Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 7

Different forms of repetition or habituality of the offender (2) The crimes are not specified; it is enough that they

at they may
be embraced under the same title of the Revised Penal
(1) Recidivism under Article 14 (9) – The offender at the time Code.
of his trial for one crime shall have been previously
convicted by final judgment of another embraced in the (3) There is no time limit between the first conviction and
same title of the Revised Penal Code. the subsequent conviction. Recidivism is imprescriptible.

(2) Repetition or reiteracion under Article 14 (10) – The (4) It is a generic aggravating circumstance which can be
offender has been previously punished for an offense which offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance. If not offset, it
the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or would only increase the penalty prescribed by law for the
more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty. crime committed to its maximum period.

(3) Habitual delinquency under Article 62 (5) – The offender (5) The circumstance need not be alleged in the information.
within the period of 10 years from the date of his release or
last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious In habitual delinquency –
physical injuries, robo, hurto, estafa or falsification, is found
guilty of the any of said crimes a third time or oftener. (1) At least three convictions are required.

(4) Quasi-recidivism under Article 160 – Any person who (1) The crimes are limited and specified to: (a) serious
shall commit a felony after having been convicted by final physical injuries, (b) less serious physical injuries, (c)
judgment before beginning to serve such sentence or while robbery, (d) theft, (e) estafa or swindling and (f) falsification.
serving such sentence shall be punished by the maximum
period prescribed by law for the new felony. (3) There is a time limit of not more than 10 years between
every convictions computed from the first conviction or
Distinctions between recidivism and habitual delinquency release from punishment thereof to conviction computed
from the second conviction or release therefrom to the third
In recidivism – conviction and so on . . .
(4) Habitual delinquency is a special aggravating
(1) Two convictions are enough. circumstance, hence it cannot be offset by any mitigating
circumstance. Aside from the penalty prescribed by law for
the crime committed, an additional penalty shall be imposed
depending upon whether it is already the third conviction, recidivism. The reason for this is as the time the first crime
the fourth, the fifth and so on . . . was committed, there was no other crime of which he was
convicted so he cannot be regarded as a repeater.
(5) The circumstance must be alleged in the information;
otherwise the court cannot acquire jurisdiction to impose In recidivism, the crimes committed should be felonies.
additional penalty. Recidivism cannot be had if the crime committed is a
violation of a special law.
Recidivism
Recidivism does not prescribe. No matter how long ago the
In recidivism, the emphasis is on the fact that the offender offender was convicted, if he is subsequently convicted of a
was previously convicted by final judgment of a felony and crime embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code,
subsequently found guilty of another felony embraced in the it is taken into account as aggravating in imposing the
same title of the Revised Penal Code. The law considers this penalty.
aggravating when a person has been committing felonies
embraced in the same title because the implication is that Pardon does not erase recidivism, even if it is absolute
he is specializing on such kind of crime and the law wants to because only excuses the service of the penalty, but not the
prevent any specialization. Hence, ordinarily, when a person conviction.
commits a crime under different titles, no aggravating
circumstance is present. It is important that the conviction If the offender has already served his sentence and he was
which came earlier must refer to the crime committed extended an absolute pardon, the pardon shall erase the
earlier than the subsequent conviction. conviction including recidivism because there is no more
penalty so it shall be understood as referring to the
Illustration: conviction or the effects of the crime.

In 1980, A committed robbery. While the case was being Recidivism may be considered even though not alleged in
tried, he committed theft in 1983. He was found guilty and the information because this is only a generic aggravating
was convicted of theft also in 1983. The conviction became circumstance.
final because he did not appeal anymore and the trial for his
earlier crime which was robbery ended in 1984 where he It is necessary to allege recidivism in the information, but if
was also convicted. He also did not appeal this decision. Is the defense does not object to the presentation of evidence
the accused a recidivist? The subsequent conviction must during the trial and the same was proven, the court shall
refer to a felony committed later in order to constitute
consider such aggravating circumstance because it is only When the offender is a recidivist and at the same time a
generic. habitual delinquent, the penalty for the crime for which he
will be convicted will be increased to the maximum period
In recidivism, although the law defines it as a circumstance unless offset by a mitigating circumstance. After
where a person having been convicted by final judgement determining the correct penalty for the last crime
was previously convicted also by final judgement for a crime committed, an added penalty will be imposed in accordance
embraced in the same title in the Revised Penal Code, it is with Article 62.
necessary that the conviction must come in the order in
which they are committed. Habitual delinquency, being a special or specific aggravating
circumstance must be alleged in the information. If it is not
alleged in the information and in the course of the trial, the
Habitual delinquency prosecution tried to prove that the offender is a habitual
delinquent over the objection of the accused, the court has
We have to consider the crimes in it and take note of the no jurisdiction to consider the offender a habitual
titles of crimes in the Revised Penal Code. delinquent. Even if the accused is in fact a habitual
delinquent but it is not alleged in the information, the
If the offender had committed and was convicted of each of prosecution when introducing evidence was objected to, the
the crimes under each category so that no two crimes fall court cannot admit the evidence presented to prove
under the same title of the Revised Penal Code, you have a habitual delinquency over the objection of the accused.
situation where the offender is a habitual delinquent but not
a recidivist because no two crimes fall under the same title On the other hand, recidivism is a generic aggravating
of the Code. circumstance. It need not be alleged in the information.
Thus, even if recidivism is not alleged in the information, if
If the first conviction is for serious physical injuries or less proven during trial, the court can appreciate the same. If the
serious physical injuries and the second conviction is for prosecution tried to prove recidivism and the defense
robbery, theft or estafa and the third is for falsification, then objected, the objection should be overruled. The reason is
the moment the habitual delinquent is on his fourth recidivism is a generic aggravating circumstance only. As
conviction already, you cannot avoid that he is a habitual such, it does not have to be alleged in the information
delinquent and at the same time a recidivist because at because even if not alleged, if proven during trial, the trial
least, the fourth time will have to fall under any of the three court can appreciate it.
categories.
Right now, the present rule is that it can be appreciated
even if not alleged in the information. This is the correct
view because recidivism is a generic aggravating
circumstance. The reason why habitual delinquency cannot
be appreciated unless alleged in the information is because
recidivism has nothing to do with the crime committed.
Habitual delinquency refers to prior conviction and
therefore this must be brought in the information before the
court can acquire jurisdiction over this matter.

Generally, the procedure you know that when the What is quasi-recidivism?
prosecutor alleges habitual delinquency, it must specify the 0
crimes committed, the dates when they were committed,
the court which tried the case, the date when the accused Art. 160. Commission of another crime during service of p
was convicted or discharged. If these are not alleged, the another offense; Penalty.— Besides the provisions of Rule 5 of A
information is defective. who shall commit a felony after having been convicted by fin
beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving the same, sha
However, in a relatively recent ruling of the Supreme Court, maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law fo
it was held that even though the details of habitual
delinquency was not set forth in the information, as long as Any convict of the class referred to in this article, who is not
there is an allegation there that the accused is a habitual shall be pardoned at the age of seventy years if he shall have a
delinquent, that is enough to confer jurisdiction upon the original sentence, or when he shall complete it after reaching th
court to consider habitual delinquency. In the absence of the reason of his conduct or other circumstances he shall not
details set forth in the information, the accused has the right clemency. (Revised Penal Code)
to avail of the so-called bill of particulars. Even in a criminal
case, the accused may file a motion for bill of particulars. If
the accused fails to file such, he is deemed to have waived Elements:
the required particulars and so the court can admit evidence 1. Offender is convicted by final judgment of one
of the habitual delinquency, even though over and above offense
the objection of the defense. 2. He commits another felony before beginning to
serve such sentence or while serving the same.
What is quasi-recidivism? inmate. Is he a quasi-recidivist? Yes, because while serving
sentence, he committed a felony.
Quasi-recidivism is a special aggravating circumstance where
a person, after having been convicted by final judgment, shall
commit a new felony before beginning to serve such Can the offender be considered a quasi-recidivist if the
sentence, or while serving the same. He shall be punished by new felony committed is evasion of sentence?
the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for the
new felony. The penalty is justified because of the perversity If new felony is evasion of sentence, the offender is not a
and incorrigibility of the offender. quasi-recidivist.

What must be the nature of the second crime committed Can quasi-recidivism be offset by ordinary mitigating
while serving sentence or before serving sentence? circumstance? How about a privileged mitigating
circumstance?
The second crime must belong to the RPC, not special laws.
First crime may be either from the RPC or special laws. Quasi-recidivism is a special aggravating circumstance. It
cannot be offset by ordinary mitigating circumstance because
First crime: RPC or Special Laws Article 160 specifically provides that the offender shall be
Second crime: RPC punished by the maximum period of the penalty prescribed
by law for the new felony.

Illustration: When there is a privileged mitigating circumstance, the


penalty prescribed by law for the crime committed shall be
A was convicted of homicide. While serving his sentence, he lowered by 1 or 2 degrees, as the case may be, but then it
was found smoking marijuana. He was prosecuted for illegal shall be imposed in the maximum period if the offender is a
use of prohibited drugs and was convicted. Is he a quasi- quasi-recidivist.
recidivist? No, because the crime committed while serving
sentence is not a felony.
Can a quasi-recidivist be pardoned at the age of 70 years
Suppose that A was found guilty of illegal use of prohibited old?
drugs. While he was serving sentence, he killed a fellow
Only a quasi-recidivist “who is not a habitual criminal” may accused beyond reasonable doubt and the existence of the
be pardoned at the age of 70 years old and has already served modifying circumstances. It was then grave error for the trial
out his original sentence, OR when he shall complete it after court to appreciate against the accused-appellant the
reaching said age, UNLESS by reason of his conduct or other aggravating circumstance of recidivism simply because of his
circumstances, he shall not be worthy of clemency. When he failure to object to the prosecutions omission as mentioned
is a habitual criminal, a quasi-recidivist may not be pardoned earlier.
even if he has reached the age of 70 years and already served
out his original sentence. In this case, the prosecution adduced in evidence merely the
excerpt of the prison record of accused-appellant showing
that he was convicted of homicide in Criminal Case No.
Who is burdened to prove quasi-recidivism? 10357-R by the Regional Trial Court of Baguio (Branch 6)
with a penalty of from six years and one day as minimum to
■ Quasi-recidivism as defined in Article 160 of the Revised fourteen years, eight months and one day as maximum and
Penal Code is alleged in both Informations. Accused- that the sentence of accused-appellant commenced on
appellant is alleged to have committed murder and November 19, 1992 and that the minimum term of the
kidnapping while serving sentence in the penal colony by penalty was to expire on August 16, 1997. The excerpt of the
final judgment for the crime of homicide. Quasi-recidivism is prison record of accused-appellant is not the best evidence
a special aggravating circumstance. The prosecution is under Section 3, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court to
burdened to prove the said circumstance by the same prove the judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio
quantum of evidence as the crime itself. In the present case, City and to prove that said judgment had become final and
to prove quasi-recidivism, the prosecution was burdened to executory. Said excerpt is merely secondary or
adduce in evidence a certified copy of the judgment substitutionary evidence which is inadmissible absent proof
convicting accused-appellant of homicide and to prove that that the original of the judgment had been lost or destroyed or
the said judgment had become final and executory. The that the same cannot be produced without the fault of the
raison detre is that: prosecution. The barefaced fact that accused-appellant was
detained in the penal colony does prove the fact that final
x x x Since the accused-appellant entered a plea of not guilty judgment for homicide has been rendered against him. There
to such information, there was a joinder of issues not only as being no modifying circumstances in the commission of the
to his guilt or innocence, but also as to the presence or crime, accused-appellant should be meted the penalty of
absence of the modifying circumstances so alleged. The reclusion perpetua conformably with Article 63 of the
prosecution was thus burdened to establish the guilt of the Revised penal Code.