Different forms of repetition or habituality of the offender

(1) Recidivism under Article 14 (9) The offender at the time of his
trial for one crime shall have been previously convicted by final
judgment of another embraced in the same title of the Revised
Penal Code.
(2) Repetition or reiteracion under Article 14 (10) The offender has
been previously punished for an offense which the law attaches an
equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it
attaches a lighter penalty.
(3) Habitual delinquency under Article 62 (5) The offender within
the period of 10 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, is found guilty of the any of said crimes a third
time or oftener.
(4) Quasi-recidivism under Article 160 Any person who shall
commit a felony after having been convicted by final judgment
before beginning to serve such sentence or while serving such
sentence shall be punished by the maximum period prescribed by
law for the new felony.
Distinctions between recidivism and habitual delinquency
In recidivism
(1) Two convictions are enough.
(2) The crimes are not specified; it is enough that they may be
embraced under the same title of the Revised Penal Code.
(3) There is no time limit between the first conviction and the
subsequent conviction. Recidivism is imprescriptible.
(4) It is a generic aggravating circumstance which can be offset by
an ordinary mitigating circumstance. If not offset, it would only
increase the penalty prescribed by law for the crime committed to
its maximum period.
(5) The circumstance need not be alleged in the information.
In habitual delinquency
(1) At least three convictions are required.

(1) The crimes are limited and specified to: (a) serious physical
injuries, (b) less serious physical injuries, (c) robbery, (d) theft, (e)
estafa or swindling and (f) falsification.
(3) There is a time limit of not more than 10 years between every
convictions computed from the first conviction or release from
punishment thereof to conviction computed from the second
conviction or release therefrom to the third conviction and so on . . .
(4) Habitual delinquency is a special aggravating 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, the fourth, the fifth and so on . . .
(5) The circumstance must be alleged in the information; otherwise
the court cannot acquire jurisdiction to impose additional penalty.
Recidivism
In recidivism, the emphasis is on the fact that the offender was
previously convicted by final judgment of a felony and subsequently
found guilty of another felony embraced in the same title of the
Revised Penal Code. The law considers this aggravating when a
person has been committing felonies embraced in the same title
because the implication is that he is specializing on such kind of
crime and the law wants to prevent any specialization. Hence,
ordinarily, when a person commits a crime under different titles, no
aggravating circumstance is present. It is important that the
conviction which came earlier must refer to the crime committed
earlier than the subsequent conviction.
Illustration:
In 1980, A committed robbery. While the case was being tried, he
committed theft in 1983. He was found guilty and was convicted of
theft also in 1983. The conviction became final because he did not
appeal anymore and the trial for his earlier crime which was robbery
ended in 1984 where he was also convicted. He also did not appeal
this decision. Is the accused a recidivist? The subsequent conviction
must refer to a felony committed later in order to constitute
recidivism. The reason for this is as the time the first crime was
committed, there was no other crime of which he was convicted so
he cannot be regarded as a repeater.
In recidivism, the crimes committed should be felonies. Recidivism
cannot be had if the crime committed is a violation of a special law.

Recidivism does not prescribe. No matter how long ago the offender
was convicted, if he is subsequently convicted of a crime embraced
in the same title of the Revised Penal Code, it is taken into account
as aggravating in imposing the penalty.
Pardon does not erase recidivism, even if it is absolute because only
excuses the service of the penalty, but not the conviction.
If the offender has already served his sentence and he was
extended an absolute pardon, the pardon shall erase the conviction
including recidivism because there is no more penalty so it shall be
understood as referring to the conviction or the effects of the crime.
Recidivism may be considered even though not alleged in the
information because this is only a generic aggravating circumstance.
It is necessary to allege recidivism in the information, but if the
defense does not object to the presentation of evidence during the
trial and the same was proven, the court shall consider such
aggravating circumstance because it is only generic.
In recidivism, although the law defines it as a circumstance where a
person having been convicted by final judgement was previously
convicted also by final judgement for a crime embraced in the same
title in the Revised Penal Code, it is necessary that the conviction
must come in the order in which they are committed.
Habitual delinquency
We have to consider the crimes in it and take note of the titles of
crimes in the Revised Penal Code.
If the offender had committed and was convicted of each of the
crimes under each category so that no two crimes fall under the
same title of the Revised Penal Code, you have a situation where the
offender is a habitual delinquent but not a recidivist because no two
crimes fall under the same title of the Code.
If the first conviction is for serious physical injuries or less serious
physical injuries and the second conviction is for robbery, theft or
estafa and the third is for falsification, then the moment the habitual
delinquent is on his fourth conviction already, you cannot avoid that
he is a habitual delinquent and at the same time a recidivist
because at least, the fourth time will have to fall under any of the
three categories.

When the offender is a recidivist and at the same time a habitual

delinquent, the penalty for the crime for which he will be convicted
will be increased to the maximum period unless offset by a
mitigating circumstance. After determining the correct penalty for
the last crime committed, an added penalty will be imposed in
accordance with Article 62.
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 prosecution tried
to prove that the offender is a habitual delinquent over the objection
of the accused, the court has no jurisdiction to consider the offender
a habitual delinquent. Even if the accused is in fact a habitual
delinquent but it is not alleged in the information, the prosecution
when introducing evidence was objected to, the court cannot admit
the evidence presented to prove habitual delinquency over the
objection of the accused.
On the other hand, recidivism is a generic aggravating
circumstance. It need not be alleged in the information. Thus, even
if recidivism is not alleged in the information, if proven during trial,
the court can appreciate the same. If the prosecution tried to prove
recidivism and the defense objected, the objection should be
overruled. The reason is recidivism is a generic aggravating
circumstance only. As such, it does not have to be alleged in the
information because even if not alleged, if proven during trial, the
trial court can appreciate it.
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 prosecutor alleges
habitual delinquency, it must specify the crimes committed, the
dates when they were committed, the court which tried the case,
the date when the accused was convicted or discharged. If these are
not alleged, the information is defective.
However, in a relatively recent ruling of the Supreme Court, it was
held that even though the details of habitual delinquency was not
set forth in the information, as long as there is an allegation there
that the accused is a habitual delinquent, that is enough to confer

jurisdiction upon the court to consider habitual delinquency. In the

absence of the details set forth in the information, the accused has
the right 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 the

required particulars and so the court can admit evidence of the
habitual delinquency, even though over and above the objection of
the defense.