SUCCESSIVE SERVICE OF SENTENCE

Art. 70. Successive service of sentence. — When the culprit has to serve two or more penalties, he shall serve them simultaneously if the nature of the penalties will so permit otherwise, the following rules shall be observed:

In the imposition of the penalties, the order of their respective severity shall be followed so that they may be executed successively or as nearly as may be possible, should a pardon have been granted as to the penalty or penalties first imposed, or should they have been served out.

For the purpose of applying the provisions of the next preceding paragraph the respective severity of the penalties shall be determined in accordance with the following scale:

1. Death,

2. Reclusion perpetua,

3. Reclusion temporal,

4. Prision mayor,

5. Prision correccional, 6. Arresto mayor,

7. Arresto menor,

8. Destierro,

9. Perpetual absolute disqualification,

10 Temporal absolute disqualification.

11. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, the right to follow a profession or calling.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the rule next preceding, the maximum duration of the convict's sentence shall not be more than three-fold the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed upon him. No other penalty to which he may be liable shall be inflicted after the sum total of those imposed equals the same maximum period.

Such maximum period shall in no case exceed forty years. In applying the provisions of this rule the duration of perpetual penalties (pena perpetua) shall be computed at thirty years. (As amended).

SUMMARY OF ARTICLE 70

A. The Order of the respective severity of the penalties shall be followed so that they may be executed successively.

If there are two or more terms of sentences to be served by a convict, they shall be served successively and the time of the second sentence shall not commence to run until the expiration of the first, and the third sentence shall not also commence unless the second sentence be completely served. The penalties involved shall be served successively in the order of their severity.

B. Three-fold Rule

Notwithstanding the aforementioned rule, the maximum duration of the convict's sentence shall

not be more than three-fold the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties

imposed upon him. No other penalty to which he may be liable shall be inflicted after the sum

total of those imposed equals the same maximum period. Such maximum period shall in no case

exceed forty years. In applying the provisions of this rule the duration of perpetual penalties

(penal perpetua) shall be computed at thirty years.

The correct rule is to multiply the highest principal penalty by 3 and the result will be the aggregate

principal penalty which the prisoner has to serve, plus the payment of all the indemnities which he

has been sentenced to pay, with or without subsidiary imprisonment depending upon whether or

not the principal penalty exceeds 6 years.

In Aspra vs. Director of Prisons, the accused was convicted with six different cases of estafa, each

with an imposed penalty of 3 months and 11 days of arresto mayor. Considering that the accused

had gone through 1 year, 3 months and a number of days imprisonment, the Supreme Court ruled

that the accused already exceeded the maximum duration of imprisonment under threefold rule of

article 70 of the Revised Penal Code. The length of the petitioner's imprisonment should not

exceed three times the most serious of the six sentences he got, plus subsidiary imprisonment for

the total indemnity he had been condemned to pay the offended parties.

The so-called threefold rule can only be taken into account in connection with the service of the

sentence imposed, not in the imposition of the penalty. In addition, the term “the most severe

penalties” in relation to the threefold rule includes equal penalties.

The threefold rule applies only when the convict has to serve at least four

sentences. If only two or more penalties corresponding to different crimes committed by

the convict are imposed, it is hardly possible to apply the threefold rule.

All the penalties, even if by the different courts at different times, cannot exceed

three-fold the most severe. This rules, for the reason stated, should be followed

irrespective of the facts that the different offenses are charged in several information, or

are included in a single prosecution, or several cases are tried before the same court or

in different courts.

Duration of the convict’s sentence refers to several penalties for different offenses,

not yet served out. Note, however that this rule applies only when the convict has to

serve continuous imprisonment for several offenses. If the convict already served

sentence for one offense, that imprisonment will not be considered, for the purpose of the

threefold rule, if after this release he commits again and is convicted of new offenses. No

prisoner shall be required to remain in prison continuously for more than 40 years. The

duration of perpetual penalties is 30 years. If the sentence is indeterminate, the basis of

the three-fold rule is the maximum term of the sentence.

Subsidiary imprisonment forms part of the penalty. The imposition of the three-fold

max. penalty under this article does not preclude subsidiary imprisonment for failure to

pay a fine. The rule is to multiply the highest penalty by 3 and the result will be the

aggregate principal penalty which the prisoner has to serve, plus payment of all

indemnities with or without subsidiary imprisonment, provided that the principal penalty

does not exceed 6 years.

Indemnity is a penalty. An indemnity, to all intents and purposes, is considered a

penalty, although pecuniary in character. Art.70 makes no distinction between the

principal penalty and subsidiary penalty.

Court must impose all the penalties for all the crimes of which the accused is

found guilty, but the service of the same, they shall not exceed three times the

most severe and shall not exceed 40 years.

FASCINAL VS CRUZ CASE

FACTS:

The Facinals own a 103-hecatre parcel of land. 20 hectares of it was leased to Jamora and Orbion ofr 10

years. Upon expiration of the lease contract, the Jamoras, who subsequently acquired the leasehold

rights of Orbion, refused to vacate the land despite the repeated demands of the petitioner. In the

Municipal Trial Court of Sapian Capiz, petitioners filed for a complaint for unlawful detainer against the

respondents. The MC later on ordered the respondents to vacate the area. The trial court issued a writ of

execution for the judgment which the sheriff delivered to the respondents for them to vacate the area.

Despite the issuance of the writ, the respondents had trespassed the property for five times after they

received the said writ. The petitioners instituted contempt proceedings against the respondents in the CFI

of Capiz, affirming the decision of the trial court. The case was then brought before the CA which affirmed

the decision of the lower courts. The respondents then applied for probation. However, this was denied by

the court because there was no delivery of property to the petitioners, respondents are still in the state of

defiance of the decision which has become final and executory.

ISSUE: W/N the respondents can be granted their petition for probation.

HELD: No. Though respondents are qualified for probation because they do not possess any

disqualifications under the probation act, their continuous defiance of the court’s order was a showing of

their unwillingness of repentance nor predisposition for rehabilitation which the probation law sought to

achieve (Sec 2, P.D 968). Private respondents were declared in contempt of court when they repeatedly

refused to comply with the final decision of the trial court which ordered them to vacate the subject

property.