether the offender had knowledge that there are persons in
said building or edifice at the time it is set on fire and regardless also of
whether the building is actually inhabited or not.
3. Any train or locomotive, ship or vessel, airship or airplane, devoted to
transportation or conveyance, or for public use, entertainment or leisure.
4. Any building, factory, warehouse installation and any appurtenances
thereto, which are devoted to the service of public utilities.
5. Any building the burning of which is for the purpose of concealing or
destroying evidence of another violation of law, or for the purpose of
concealing bankruptcy or defrauding creditors or to collect from insurance.
Irrespective of the application of the above enumerated qualifying circumstances, the
penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall likewise be imposed when the arson is
perpetrated or committed by two (2) or more persons or by a group of persons,
regardless of whether their purpose is merely to burn or destroy the building or the
burning merely constitutes an overt act in the commission or another violation of law.
The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall also be imposed upon any person
who shall burn:
1. Any arsenal, shipyard, storehouse or military powder or fireworks factory,
ordnance, storehouse, archives or general museum of the Government.
2. In an inhabited place, any storehouse or factory of inflammable or
explosive materials.
If as a consequence of the commission of any of the acts penalized under
this Article, death results, the mandatory penalty of death shall be imposed."
Section 11. Article 335 of the same Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Art. 335. When and how rape is committed. - Rape is committed by having carnal
knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
1. By using force or intimidation;
2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and
3. When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented.
The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.

Whenever the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two
or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become insane, the
penalty shall be death.
When the rape is attempted or frustrated and a homicide is committed by reason or
on the occasion thereof, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, a homicide is committed, the penalty
shall be death.
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of
the following attendant circumstances:
1. when the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a
parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity
within the third civil degree, or the common-law-spouse of the parent of the
victim.
2. when the victim is under the custody of the police or military authorities.
3. when the rape is committed in full view of the husband, parent, any of the
children or other relatives within the third degree of consanguinity.
4. when the victim is a religious or a child below seven (7) years old.
5. when the offender knows that he is afflicted with Acquired Immune
Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) disease.
6. when committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines or
the Philippine National Police or any law enforcement agency.
7. when by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has suffered
permanent physical mutilation."
Section 12. Section 2 of Republic Act No. 7080 (An Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime of
Plunder) is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 2. Definition of the Crime of Plunder; Penalties. - Any public officer who, by
himself or in connivance with members of his family, relatives by affinity or
consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons, amasses,
accumulates or acquires ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of overt
criminal acts as described in Section 1 (d) hereof in the aggregate amount or total
value of at least Fifty million pesos (P50,000,000.00) shall be guilty of the crime of
plunder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death. Any person who
participated with the said public officer in the commission of an offense contributing
to the crime of plunder shall likewise be punished for such offense. In the imposition
of penalties, the degree of participation and the attendance of mitigating and
extenuating circumstances, as provided by the Revised Penal Code, shall be
considered by the court. The court shall declare any and all ill-gotten wealth and their

interests and other incomes and assets including the properties and shares of stocks
derived from the deposit or investment thereof forfeited in favor of the State."
Section 13. Sections 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9, of Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended,
known as the Dangerous Drugs Act 1972, are hereby amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 3. Importation of Prohibited Drugs. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death
and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be
imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall import or bring into
the Philippines any prohibited drug.
"Sec. 4. Sale, Administration, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Prohibited
Drugs. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine from five hundred
thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless
authorized by law, shall sell, administer, deliver, give away to another, distribute,
dispatch in transit or transport any prohibited drug, or shall act as a broker in any of
such transactions.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 20 of this Act to the contrary, if the victim of
the offense is a minor, or should a prohibited drug involved in any offense under this
Section be the proximate cause of the death of a victim thereof, the maximum
penalty herein provided shall be imposed.
"Sec. 5. Maintenance of a Den, Dive or Resort for Prohibited Drug Users. - The
penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand
pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person or group of persons
who shall maintain a den, dive or resort where any prohibited drug is used in any
form or where such prohibited drugs in quantities specified in Section 20, Paragraph
1 of this Act are found.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 20 of this Act to the contrary, the maximum
of the penalty shall be imposed in every case where a prohibited drug is
administered, delivered or sold to a minor who is allowed to use the same in such
place.
Should a prohibited drug be the proximate cause of the death of a person using the
same in such den, dive or resort, the maximum penalty herein provided shall be
imposed on the maintainer notwithstanding the provisions of Section 20 of this Act to
the contrary.
"Sec. 7. Manufacture of Prohibited Drug. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death
and fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be
imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall engage in the
manufacture of any prohibited drug.
"Sec. 8. Possession or Use of Prohibited Drugs. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua
to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos
shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall possess or
use any prohibited drug subject to the provisions of Section 20 hereof.

"Sec. 9. Cultivation of Plants which are Sources of Prohibited Drugs. - The penalty of
reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to
ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall plant, cultivate or
culture any medium Indian hemp, opium poppy (papaver somniferum), or any other
plant which is or may hereafter be classified as dangerous drug or from which any
dangerous drug may be manufactured or derived.
The land or portions hereof, and/or greenhouses on which any of said plants is
cultivated or cultured shall be confiscated and escheated to the State, unless the
owner thereof can prove that he did not know such cultivation or culture despite the
exercise of due diligence on his part.
If the land involved in is part of the public domain, the maximum of the penalties
herein provided shall be imposed upon the offender."
Section 14. Sections 14, 14-A, and 15 of Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended,
known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, are hereby amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 14. Importation of Regulated Drugs. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua to
death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall
be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall import or bring any
regulated drug in the Philippines.
"Sec. 14-A. Manufacture of Regulated Drugs. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua to
death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall
be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall engage in the
manufacture of any regulated drug.
"Sec. 15. Sale, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Transportation and
Distribution of Regulated Drugs. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a
fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed
upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, dispense, deliver,
transport or distribute any regulated drug.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 20 of this Act to the contrary, if the victim of
the offense is a minor, or should a regulated drug involved in any offense under this
Section be the proximate cause of the death of a victim thereof, the maximum
penalty herein provided shall be imposed."
Section 15. There shall be incorporated after Section 15 of Article III of Republic Act No.
6425, as amended, known as the Dangerous Drug Act of 1972, a new section to read as
follows:
"Sec. 15-a. Maintenance of a den, dive or resort for regulated drug users. - The
penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand
pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person or group of persons
who shall maintain a den, dive or resort where any regulated drugs is used in any
form, or where such regulated drugs in quantities specified in Section 20, paragraph
1 of this Act are found.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 20 of this Act to the contrary, the maximum
penalty herein provided shall be imposed in every case where a regulated drug is
administered, delivered or sold to a minor who is allowed to use the same in such
place.
Should a regulated drug be the proximate cause of the death of a person using the
same in such den, dive or resort, the maximum penalty herein provided shall be
imposed on the maintainer notwithstanding the provisions of Section 20 of this Act to
the contrary."
Section 16. Section 16 of Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, known as the
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, is amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 16. Possession or Use of Regulated Drugs. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua
to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos
shall be imposed upon any person who shall possess or use any regulated drug
without the corresponding license or prescription, subject to the provisions of Section
20 hereof."
Section 17. Section 20, Article IV of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, known as
the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 20. Application of Penalties, Confiscation and Forfeiture of the Proceeds or
Instruments of the Crime. - The penalties for offenses under Section 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9
of Article II and Sections 14, 14-A, 15 and 16 of Article III of this Act shall be applied if
the dangerous drugs involved is in any of the following quantities :
1. 40 grams or more of opium;
2. 40 grams or more of morphine;
3. 200 grams or more of shabu or methylamphetamine hydrochloride;
4. 40 grams or more of heroin;
5. 750 grams or more of indian hemp or marijuana;
6. 50 grams or more of marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil;
7. 40 grams or more of cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride; or
8. In the case of other dangerous drugs, the quantity of which is far beyond
therapeutic requirements, as determined and promulgated by the Dangerous
Drugs Board, after public consultations/hearings conducted for the purpose.
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalty
shall range from prision correccional to reclusion perpetua depending upon the
quantity.
Every penalty imposed for the unlawful importation, sale, administration, delivery,
transportation or manufacture of dangerous drugs, the cultivation of plants which are

sources of dangerous drugs and the possession of any opium pipe and other
paraphernalia for dangerous drugs shall carry with it the confiscation and forfeiture,
in favor of the Government, of all the proceeds of the crime including but not limited
to money and other obtained thereby and the instruments or tools with which it was
committed, unless they are the property of a third person not liable for the offense,
but those which are not of lawful commerce shall be ordered destroyed without delay.
Dangerous drugs and plant sources of such drugs as well as the proceeds or
instruments of the crime so confiscated and forfeited in favor of the Government shall
be turned over to the Board for proper disposal without delay.
Any apprehending or arresting officer who misappropriates or misapplies or fails to
account for seized or confiscated dangerous drugs or plant-sources of dangerous
drugs or proceeds or instruments of the crime as are herein defined shall after
conviction be punished by the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine
ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos."
Section 18. There shall be incorporated after Section 20 of Republic Act No. 6425, as
amended, known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, a new section to read as follows:
"Sec. 20-A. Plea-bargaining Provisions. - Any person charged under any provision of
this Act where the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua to death shall not be
allowed to avail of the provision on plea bargaining."
Section 19. Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, known as the Dangerous
Drugs Act of 1972, is hereby amended to read as follows :
"Sec. 24. Penalties for Government Official and Employees and Officers and
Members of Police Agencies and the Armed Forces, 'Planting' of Evidence. - The
maximum penalties provided for Section 3, 4(1), 5(1), 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13 of
Article II and Sections 14, 14-A, 15(1), 16 and 19 of Article III shall be imposed, if
those found guilty of any of the said offenses are government officials, employees or
officers, including members of police agencies and the armed forces.
Any such above government official, employee or officer who is found guilty of
"planting" any dangerous drugs punished in Sections 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 13 of Article II
and Sections 14, 14-A, 15 and 16 of Article III of this Act in the person or in the
immediate vicinity of another as evidence to implicate the latter, shall suffer the same
penalty as therein provided."
Section 20. Sec. 14 of Republic Act No. 6539, as amended, known as the Anti-Carnapping
Act of 1972, is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 14. Penalty for Carnapping. - Any person who is found guilty of carnapping, as
this term is defined in Section Two of this Act, shall, irrespective of the value of motor
vehicle taken, be punished by imprisonment for not less than fourteen years and
eight months and not more than seventeen years and four months, when the
carnapping is committed without violence or intimidation of persons, or force upon
things; and by imprisonment for not less than seventeen years and four months and
not more than thirty years, when the carnapping is committed by means of violence
against or intimidation of any person, or force upon things; and the penalty of
reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed when the owner, driver or occupant of

the carnapped motor vehicle is killed or raped in the course of the commission of the
carnapping or on the occasion thereof."
Section 21. Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, is hereby amended to read
as follows:
"Art. 27. Reclusion perpetua. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be from twenty
years and one day to forty years.
Reclusion temporal. - The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be from twelve years
and one day to twenty years.
Prision mayor and temporary disqualification. - The duration of the penalties of
prision mayor and temporary disqualification shall be from six years and one day to
twelve years, except when the penalty of disqualification is imposed as an accessory
penalty, in which case, it shall be that of the principal penalty.
Prision correccional, suspension, and destierro. - The duration of the penalties of
prision correccional, suspension, and destierro shall be from six months and one day
to six years, except when the suspension is imposed as an accessory penalty, in
which case, its duration shall be that of the principal penalty.
Arresto mayor. - The duration of the penalty of arresto mayor shall be from one
month and one day to six months.
Arresto menor. - The duration of the penalty of arresto menor shall be from one day
to thirty days.
Bond to keep the peace. - The bond to keep the peace shall be required to cover
such period of time as the court may determine."
Section 22. Article 47 of the same Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Art. 47. In what cases the death penalty shall not be imposed; Automatic review of
the Death Penalty Cases. - The death penalty shall be imposed in all cases in which
it must be imposed under existing laws, except when the guilty person is below
eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the commission of the crime or is more than
seventy years of age or when upon appeal or automatic review of the case by the
Supreme Court, the required majority vote is not obtained for the imposition of the
death penalty, in which cases the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua.
In all cases where the death penalty is imposed by the trial court, the records shall be
forwarded to the Supreme Court for automatic review and judgment by the Court en
banc, within twenty (20) days but not earlier than fifteen (15) days after promulgation
of the judgment or notice of denial of any motion for new trial or reconsideration. The
transcript shall also be forwarded within ten (10) days from the filing thereof by the
stenographic reporter."
Section 23. Article 62 of the same Code, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows
:

"Art. 62. Effects of the attendance of mitigating or aggravating circumstances and of

habitual delinquency. - Mitigating or aggravating circumstances and habitual
delinquency shall be taken into account for the purpose of diminishing or increasing
the penalty in conformity with the following rules:
1. Aggravating circumstances which in themselves constitute a crime specially
punishable by law or which are included by the law in defining a crime and
prescribing the penalty therefor shall not be taken into account for the purpose of
increasing the penalty.
1(a). When in the commission of the crime, advantage was taken by the offender of
his public position, the penalty to be imposed shall be in its maximum regardless of
mitigating circumstances.
The maximum penalty shall be imposed if the offense was committed by any group
who belongs to an organized/syndicated crime group.
An organized/syndicated crime group means a group of two or more persons
collaborating, confederating or mutually helping one another for purposes of gain in
the commission of any crime.
2. The same rule shall apply with respect to any aggravating circumstances inherent
in the crime to such a degree that it must of necessity accompany the commission
thereof.
3. Aggravating or mitigating circumstances which arise from the moral attributes of
the offender, or from his private relations with the offended party, or from any other
personal cause, shall only serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of the principals,
accomplices and accessories as to whom such circumstances are attendant.
4. The circumstances which consist in the material execution of the act, or in the
means employed to accomplish it, shall serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of
those persons only who had knowledge of them at the time of the execution of the
act or their cooperation therein.
5. Habitual delinquency shall have the following effects :
(a) Upon a third conviction the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty
provided by law for the last crime of which he be found guilty and to the
additional penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum
periods;
(b) Upon a fourth conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty
provided for the last crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional
penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods; and
(c) Upon a fifth or additional conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the
penalty provided for the last crime of which he be found guilty and to the
additional penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion
temporal in its minimum period.

Notwithstanding the provisions of this article, the total of the two penalties to
be imposed upon the offender, in conformity herewith, shall in no case
exceed 30 years.
For purposes of this article, a person shall be deemed to be a habitual
delinquent, if within a period of ten years from the date of his release or last
conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robo,
hurto, estafa or falsification, he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third
time or oftener.
Section 24. Article 81 of the same Code, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows
:
"Art. 81. When and how the death penalty is to be executed. - The death sentence
shall be executed with preference to any other and shall consist in putting the person
under sentence to death by electrocution. The death sentence shall be executed
under the authority of the Director of Prisons, endeavoring so far as possible to
mitigate the sufferings of the person under the sentence during electrocution as well
as during the proceedings prior to the execution.
If the person under sentence so desires, he shall be anaesthetized at the moment of
the execution.
As soon as facilities are provided by the Bureau of Prisons, the method of carrying
out the sentence shall be changed to gas poisoning.
The death sentence shall be carried out not later than one (1) year after the judgment
has become final."
Section 25. Article 83 of the same Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Art. 83. Suspension of the execution of the death sentence. - The death sentence
shall not be inflicted upon a woman while she is pregnant or within one (1) year after
delivery, nor upon any person over seventy years of age. In this last case, the death
sentence shall be commuted to the penalty of reclusion perpetua with the accessory
penalties provided in Article 40.
In all cases where the death sentence has become final, the records of the case shall
be forwarded immediately by the Supreme Court to the Office of the President for
possible exercise of the pardoning power."
Section 26.<="" p="">
Section 27. If, for any reason or reasons, any part of the provision of this Act shall be held to
be unconstitutional or invalid, other parts or provisions hereof which are not affected thereby
shall continue to be in full force and effect.
Section 28. This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in two (2) national
newspapers of general circulation. The publication shall not be later than seven (7) days
after the approval hereof.

Approved: December 13, 1993

Ivler vs. San Pedro G.R. No. 172716 November 17, 2010
Bill of Rights
Ivler vs. San Pedro
G.R. No. 172716November 17, 2010
FACTS:
Following a vehicular collision in August 2004, petitioner Jason Ivler
(petitioner) was charged before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig City (MTC), with
two separate offenses: (1) Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Slight Physical Injuries
for injuries sustained by respondent Evangeline L. Ponce (respondent Ponce); and (2)
Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Damage to Property for the death of
respondent Ponces husband Nestor C. Ponce and damage to the spouses Ponces
vehicle.
Petitioner posted bail for his temporary release in both cases. On 2004,
petitioner pleaded guilty to the charge on the first delict and was meted out the
penalty of public censure. Invoking this conviction, petitioner moved to quash the
Information for the second delict for placing him in jeopardy of second punishment
for the same offense of reckless imprudence.
The MTC refused quashal, finding no identity of offenses in the two cases.
The petitioner elevated the matter to the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City
(RTC), in a petition for certiorari while Ivler sought from the MTC the suspension of
proceedings in criminal case, including the arraignment his arraignment as a
prejudicial question.
Without acting on petitioners motion, the MTC proceeded with the
arraignment and, because of petitioners absence, cancelled his bail and ordered his
arrest.
Seven days later, the MTC issued a resolution denying petitioners motion to
suspend proceedings and postponing his arraignment until after his arrest. Petitioner
sought reconsideration but as of the filing of this petition, the motion remained
unresolved.

ISSUES:
1. Whether petitioner forfeited his standing to seek relief from his petition for
certiorari when the MTC ordered his arrest following his non-appearance at the
arraignment in Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Slight Physical Injuries for injuries
sustained by respondent; and
2. Whether petitioners constitutional right under the Double Jeopardy Clause
bars further proceedings in Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Damage
to Property for the death of respondent Ponces husband.

RULING:

The accused negative constitutional right not to be "twice put in jeopardy of

punishment for the same offense" protects him from, among others, post-conviction
prosecution for the same offense, with the prior verdict rendered by a court of
competent jurisdiction upon a valid information.
Petitioner adopts the affirmative view, submitting that the two cases concern
the same offense of reckless imprudence. The MTC ruled otherwise, finding that
Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Slight Physical Injuries is an entirely separate
offense from Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Damage to Property "as
the [latter] requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not."
The two charges against petitioner, arising from the same facts, were
prosecuted under the same provision of the Revised Penal Code, as amended,
namely, Article 365 defining and penalizing quasi-offenses.
The provisions contained in this article shall not be applicable. Indeed, the
notion that quasi-offenses, whether reckless or simple, are distinct species of crime,
separately defined and penalized under the framework of our penal laws, is nothing
new.
The doctrine that reckless imprudence under Article 365 is a single quasioffense by itself and not merely a means to commit other crimes such that conviction
or acquittal of such quasi-offense bars subsequent prosecution for the same quasioffense, regardless of its various resulting acts, undergirded this Courts unbroken
chain of jurisprudence on double jeopardy as applied to Article 365.
These cases uniformly barred the second prosecutions as constitutionally
impermissible under the Double Jeopardy Clause.
Our ruling today secures for the accused facing an Article 365 charge a
stronger and simpler protection of their constitutional right under the Double
Jeopardy Clause. True, they are thereby denied the beneficent effect of the favorable
sentencing formula under Article 48, but any disadvantage thus caused is more than
compensated by the certainty of non-prosecution for quasi-crime effects qualifying as
"light offenses" (or, as here, for the more serious consequence prosecuted belatedly).
If it is so minded, Congress can re-craft Article 365 by extending to quasi-crimes the
sentencing formula of Article 48 so that only the most severe penalty shall be
imposed under a single prosecution of all resulting acts, whether penalized as grave,
less grave or light offenses. This will still keep intact the distinct concept of quasioffenses. Meanwhile, the lenient schedule of penalties under Article 365, befitting
crimes occupying a lower rung of culpability, should cushion the effect of this ruling.

Petition granted.

JacintovPeople
Petitioner had been convicted of qualified theft and is now seeking for a reversal of the decision.

Facts:
Jacinto along with Valencia and Capite was charged with qualified theft
for having stole and deposited a check with amount of 10,000 php.
Such check was issued by Baby Aquino for payment of her purchases
from Mega Foam, but the check bounced.
Dyhengco found out about the theft and filed a complaint with the NBI.
An entrapment operation was conducted, with the use of marked bills.
The entrapment was a success and the petitioner along with her coaccused was arrested.
Issue:
Whether this can contistute as an impossible crime and not as qualified
theft.
Held:
This constitutes as an impossible crime.
The requistites of an impossible crime are:
1. that the act performed would be an offense against persons or
property ( all acts to consummate the crime of qualified theft
was consummated-crime against property)
2. that the act was done with evil intent (mere of unlawful taking
showed intent to gain)
3. that is accomplishment inherently impossible or the means
employed was either inadequate or ineffectual-or the extraneous
circumstances that constituted it as factual impossibility (the fact
that the check bounced)
Legal impossibility occurs where the intended acts, even if completed,
would not amount to a crime. (impossibility of killing a dead person)
Factual impossibility- when extraneous circumstances unknown to the
actor or beyond his control prevent consummation of the intended
crime. (Like the example in the case of Intod: a man puts his hand on
the coat pocket of another with intent to steal but gets nothing since
the pocket is empty)

From the time petitioner took possession of the check meant for Mega
Foam, She had performed all the acts to consummate the crime of
theft, had it not been impossible of accomplishment in this case.
Replacement for the check was no longer necessary for the
consummation of the crime since the crime of theft is not a continuing
offense, petitioners act of receiving the cash replacement should not
be considered as a continuation of theft. The fact that the petitioner
was caught receiving the marked money was merely corroborating
evidence to strengthen of her intent to gain.