Art 80; Suspension of sentence; minors; PD603

1977 No. III-a

The accused was seventeen (17) years old when he was charged of grave
coercion. Because of protracted trial, he was already twenty-one (21) years old when the
decision was promulgated convicting him of the offense charged the accused asked for
the suspension of his sentence pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 603 for he was a
minor at the time of the commission of the offense. If you were the judge, will you
suspend the sentence or not? State your reasons.
 Answer
If I were the Judge I would not suspend the sentence. The benefits of Article 80 as
modified by Presidential Decree 603, as amended, would apply only to minors under
eighteen years old not only at the time of the commission of the crime but also at the time
of the trial. (People v. Celespara, 82 Phil. 399; People vs. Capistrano, 92 Phil. 127). The
law provides that if the Court grants the request of the minor found guilty of the offense
charged for the suspension of the pronouncement of the sentence, said minor is ordered
committed to an institution under the supervision of the Department of Social Services
"until such minor shall have reached his majority x x x". This means that if he is already
of age at the promulgation of the sentence, he cannot be committed anymore.
Art 80; Suspension of sentence; minors; PD603
1985 No. 1
Minority is generally a privileged mitigating circumstance which entitles the
minor offender to a suspended sentence. It may however, under certain circumstances, be
considered as a mere ordinary circumstance in which case the offender may be
immediately sentenced and made to serve the penalty imposed upon him instead of being
placed under suspended sentence.
Discuss.
Answer
Minority as a privileged mitigating circumstance is considered in the imposition
of the penalty, (Art. 68, Revised Penal Code). However, the age of the minor at the time
of the commission of the crime may be considered in suspending the sentence upon
conviction. So under the Child and Youth Welfare Code (Presidential Decree 603, as
amended) a minor under 18 years old at the time of the commission of the offense and at
the time of the trial, if found guilty after trial may apply for the suspension of the
sentence. The only instance where there is no suspension of the sentence in spite of
minority is that provided in Article 80 of the Revised Penal Code where the minor under
16 years old at the time of the commission of a light felony if found guilty, the sentence
is immediately imposed. But Article 80 has been expressly repealed by Presidential
Decree 1179 which took effect on August 15, 1977. As a matter of fact, the Supreme
Court held in People vs, Sanchez (132 SCRA 103 1984) that there are only two instances
where there can be no suspended sentence, to wit: 1) if the offense committed by a
minor is punishable by death or life imprisonment; 2) if the minor is 18 years and
above at the time of the commission of the offense and at the time of the trial.
Art 80; Suspension of sentence; minors; PD603
1980 No. XII
Under the Child and Youth Welfare Code, what is the controlling criterion to
determine whether or not an accused is a youthful offender so as to entitled him to
suspension of sentence? Is there any difference between the Revised Penal Code and the
Child and Youth Welfare Code in so far as suspension of the sentence of a juvenile
offender is concerned?
Answer
Under the Youth and Child Welfare Code, the youthful offender must be under
eighteen years old not only at the time of the commission of the crime but also at the time
of the trial so as to be entitled to suspension of sentence. (People va. Casiguran, L-
45387, Nov. 7, 1979) Under the Child and Youth Welfare Code, the youthful offender
who is found guilty after trial, must file an application for the suspension of the
pronouncement of the sentence, which the Court may grant if the interest of the minor
and of the public so requires. Under Article 80 of the Revised Penal Code which
covers a minor under 16 years of age at the time of the commission of a grave or less
grave felony and at the time of the trial, which was expressly repealed by Presidential
Decree No. 1179, the suspension of the pronouncement of the sentence upon the minor
where there is evidence of guilt is automatic.
Art 80; Suspension of sentence; youthful offender
1995 No. 7:
 Victor, Ricky, Rod and Ronnie went to the store of Mang Pandoy. Victor and
Ricky entered the store while Rod and Ronnie posted themselves at the door. After
ordering beer Ricky complained that he was shortchanged although Mang Pandoy
vehemently denied it. Suddenly Ricky whipped out a knife as he announced "Hold-up
ito!" and stabbed Mang Pandoy to death. Rod boxed the store's salesgirl Lucy to prevent
her from helping Mang Pandoy. When Lucy ran out of the store to seek help from people
next door she was chased by Ronnie. As soon as Ricky had stabbed Mang Pandoy, Victor
scooped up the money from the cash box. Then Victor and Ricky dashed to the street and
shouted, "Tumakbo na kayo!" Rod was 14 and Ronnie was 17. The money and other
articles looted from the store of Mang Pandoy were later found in the houses of Victor
and Ricky.
1. Discuss fully the criminal liability of Victor, Ricky, Rod and Ronnie.
2. Are the minors Rod and Ronnie entitled to suspended sentence under The
Child and Youth Welfare Code? Explain.
Answer:
1 . All are liable for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide....
2. No, because the benefits of suspension of sentence is not available where the
youthful offender has been convicted of an offense punishable by life imprisonment or
death, pursuant to P.D. No. 603, Art. 192, The complex crime of robbery with homicide
is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death under Art. 294 (1), RFC [People vs. Galit.
230 SCRA 486).
Art 80; Suspension of sentence; minors; PD603
1986 No. 16:
Brothers Aber and Bobot, 16 and 17 years old, respectively, have had no food for
the past two days. Suffering from severe hunger, they hatched a plan to break into a store
to steal some food. Five days later, at 12 midnight, they were able to enter the store by
breaking the hinges of the door. Aber took ten cans of sardines worth P50.00. Bobot
wandered into a nearby room where the store owner, Cosme, was sleeping Cosme,
awakened by Bobot's footsteps, attacked Bobot with a club. Bobot avoided the blow
and hit Cosme in the chest with his fist. Aber, upon hearing the commotion, entered the
room and tried to pull Bobot away from Cosme. Cosme, however, continued to attack
Bobot forcing the latter to box Cosme in the face. Cosme collapsed on the floor.
Bobot and Aber fled. The following day, Aber sold six of the sardine cans taken
from the store to Dimas who lives a block from the store. Earlier that day Dimas heard
rumors that the nearby store had been robbed and that his friend Cosme was found dead.
Dimas thought of asking Aber and Bobot where they got the sardines to clear away this
doubt, but on second thought did not. He bought the cans for P20.00 and sold them for
P30.00.
The fiscal charged Aber and Bobot with the complex crime of robbery with
homicide aggravated by nighttime, evident premeditation and dwelling. The fiscal
charged Dimas as an accessory of Aber and Bobot and for violation of the Anti- Fencing
Law (PD No. J612).
d) If you were the counsel of Aber, what defenses would you raise?
Explain.
(2) If you were the counsel of Bobot, what defenses would you raise? Explain.
 (3) If you were the counsel of Dimas, what defenses would you raise? Explain,
(4) If you were the judge, how would you decide the case? Explain,
Answer:
(1) If I were the counsel of Aber, I would question the validity of the charge.
Robbery with homicide is not proper crime because there was no breaking of the door but
only its hinges. (People vs Lising CA 62 OG. 9879) The crime is theft. Since Aber was
only l6 years old at the time of the commission of the crime he should be prosecuted
under the Youth and Child Welfare Code, where in case of conviction, he could apply for
suspension of sentence. If granted, during confinement upon his good behavior, he
would be entitled to be discharged.
Aber cannot be liable for the killing of Cosme because he has no part in its
commission.
(2) If I were the counsel of Bobot, I would invoke his age at the time of the
commission of the crime for the application of the Child and Youth Welfare Code. The
crimes committed are theft and homicide. Regarding the homicide, Bobot can maintain
that Cosme hit him with a club and continued to do so forcing Bobot to attack him in the
face. He can also invoke the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave
a wrong as that which resulted.
(3) If I were the counsel of Dimas, I would maintain that he could not be liable
as an accessory to the crime of homicide attributed to Bobot because he had no
knowledge of its commission.
Regarding the violation of the Anti-Fencing Law, he can maintain that he bought
the tins of sardines in good faith without any knowledge that these were the proceeds of
the crime of theft.
(4) If I were the Judge, I would convict Aber and Bobot for the crime and theft.
The breaking of the hinges of the door is not the breaking of the door as provided in the
law. So the crime committed is not robbery. Only Bobot will be liable for the death of
Cosme. Aber has no participation in his death aside from the fact that the crime is not a
necessary consequence of the plan to steal food in the store. Besides the act of Aber in
trying to pull Bobot away from Cosme is an attempt to prevent Bobot from injuring
Cosme. In the crimes of theft and homicide, only nighttime and dwelling are aggravating.
Evident premeditation is inherent in theft which is a crime against property. It cannot be
considered in homicide as there is no showing of any previous planning to commit it.
However, both Aber and Bobot being 16 and 17 years respectively at the time of the
commission of the crime should be proceeded under the provisions of the Child and
Youth Welfare Code, if still under 18 years at the time of the trial. If convicted, they
could apply for the suspension of the sentence, and if granted, they would be committed
to an institution until they reach the age of majority If they behave properly during
confinement, they would be returned to the court to be discharged; but if they proved
themselves to be incorrigible, then for the imposition of the sentence.
Dimas will be liable for fencing as he bought the tins of sardines without inquiring
from Aber where he got the sardines and under the circumstances he could have known
that those were the proceeds of the crime of theft. He bought them with intent to gain as
in fact he sold them for a profit.
Art 80; PD 603; confidentiality of records of minor offenders
1978 No. X-b
Jose, a teenager of 16 years, was found guilty of homicide. Because of his age, he
was held to be a youthful offender pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 603, as amended,
and instead of passing sentence, the judge ordered him committed to the government
rehabilitation center in Tanay, Rizal. Jose was released after a year and a half because of
good behavior. He later applied for and was appointed to the position of clerk in the
Court of First Instance of Rizal. Among the papers he submitted was an application
form under oath in which Jose stated he had never been charged with, much less
convicted of, any crime, in complete disavowal of his previous conviction.
What offense/offenses did Jose commit? State your reasons.
Answer
Jose did not commit any offense. Under Presidential Decree No. 603 as amended
by Presidential Decree No. 1179, the records of his case are deemed privileged, and there
is no liability for perjury or for concealment or misrepresentation by reason of his failure
to acknowledge the case or recite any fact related thereto in response to any inquiry made
to him for any purpose. (Art. 200)
Art 80; PD 603; youthful offenders
1975 No. XX
What is a youthful offender as defined in Presidential Decree No. 603 amending
Article 80 of the Revised Penal Code? If you were a judge and found a youthful offender
guilty of a crime, how would you sentence him?
Answer
A youthful offender is one who is over nine years old and under 21 years of age
at the time of the commission of the offense.
If a youthful offender is found guilty, if I were the judge, I would defer his
sentence and suspend all proceedings after determining the imposable penalty and his
civil liability, if any, I would then order the minor committed to the custody of the
Department of Social Welfare or to any training institution operated by the government
until ho reaches 21 years or for a shorter period as I might deem proper after considering
the reports of the Department of Social Welfare or of such training agency under whose
care the minor was committed. (Art. 192, Presidential Decree No. 603).
If the youthful offender is found incorrigible or his continued stay in the training
institution is found inadvisable and is returned to the court, the judgment would be
pronounced. The youthful offender shall be credited in the service of the sentence with
the full time spent in actual confinement. (Art. 197, Presidential Decree No, 608). If he
behaved properly during confinement, upon recommendation of the Department of Social
Welfare, his case will be dismissed (Art. 196, Presidential Decree Ho. 608), but it shall
not obliterate his civil liability for damages. (Art, 198, Presidential Decree No. 603).
 Extinction of Criminal Liability
Art 89; Criminal liability; corporate officers
1986 No. 2:
Two hardware stores are located two blocks apart along Avenida Rizal in Manila.
One store is named Glorious Hardware Co. while the other is Glorioso and Sons
Hardware, Inc. Two hundred bags of cement ordered by Glorious Hardware were brought
by the driver of Hi-Cement Corporation to Glorioso and Sons. The driver inquired from
the manager of Glorioso and Sons, a certain Pedro Mendoza, whether that company
ordered the cement, Mendoza answered "Yes" and directed the driver to the warehouse of
Glorioso and Sons where their laborers unloaded the cargo.
Learning of the misdelivery, Jose Roxas, manager of Hi-Cement went to Glorioso
and Sons and met with Pablo Glorioso and Cesar Glorioso, President and Vice-President,
respectively, of the firm. Roxas explained that the cement belonged to his company and
that the cargo was intended for Glorious Hardware. Roxas showed them the purchase
order and other documents indicating that Glorious Hardware had already paid for the
cement. Pablo and Cesar assured Roxas that they would look into the matter.
A month passed but Glorioso and Sons did not return the bags of cement.
Unknown to Pablo and Cesar, manager Mendoza sold the cement to another dealer Estafa
charges were filed against Pablo Glorioso, Cesar Glorioso, and Pedro Mendoza. Pablo
and Cesar contended that they took no part in the misappropriation committed by
Mendoza and, at any rate, as corporate officers they are not liable for the acts of other
corporate officers.
Discuss if the three accused persons may be held criminally liable. If so, in what
capacity or capacities? Explain.
Answer:
Only Pedro Mendoza, the Manager will be liable for estafa. A corporate officer
cannot be liable for the acts of another corporate officer except if he directly took part or
aided in the commission of the felonious Act. Pablo and Cesar Glorioso, President
and Vice-President, respectively, of the firm had no knowledge of the sale of the bags of
cement by the Manager Pedro Mendoza (People vs. Montilla CA520G.4327).
Art 89; Criminal liability; novation
1988 No. 14:
(b) Raul Doria gave in trust two acrylic paintings to Amar Solo to be sold on
commission basis for P20,000. Failing to sell them to George Ty, Amar consigned the
paintings to Alcanto Gallery. In the same month, Amar retrieved one painting and tried to
return in to Raul who refused to receive it without the other painting. The other painting
was bought by Mr. Lomot whose check, which Amar gave to Raul, bounced, so that
Amar paid Raul his own check of P6,500.00 promising in writing to pay the P3,500-00
balance less his commission.
Is Amar liable for estafa? Why?
How about Mr. Lomot, what crime, if any did he commit?
ANSWER:
 (b) Amar is not liable for estafa but is liable for violation of BP 22, There is only
civil liability because as long as no case has been filed in court, an obligation can still be
novated. In this case there was novation.
Mr. Lomot is liable for violation of BP 22.
Art 89; Extinction of civil liability; death of accused after judgment
1981 No. l0
"M" is a Municipal Treasurer convicted for Malversation of Public Funds in the
amount of P10,000.00. He was sentenced by the Court of First Instance to suffer an
indeterminate penalty of six (6) years, and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to
eleven (11) years, six months and twenty-one (21) days also of prision mayor as
maximum, and to indemnify the Municipality in the amount of P10,000.00.
"M" appealed the decision of the Trial Court to the Court of Appeals.
Pending the appeal, "M" died of heart attack.
Will "M's" death extinguish his civil liability? Why?
Answer
M's death did not extinguish his civil liability. The obligation to indemnify the
government for the amount malversed survived because the death occurred after final
judgment as rendered by the Court of First Instance. In the case of People vs.
Sendaydiego, et al (L-33252-54, Jan. 20, 1978, 81 SCRA 124), it was held that an
accountable public officer may still be civilly liable for the funds improperly disbursed
although he has no criminal liability. In the problem given, the death of M extinguished
his criminal liability. But the appeal will continue with respect to his civil liability as if no
criminal case has been instituted against him, thus making applicable Art. 30 of the
Civil Code. In other words, as affirmed in the case of People vs. Tirol, (L-30538, Jan,
31, 1981, 102 SCRA 558) the appeal will continue to determine the criminal liability of
the deceased accused as the basis of the civil liability for which his estate may be liable.
Art 89; Extinction of criminal and civil liabilities; death of accused pending
appeal
1992 No. 1
Librado was convicted of malversation for which he has imposed the
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment with the following accessory penalties provided
by law - a fine of P6,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency;
perpetual special disqualification; indemnification to the government in the amount of
P6,000.00 and to pay the costs.
If he dies pending appeal, what is the legal effect of his death on his criminal and
pecuniary liabilities?
Suggested Answer:
Under Art. 89, RPC, and jurisprudence (People vs. Jose, 71 SCRA 273, People vs.
Alison 44 SCRA 523; etc.), death of the accused pending appeal extinguishes his
criminal and civil liabilities. Civil liability includes pecuniary liabilities, such as fine.
Hence, the same, together with the disqualification and the costs are extinguished.
Alternative Answer:
 In Petralba vs. Sandiganboyan, 200 SCRA 644, however, extinction of criminal
liability arising from the death of the accused pending appeal likewise extinguishes the
pecuniary liability such as fine, but not the civil liability, such as the indemnification of
P6,000.00 in the instant case. The same is a claim of the government against the estate
but ONLY IF THE OFFENSE CAN BE PROVED in the appellate court. In other
words, the latter should still decide the appeal as far as the civil liability of P6,000.00 is
concerned.
Art 89; Extinction of criminal and civil liabilities; death of offended party
2000 No V
a) For defrauding Lorna, Alma was charged before the Municipal Trial Court of
Malolos, Bulacan. After a protracted trial, Alma was convicted. While the case was
pending appeal in the Regional Trial Court of the same province, Lorna who was then
suffering from breast cancer, died. Alma manifested to the court that with Lorna's death,
her (Alma's) criminal and civil liabilities are now extinguished. Is Alma's contention
correct? What if it were Alma who died, would it affect her criminal and civil liabilities?
Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) No. Alma's contention is not correct. The death of the offended party does not
extinguish the criminal liability of the offender, because the offense is committed against
the State [People vs. Misola, 87 Phil. 830, 833). Hence, it follows that the civil liability of
Alma based on the offense committed by her is not extinguished. The estate of Lorna can
continue the case.
On the other hand, if it were Alma who died pending appeal of her conviction, her
criminal liability shall be extinguished and therewith the civil liability under the Revised
Penal Code (Art. 89, par. 1, RPC). However, the claim for civil indemnity may be
instituted under the Civil Code (Art. 1157) if predicated on a source of obligation other
than delict, such as law, contracts, quasi- contracts and quasi-delicts (People vs. Bayotas
236 SCRA 239, G.R. 152007, September 2. 1994),
Art 89; Extinction of criminal and civil liability; death of accused
1990 No. 5:
Rico was convicted of raping Letty, his former sweetheart, by the Regional Trial
Court of Manila and he was ordered to serve the penalty of life imprisonment, to
indemnify Letty in the amount of P30,000.00 and to support their offspring. Pending
appeal in the Supreme Court, Rico died. His widow, Bernie, moved for a dismissal of the
case.
a) What is the legal effect of Rico's death on his criminal liability?
Explain your answer
b) How about on his civil liability? State your reasons.
Answers;
a) The criminal liability of Rico is extinguished on the basis of Article 89 of
the Revised Penal Code which provides that: " How criminal liability is extinguished -
Criminal liability is totally extinguished: 1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal
penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefore is extinguished only when the
death of the offender occurs before final judgment,
 b) The civil liability of Rico survives. (People v. Sendaydiego, January 20,
1978. 74 O.G, 4371; People v, Tirol G.R No. L-30588, January 31, 1981; People
v. Naboa, et al.,132 SCRA 410).
Art 89; Extinction of criminal and civil liability; death of accused
1987 No. XI:
PM, a rich businessman, was convicted of murder and sentenced to life
imprisonment by the Regional Trial Court, and to pay the heirs of the victim the total
amount of P250,000.00. While has appeal was pending before the Supreme Court, PM
died. The defense counsel manifested that PM's death extinguished not only the criminal
liability but also the pecuniary liability because the death occurred before the final
judgment, since the case was pending appeal. He invoked Art 89 of the Revised Penal
Code which provides that "criminal liability is totally extinguished: I. By the death of the
convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is
extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before the final judgment."
As a Solicitor in the Office of the Solicitor General, do you agree with the defense
counsel's argument?
Answer:
As Solicitor General, I will not agree to the argument of the defense
counsel that the death of PM while his appeal was pending extinguished not only his
criminal liability but also his pecuniary liability Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code
which provides that the pecuniary liability of the accused is extinguished only when the
death of the offender occurred before the final judgment", refers to his liability to pay the
fine. (People vs. Sendaydiego, 81 SCRA 120). The civil liability, however, survives the
death of the offender because death is not a valid cause of the extinguishment of civil
obligation. (Torijos vs. Court of Appeals 67 SCRA 394).
Art 89; Extinction of criminal liability; payment
1985 No. 15
Garcia, an importer, succeeded in convincing his bank to release his importation
under a trust receipt agreement he signed last January 15, 1985. Upon maturity of the
trust receipts on February 5, 1985, Garcia paid the bank in check which was however
dishonored. Informed of the said dishonor, Garcia paid only 60% of the amount of his
check and refused to pay the balance despite demands.
(A) On the basis of the foregoing facts, what may Garcia be prosecuted for?
Reasons.
(B) What is the effect of the 50% payment made by Garcia on his criminal
liability? Discuss.
Answer:
(B) Partial payment does not extinguish criminal liability because a
criminal offense is committed. (Javier vs. People 40 O.G. 67).
Art 89; Extinction of criminal liability; total and partial
1988 No. 5:
a) How is criminal liability totally extinguished?
b) How is criminal liability extinguished partially?
 Explain briefly.
Answer:
a) Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code provides for the following causes of
total extinction of criminal liability:
1. Death of the convict as to personal penalties, as to the pecuniary liabilities,
liability therefore is extinguished only when death occurs before final judgment.
2. Service of Sentence
3. Amnesty
4. Absolute pardon
5. Prescription of the crime
6. Prescription of the penalty
7. Marriage of the offended woman as provided in Article 344.
b) Article 94 of the Revised Penal Code provides for the following causes of
partial extinction of criminal liability:
1. Condition pardon
2. Communication of sentence
3. Good conduct allowances during confinement
4. Parole
5. Probation
Art 89; Pardon; effect thereof; reinstatement
1994 No 15:
Linda was convicted by the Sandiganbayan of estafa, through falsification of
public document. She was sentenced accordingly and ordered to pay, among others,
P5,000.00 representing the balance of the amount defrauded.
The case reached the Supreme Court which affirmed the judgment of conviction.
During the pendency of Linda's motion for reconsideration in the said Court, the
President extended to her an absolute pardon which she accepted.
By reason of such pardon, she wrote the Department of Finance requesting that
she be restored to her former post as assistant treasurer, which is still vacant. ,
The Department ruled that Linda may be reinstated to her former position without
the necessity of a new appointment and directed the City Treasurer to see to it that the
sum of P5,000.00 be satisfied.
Claiming that she should not be made to pay P5,000.00, Linda appealed to the
Office of the President.
The Office of the President dismissed the appeal and held that acquittal, not
absolute pardon. Is the only ground for reinstatement to one's former position and that the
absolute pardon does not exempt the culprit from payment of civil liability.
Is Linda entitled to reinstatement? Answer;
No, Linda is not entitled to reinstatement to her former position inasmuch as her right thereto had been
relinquished or forfeited by reason of her conviction. The absolute pardon merely extinguished her
criminal liability, removed her disqualification, and restored her eligibility for appointment to that office.
She has to re-apply for such position and under the usual procedure required for a new appointment.
Moreover, the pardon does not extinguish the civil liability arising from the crime. (