Recidivism Vs Reiteracion, Quasi–Recidivist, Habitual Delinquent

Criminal propensities: Recidivism vs Reiteracion, Quasi – Recidivism, and Habitual Delinquency

According to positivist theory, the community must be protected from anti-social activities, whether actual or potential, of the morbid type of man called “socially dangerous person.”

Accordingly, circumstances like Recidivism, Reiteracion, Quasi – Recidivism, and Habitual Delinquency, once attendant in a commission of a crime, serve to increase the penalty, whether qualifying or aggravating, as the case may be. The basis for such increase in penalty is the greater perversity of the offender manifested in the commission of the felony.

What do you mean by Recidivism under Criminal Law?

In criminal law, recidivist means a person who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code. There must be two convictions.

To be a recidivist,¹ the following requisite must concur:

• that the offender is on trial for an offense;²
• that he was previously convicted by final judgment of another crime;²
• that both the first and the second offenses are embraced in the same title of the Code; and²
• that the offender is convicted of the new offense.²

To consider a judgment to be final and executory, fifteen days must have elapsed from its promulgation without the convict appealing the conviction, such as when the offender started serving sentence or he expressly waived his right to appeal, and, finally, he applied for probation.

Recidivism requires that the prosecution should present certified true copies of the judgement of conviction in the other case. Failure to do so is not cured by the failure of the accused to object to such lack of representation. Recidivism is an affirmative allegation.

Hence, whenever alleged in the information and when the accused enters a plea of not guilty to such information, there is a joinder of issues not only as to his guilt or innocence but also as to the presence or absence of modifying circumstances so alleged.

What is Reiteracion?

To appreciate reiteracion, the offender must have been previously punished or has served his sentence previously. The first offense was punished with an equal or greater penalty; or he committed two or more crimes previously where he was meted lighter penalty.³

It is necessary that the offender shall have served out his sentence for the first offense and that the previous and subsequent offenses must not be embraced in the same title of the Code.

Accordingly, reiteracion must contain the foregoing situations in order to be appreciated as such. If not, commission of subsequent offense, felony, or crimes may not always be an aggravating circumstance.

So, when an accused who once served sentence for homicide and now he is convicted of falsification of documents, there exist reiteracion or habituality because the penalty for homicide for which he served sentence is greater than that for the new offense that is falsification of documents.

How will a person be considered a Quasi-Recidivist?

Quasi-recidivism is a special aggravating circumstance which cannot be offset by just an ordinary mitigating circumstance.

To be consider as quasi-recidivist, the offender must have been previously convicted by final judgement and before beginning to serve such sentence or while serving the same he committed a felony.⁴

Therefore, any person who shall commit a felony after having been convicted by final judgment, before beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving the same, and shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new felony will be considered as quasi-recidivist.

So, if a defendant who is serving sentence in Bilibid for one crime, struck and stabbed another prisoner, the former shall be punished with the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by the law for the new felony for being a quasi recidivist.

Who are Habitual Delinquents?

Under Article 62 of Revised Penal Code, “a person shall be deemed to be habitual delinquent, is 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.”⁵

Based on this definition this means we can make elements for us to determine if a person is a habitual delinquent. First is that the offender must have been convicted of any of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa or falsification.

Secondly, after that conviction or after serving his sentence, he again committed, and, within 10 years from his release or first conviction, he was again convicted of any of the said crimes for the second time.

Lastly, after his conviction of, or after serving sentence for, the second offense, he again committed, and, within 10 years from his last release or last conviction, he was again convicted of any of said offense, the third time or oftener.

We must bear in mind that these elements must concur with each other.

Is the doctrine under Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code applicable to Habitual Delinquents? 

Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code states that Penal Laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the persons guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, although at the time of the publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same.⁶

It is clearly stated under this provision that a habitual criminal [habitual delinquent] cannot benefit from the said provision even though the law is favorable to him.

The reason why Article 22 does not apply to habitual delinquents is that such offenders need a severe punishment because they have not been convicted once but thrice or oftener.

Thus, giving them a favorable consideration would be contrary to the purpose of the law which imposes additional penalty on habitual delinquents for them to amend their lives and abandon their sinister ways.

What is the meaning of “shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of this Code [RPC]”?

A recidivist is defined under the Revised Penal Code as one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of this Code.⁷

The portion which states “shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of this Code” means that the crime for which the offender has been convicted belongs in the same title under the Revised Penal Code.

An example of this is robbery and theft which both crimes are under Title Ten of the Revised Penal Code. Another one is physical injuries and Homicide under Title Eight. In order to determine if the two crimes belong are embraced in the same title, we can use the Book II of the Revised Penal Code, we can see from there the crimes grouped in different titles.

Why are these criminal propensities aggravating factors in the commission of subsequent offenses?

Recidivism and Reiteracion are generic aggravating circumstances which can be offset by mitigating circumstances. However, being a habitual delinquent and quasi- recidivist, on the other hand, are regarded as special aggravating circumstances which cannot offset.

These criminal propensities are considered aggravating circumstances. The law allows the imposition of additional penalty in habitual delinquency.

The reason of the law for this is that when the offender is convicted or serving his first punishment, he should have reformed his life and abandoned his ways.

However, if the same offender committed another offense either one of those mentioned for habitual delinquency or embraced in the same title, the law would impose a more severe penalty for the assumption is that the previous punishment was not enough for him to amend his life.

Thus, if the person commits a third offense either falling in the category of habitual delinquency or recidivism, the law has no option but to impose the highest possible penalty it could impose.

Distinctions among these Criminal Propensities

Relevant Jurisprudence on Recidivism

Recidivism was properly explained in the 1936 case entitled The People of the Philippine Islands vs. Canuto Bernal.⁸

In this case, recidivism was used as an aggravating circumstance in the commission of the crime of theft since the accused was already convicted thrice of the same crime prior to the trial of the aforementioned case on November 04, 1935.

According to this case, for recidivism to exist, it is enough that the accused, on the date of trial, was already convicted by final judgement of another crime based on the same title of the Revised Penal Code.⁹

Moreover, the Court clarified that recidivism may be taken as an aggravating circumstance notwithstanding the allegation and proof that the accused was a habitual delinquent. Corollary to this, it is important to note that recidivism is not an element of habitual delinquency.

Relevant Jurisprudence on Reiteracion

Reiteracion was included in the discussion in the 1995 case of People of the Philippines vs. Melchor Real.¹⁰ In this case, the Court held that reiteracion is committed when the offender was already previously punished for a crime to which the law attaches a greater or an equal penalty, or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty.¹¹

The Court also had the opportunity to compare reiteracion with reincidencia, or recidivism, wherein an offender commits reiteracion when he or she commits a crime, but of different kind, for which he was tried and convicted.¹¹

In the case, the offender was convicted of homicide and while the mitigating circumstances of passion and obfuscation were appreciated in his favor, they were offset by the aggravating circumstance of recidivism.

Relevant Jurisprudence on Quasi-Recidivism

Quasi-recidivism was explained in the 1984 case of People of the Philippines vs. Frankisio Aro, et. al.¹² In this case, it was ruled that quasi-recidivism cannot be offset by a mitigating circumstance.

At the time of the incident, appellant Frankisio Aro was serving sentence for the crime of robbery with homicide, while appellant Lasala was serving sentence for the crime of robbery.

Therefore, the Court ruled that the aggravating circumstance of quasi-recidivism cannot be offset by any mitigating circumstance and that the offenders shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty which was prescribed by law for the new crime.¹³ Both Frankisio Aro and Lasala were hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

Relevant Jurisprudence on Habitual Delinquency

Habitual Delinquency was discussed in the 1925 case of People of the Philippine Islands vs. Flaviano Aguinaldo.¹⁴ This case explained the Habitual Delinquency Law which confines the offender for a longer period than an ordinary criminal for the protection of society.

In this case, appellant was charged with the crime of robbery, and he was alleged to be a habitual delinquent. Habitual delinquent, as explained in this case pursuant to Act No. 3062,¹⁵ refers to a person who has at least twice, or even oftener, been convicted of the crime of theft or robbery.

Moreover, he or she should commit either of the aforementioned crimes within the five years next following the day on which he completed service of his last sentence.

Can an accused be convicted of so many offenses by serving the penalties for each and every crime committed?

The accused cannot be convicted of so many offenses by serving the penalties for each year and every crime committed. According to Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code, 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.¹⁶

Therefore, when the culprit committed multiple, say five offenses which have penalties into maximum resulting to, and penalties of each would not mean, serving incarceration beyond forty years, our jurisdiction and legal system only sanction forty years of imprisonment as the maximum.

Furthermore, the constitution provides that it is the policy of the state to promote the general welfare and safeguard the basic rights every prisoner incarcerated in our national penitentiary.

The Revised Penal Code provides the scale of penalties, where in which case, the penalties are organized according to their order of severity. Nonetheless, the exception to this rule is service of sentence may be done simultaneously.

This is true if the nature of the also penalties permits. Truly our constitution aims to tilts towards reformation than prosecution.

What is Three-Fold Rule?

The Three-fold Rule, under Criminal Justice System, refers to the service of prison sentence. When the convicted incurred multiple penalties, such penalties will not be longer than three fold length of time corresponding to the most severe penalty imposed upon him.

Under Article 70 of Revised Penal Code, 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.

When a convicted has been sentenced to suffer for four or more penalties of imprisonment for the same or various offenses, the three-fold rule limits to the time spent by the convicted. The maximum amount of time to be served by the prisoner shall not exceed more than a period of forty years.

“The threefold rule provides that the convict shall not serve more than three times the most severe of the penalties imposed on him, hence there must at least be four sentences which he is supposed to serve. Also, the threefold rule is applicable only to principal penalties and applies to all penalties imposed in all proceedings (People vs. Geralde, 50 Phil. 692)”¹⁷

Conclusion

To sum up, recidivist refers to a person who, at the time of his /her trial for one crime, shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code.

On the other hand, Reiteracion, occurs when the offender must have been previously punished or has served his/her sentence previously.

The first offense was punished with an equal or greater penalty; or he/she committed two or more crimes previously where he/she was meted lighter penalty. Reiteracion is not always an aggravating circumstance.

While Reiteracion is not absolutely aggravating circumstance, Quasi-recidivism on the other hand is a special aggravating circumstance which cannot be offset by just an ordinary mitigating circumstance.

In quasi-recidivism, the offender must have been previously convicted by final judgement and before beginning to serve such sentence or while serving the same he committed a felony.

Habitual delinquent, other hand means that, when a person is 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.”

It is indeed important to distinguish Recidivism, Reiteracion, Quasi-Residivism, and Habitual Delinquent from one another because each of which determines the applicable qualifying aggravating circumstances to affect the penalty of the convicted.

Remember that Recidivism and Reiteracion are generic aggravating circumstances which can be offset by mitigating circumstances. However, in the case of being a habitual delinquent and/or quasi-recidivist, these two cannot be offset because habitual delinquent and quasi-recidivist are considered as special aggravating circumstances.

Albeit the law allows the imposition of additional penalty in habitual delinquency, still, regardless of aggravating circumstances of recidivism, say for instance, the convict who is guilty of four or more felonies or offenses is not allowed to the penalties for each and every crime committed.

This is the three- fold rule which further explained that a convict with multiple penalties shall not remain in incarceration longer than threefold of the most severe penalty imposed upon him. As to be exact, the maximum duration of the convict to suffer imprisonment is for forty-years.

The lesson that could lead to this conclusion is that the framers of our law recognize deeply that penal laws may as well have limits and boundaries and geared towards reintegration of the convict, after serving his sentence, into the society once more.

You will observe that each factor and the way the penalties, aggravating circumstances, and special aggravating circumstances are integrated and standardized in the penal system work perfectly to safeguard the policy, propriety, and equality of the Constitution that regardless of gender, race, religion, political preference, and wickedness, the supreme law protects and values human life in a way that it promotes the positive outlook towards improvement of human race.

1. Article 14, Par. 9, RPC: “A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of this Code.”[↩]
2. Id.[↩][↩][↩][↩]
3. Article 14, Par. 10, RPC: “That the offender has been previously punished by an offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty.”[↩]
4. Article 160, 1st Par., RPC: “x x x any person who shall commit a felony after having been convicted by final judgment, before beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving the same, shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new felony.”[↩]
5. Article 62, Last Par., RPC[↩]
6. Article 22, Revised Penal Code [RPC] of the Philippines[↩]
7. Article 14, Par. 9, RPC, Supra.[↩]
8. G.R. No. L-44988, October 31, 1936[↩]
9. Ibid.[↩]
10. G.R. No. 93436, March 24, 1995[↩]
11. Ibid.[↩][↩]
12. G.R. No. L-38141 May 15, 1984[↩]
13. Ibid.[↩]
14. G.R. No. L-23914, July 29, 1925[↩]
15. An Act To Provide Additional Penalties For Habitual Delinquents, 6th Congress of the Philippine Legislature[↩]
16. Article 70, RPC[↩]
17. Criminal Law Conspectus, Florenz D. Regalado, The Revised Penal Code, Related Statutes, Ruling Cases, First Edition, page 214[↩]