Crim Recits As of Aug 16

Zep Rivera
Article 1 to 2

Q. What are the (2) theories of Criminal Law? Differentiate.
A. Classical Theory lays stress on the crime. It makes the criminal responsible for his acts and consequences since he is a
rational being endowed with reason and free will. It is retributive and the punishment is standardized and proportional to the
offence. The Positivist Theory views crimes as social phenomena and views the criminal as one who was constrained to do
wrong. It is reformative and preventive and individualizes punishment. Examples are Probation Law, Juvenile Justice and
Welfare law, and Justifying and Exempting circumstances.

Q. A law provides that accused that kills has a higher penalty if he kills in the house of the victim. Is this Classical or Positivist?
A. This falls under the Classical theory because the punishment is standardized and proportional to the gravity or nature of the
offense. Under the Classical theory, the more serious the crime is, the higher the penalty. Aggravating circumstances fall under
the Classical Theory.

Q. A law provides if youre below 18, the punishment is lower. Is this Classical or Positivist?
A. This falls under the Positivist Theory because it is individualizes punishment and gives the child in conflict with law the
opportunity to reform.

Q. What are the (3) characteristics of Criminal law?
A. General, Territorial and Prospective

Q. What are the general characteristics of criminal law?
A. Penal laws and those of public security and safety shall be obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in the Philippine territory
subject to principles of public international law and to treaty stipulations.

Q. X is an athlete. The PMA class adopted him as a classmate. He is does not have any military character attached to him. X
then kills someone. X Claims he cannot be charged in the regular courts because he is a military man. Is he correct?
A. No. The Jurisdiction of civil courts is unaffected by military or other special characteristics of the accused. Civil courts still
have jurisdiction even if the person is from the military or any other special character.

Q. What if he is charged with insubordination?
A. Then the Court martial has jurisdiction. Although as a general rule Civil Courts have jurisdiction over military
men, when the offense is service connected, then the court martial takes over. Service oriented offenses are those
enumerated under the articles of war. This fact is to be determined before arraignment by the civil court.

Q. Can the Philippine President order the transfer of venue from Court Martial to normal courts?
A.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 ATTY. TRINIDAD RECITATIONS ZEP RIVERA

2

Q. Is the generality rule absolute?
A. No. The rule is subject to principles of public international law and treaty stipulations. This means that even if the crime is
committed within the Philippines, it is still not triable by our courts.

Q. Can an Ambassador kill Noynoy?
A. Yes. Under the principles of international law, an ambassador and RA 75, Ambassadors are exempt from arrest,
imprisonment, distrait, seizure, and attachment. The ambassador is given diplomatic immunity, however there must be
reciprocity, meaning the country of the ambassador must offer the same immunity to the Philippine Ambassador.

Q. X is working as a domestic helper for an American Ambassador. X kills a Filipino. He claims that he cannot be tried in the
Philippines. Is he correct?
A. Yes. Under RA 75, domestic servants to Public Ministers and Ambassadors are exempt from arrest, imprisonment, restraint,
seizure and attachment. However, there must be reciprocity and the domestic helper must be registered with the Department of
Foreign Affairs.

Q. Sen. X commits libel act on radio. Can the victim sue?
A. Yes.

Q. What if the Senator commits libel in a privileged speech in Senate?
A. No because under the Article VI Sec 11 of the Constitution, No member shall be questioned or held liable in any other place
for any speech or debate in Congress or in any speech or debate in Congress or in any committee there of. This is a law of
preferential application, an exception to the territorial application of the RPC.

Q. An ambassador is contacted to give a speech about how to play in the stock market. He agrees. He does not show up. Can
you sue him?
A.

Q. X had an appointment with consul for his visa. Consul slapped X. Can X sue for slander by deed?
A. No. Crimes committed within an embassy are not triable in the Philippines because an embassy is deemed an extension of the
state that it represents.

Q. Is the territoriality principle absolute?

3
A. No. Article 2 of the RPC provides for instances of the extraterritorial application of the RPC. This means that even if the
crime is committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines, the crime is still punishable under our laws.

Q. What is the extraterritoriality principle of international law in Article 2
A. This means that the crimes under this provision may be enforced even beyond the Philippine territory.

Q. Vessel is in Manila Bay. It is registered in the Philippines. Criminal is Chinese. Who has jurisdiction?
A. The Philippines court have jurisdiction.

Q. Vessel is in Manila Bay. It is registered in the US and the criminal and victim are both Chinese. Who has jurisdiction?
A. Philippine Courts because we follow the English Rule

Q. What if it is registered in the Philippines but in US waters and the Chinese men kill each other.
A. US courts have jurisdiction. RPC will be given extraterritorial application when the registered ship is on international waters.
Once it passes international waters, the penal laws of that foreign country applies.

Q. When is it important to determine the nationality of the ship? How is it determined?
A. Only when the crime is committed in the high seas. The country of registration determines the nationality of the ship.

Q. Differentiate the French Rule from the English Rule. Give the exceptions for each.
A. The French Rule states that crimes committed on a private merchant ship are cognizable only by the courts to which the vessel
belongs. When the crime is committed in the vessel, laws of nationality will take place except when the crime affects the
tranquility of the port or persons foreign to the crew.
The English rule states that the territory of the place takes effect unless it affects the internal working of the vessel. It states that
when a merchant vessel enters another country, it owes temporary and local allegiance.

Q. What rule is followed in the Philippines?
A. The English Rule

Q. Does the Philippines have jurisdiction over a ship with Marijuana if the ship is in the Philippine territorial waters?
A. As a general rule, the Philippines has no jurisdiction. However, if the person smokes the marijuana, then the courts take
cognizance.

Q. X is serving sentence. He was convicted of 8 years with subsidiary imprisonment. A law is passed saying you can no longer be
required to pay extra jail time. But he was already serving. Can you apply the new law to him?

4
A. Yes. As a general rule, Criminal law has no retroactive effect. However, once the law is favorable to the accused that is not a
habitual delinquent, criminal law may be applied retroactively.

ARTICLE 3

Q. What is a crime?
A. A crime is the generic term embracing any violation of the RPC, special penal laws, municipal or ordinance.

Q. Classification of crimes
A. A crime can either be a felony, offense or infraction.

Q. What is an offense?
A. An offense is an act or omission punishable by a special law.

Q. What is a felony?
A. A felony is an act or omission punishable by the RPC

Q. What are the elements of a Felony?
A. The elements of a Felony are
An act or omission
Punishable by the RPC
Act or omission must be voluntary (Amurao). However under the Beda memory aid act is performed or
omission incurred by dolo (malice) or cupla (fault)

Q. What is Dolo?
A. Dolo is Malice.

Q. What is Culpa?
A. Culpa is Fault.

Q. What are the two kinds of felony? Differentiate.
A. A felony can either be a malicious felony or a culpable felony.

Q. What are the elements of Dolo?

5
A. The elements of Dolo are
Freedom
Intelligent
Intent

Q. What are the elements of Culpa
A. The elements of Culpa are
Freedom
Negligence
Imprudence

Q. What is the difference of Dolo and Culpa?
A. The main difference is the presence or absence of malice. If there is malice, it is intentional or dolo. If malice is absence,
then the crime is unintentional or culpa.

Q. What does the law punish?
A. Only acts. The law does not punish the realm of thought.

Q. What is an omission?
A. Failure of refusal to do an act required by law.

Q. What is an act
A. An act is any bodily movement tending to produce some effect on the external world.

Q. X is taken hostage by group of bandits. The leader tells X to shoot Y or else they shoot him. Is X committing a felony?
A. No. One of the elements of an intentional felony is freedom. There is no freedom. The act was unintentional because there is
no freedom.

Q. X drives within speed limit. He swerves and kills another person. Is he criminally liable?
A. No. It was a mere accident. There is no criminal liability because of the lack of criminal intent. He was also not careless or
negligent.

Q. X killed Y during insanity. Will he be acquitted or convicted?
A. Acquitted for the lack of intelligence. Insanity is an exempting circumstance.

Q. If a felony is unintentional, is it still voluntary?

6
A.

Q. X heard president is arriving. He plans to kill the President. He stationed himself, aims it at the president, but president docks,
bullet hits bodyguards. X is charged with multiple murders. X says the act was not intentional because he did not intend to kill
the bodyguards. Is he liable?
A. Yes. You cannot divide an act into one that is intentional and the other one unintentional. When resulting felony is different
from what is intended, it is defined by what is produced. The essence of imprudence or negligence is incompatible with criminal
intent. A felony is not defined by antecedent intention but the RESULT OF THE INTENTION.

Q. If you slap someone and the person dies, are you liable for murder?
A. Yes. Not just slight physical injuries.

Q. What is the difference between specific and general intent?
A. Specific Intent is that state of mind of offender whereby the circumstances indicate that the offender actively desired such
criminal consequence or desired a specific result to follow his act or failure to act. When specific intent is determinative of crime
charged, it must be specifically alleged in the complaint. For Example
Treason- specific intent to betray. Without this there is no treason, but there can be espionage.
Theft specific intent to gain from offended party. This should be alleged in the information the specific intent to gain, if not it
could be trespass because there is no intent to gain
Homicide specific intent to kill. If the person is not able to prove intent to kill, even if there is a wound, only serious physical
injuries. Absent intent to kill, it will be any other crime. In consummated homicide two presumptions. Conclusively presumed
intent to kill based on the weapon used, location of wound (Where in body? vital organ aimed at). Or Disputatively presumed
intent to kill if there is only a dead person
If homicide is consummated but there was no intent to kill homicide thru reckless imprudence for failure to prove intent to kill
General Intent crimes where there is no specific intent as felony, presence of general intent is proved from commission of
unlawful act. Sufficient to constitute as an element of the felony

Q. What are some maxims that apply to felonies?
A. If there is no freedom, no intelligence, no intent, the crime is not felonious

Q. Mala in se v. Malum Prohibitum
A. Se act it wrong in itself by nature. Prohibitum only because there is law that says it should not be violated and merely
intended to regulate society. Mala Prohibita is not inherently immoral, regardless of criminal intent. It does not mean intent is
absent because there are still some special laws where intent is necessary.
However, there are certain special laws where criminal intent is necessary and there are some RPC provisions where criminal
intent does not matter

7

Q. X and Y are friends. In the movie house. X has shabu. X goes to bathroom. Hold this for me. Y has the temporary
possession. Is he liable?
A. No because he has no criminal intent. However this is punishable under a special law, which supposedly is mala prohibitum.

Q. Is intent necessary in VAWC
A. Intent is still necessary /

Q. Is intent necessary in Possession of pick lock
A. No. Fact of possession makes it a crime even if it is RPC

Q. A beggar dies in 5 seconds. Will X be liable for death of beggar.
A. No. Act of omission only becomes felony if required by law. It may be morally wrong but does not make it felonious. There
is no law requiring you to give him.

Q. Requisites of a mistake of fact
A.

Q. X caught wife fooling around because he was angry, he hired an ex con to kill his wife. Ex con stabbed twin sister of wife.
Would he be able to invoke mistake of fact?
A.

Q. What is intent? Differentiate from motive
A. Motive reason why you committed the act, gives judicial perspective to the judge or the one with most to gain. Intent
reason you select a means to effect the accomplishment of motive. Use of gun shows intent to kill, but you do not know the
motive.

Q. Is motive an element of the felony
A. No. Intent is.

Q. When an accused kills a girl out of the blue, is liable?
A. He is still liable. Actual commission of the motive. He showed intent by killing at child shows intent to kill.

Q. X is an achiever. Toddler stepped on his toes while in the park and he strangled the toddler. Do you have to prove his
motive?

8
A.

Q. Someone was raped. Someone said it was X. Do you have to prove motive to convict him?
A. Yes because source is not a credible source.

Q. Case of US v Ah Chong
A. Land mark cause for mistake of fact. Had the facts been what he believed them to be, his act would have been justified.

Q. People v. Oanis

Q. People v. Catangay - accident

Q. People v. Ramirez- carelessness

Q. Can an act be unintentional but still voluntary?
A. Yes.

Q. Intent to commit an act v. perpetration of an act

ARTICLE 4 Note: Primordial issue is intent.
Q. What is Article 4?
A.

Q. What is article 4?
A.

Q. Requisites of criminal liability
A. Act is performed against Penal and the act or injury is direct natural and logical consequence of the act

Q. Person charged with violating Omnibus Election (Special Law). Went to poll prescient with handgun tucked in his waist. Can
he invoke article 4?
A.

Q. X arrives home to see his neighbor strangling his mother. He shoots his neighbor. Can he invoke article 4?
A. NO. There is no criminal intent because this is a justified act.

9

Q. Can you say that a wrongful act is diff from what you intended?
A. No

Q. What is the primordial issue in article 4?
A. Intent. If intent is not an issue, article 4 does not apply. It is not applicable to special laws.

Q. What are the 3 principles of crime that do not affect criminal liability
A.

Q. X is in his house. 4 intruders announce a robbery. X jumps out and dies. Are the robbers liable for the death of X?
A.

Q. What is proximate cause?
A.

Q. Y does not agree to go to hospital or submit to surgical procedure. Dies due to wound. Is the person who causes the wound
liable? What if he submitted then died of infection.
A. As long as wound is mortal, he is still liable for all consequences arising form wound even if heals badly or refuses medical
treatment. He cannot blame a victim. If the procedure sucks, victim dies, still blame the accused.

Q. If he was in the hospital. It was escalating. He insists on going home. He died a few days after
A.

Note: Magna carta for patients

Q. X caught wife having an affair. He smacks wifes neck. She dies after a few hours. Liable?
A.

Q. Meaning of Logical effect?
A. Result of cause which you can make a connection of cause and effect

Q. Natural effect meaning
A. Effect in ordinary daily occurrence of human life


10
Q. X is carrying a toddler. Conductor says all stopping here, can get off. Everyone stood up while the bus was still moving.
Woman carrying child and both died. Is that the logical or natural effect?

Q. Woman fell but still alive. Dog bites woman. Woman dies. Is conductor liable? Is biting of the dog the proximate cause?

Q. What is proximate cause?
A.

Q. What is an efficient intervening cause?
A.

Q. What is an impossible crime?
A. An impossible crime is an attempt to commit another crime. It punishes only crimes against persons or property whereas
there are crimes against chastity, which would be worse.
Impossible crimes are only punishable only when felony would have been grave or less grave felony. Not for light felonies.
Because the penalty for impossible crime would be heavier than if it were a light felony in frustrated stage. In other words a
crime that would have been impossible in its accomplishment, and its light would be worse in penalty than in a crime
accomplished only in the frustrated stage.
There is no attempted or frustrated impossible crime because in the attempted stage of the crime, all the acts of execution are not
performed. Whereas in impossible crimes, all acts are actually performed. In frustrated, felony is not produced as a
consequence. In impossible crime, felony is actually impossible of accomplishment

Q. Requisites of an impossible crime
A.

Q. X saw Y carrying trousers. The pockets seemed pretty full and X wanted to get money so X put his hands in the pocket of Y
but the pocket was empty. Was this an impossible crime?
A. Yes because this time, there is a factual impossibility. An external circumstance exists preventing the commission of the
crime. The external circumstance is the fact that the pocket is empty; therefor there is nothing to gain.

Q. What is an actual impossibility?
A.

Q. X wants to kill Y so he gives Y 10 pills. Turns out for the pills to be poisonous, you have to take a dozen. Y only took 10. He
did not die. Is that an impossible crime?

11
A.

Q. Suppose X wants to kill Y. Gives rat poison. But X didnt know that Ys chemical composition makes him stronger when he
takes rat poison. Y does not die. Is that an impossible crime?
A. That is an impossible crime because that is an employment of ineffective means. X does not succeeding in killing Y because
he didnt give enough poison, the deployment of means is inaccurate.

Q. What evidence is needed for an impossible crime?
A.

Q. Is an impossible crime an attempt of another crime?
A.

Q. X was the barrio playboy. He had 10 girlfriends during his lifetime. He is now dead. At the wake one of the exes goes to the
wake and fires at him. Is this an impossible crime?
A. This is not an impossible crime for lack of criminal intent. The crime would have been a crime against personal property and
the person committing the crime was criminal intent. Does she have criminal intent to kill? No because he was already dead.

Q. What requisites are needed for an impossible crime?
A.

Q. Is there a frustrated impossible crime?
A.

Q. X Wife had an affair with husbands friend. Husband castrated the friend. Judge convicted him for 8 years but the judge said
Id do the same thing, so only 5 years. Is the judge correct under Article 5?
A.

Q. Is an accessory in a light penalty punishable?
A. In any case where a light felony is punishable, only the principals are punished.

Q. Is a light felony punishable in all cases? Is this an absolute rule? What if its frustrated? Will it never be punishable? Is there
no instance where it is only a frustrated light felony? Does this apply to all kinds of crime? What if its about a light felony against
a personae/
A. Article 7, light felonies are punishable only when they are consummated, except crimes against person or property. When it is
against a person or property, even when it is only a light felony, all stages are punishable. In respect to crimes against persons,

12
there is only one light felony and it is slight physical injuries and it is always consummated. There is no attempted or frustrated
stage.

Q. Do articles 5 and 6 apply to special laws?
A. No. Especially Art. 5 par. 2.

Q. What if it is robbery in attempted stage. Is that punishable?
A.

Q. What will the judge tell the President if he thinks a crime should be punishable when it is not yet made punishable by the
legislature

Q. 2 types of impossibilities
A. Factual or Physical External circumstances prevent the commission of the crime. And Legal act would never amount to a
crime, no matter what you do or add.

Q. X gives an abortive to girlfriend, thinking that she is pregnant. She suffers slight physical injuries. Is this an impossible
crime?
A. No. Intent was to abort her, but there was in effect another violation of the code, which would be serious physical injuries.

Q. If a person gets an umbrella of another person cause he thinks that the umbrella is better than his, with intent to gain, he got it
but realized it was it his umbrella. Is this an impossible crime?
A. Yes. This is a legal impossibility. In the crime of theft, there has to be intent to gain. The thing you want to steal shouldnt
be yours. The thing belonged to him so theres legal impossibility.

ART 6

Q. What are the 3 stages of a material crime?
A. Attempted, Frustrated and Consummated.

Q. Define attempted stage in terms of performance of overt acts.

13
A. In the attempted stage, the offender commences the execution or commission of the felony, directly by divert acts but does
not perform all the acts of execution by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. This is
when the offender still has control over his acts. If desistance is made, then criminal intent is acquitted.

Q. Define Frustrated stage in terms of performance of overt acts.
A.

Q. Define consummated stage in terms of performance of overt acts.
A.

Q. What is an act?
A. An act is an external effect on the environment

Q. What are the two kinds of acts?
A. The two kinds of acts are the internal acts and the external acts.

Q. Are both punishable?
No. Internal acts stay in the realm of the human mind and are never punishable. External acts, which are merely preparatory, as
a general rule, are not punishable.

Q. Give an example of a preparatory act.
A. Buying arsenic or buying a bolo.

Q. X wants to make his wife explode. He buys explosives. Is this punishable?
A. As long as there is no law prohibiting the buying of explosives, then the mere buying is not punishable.

Q. What if he wants to kill her with a picklock?
A. Then the mere possession of the picklock would be punishable even if it were only a preparatory act because the law
expressly punishes mere possession.

Q. In external acts, what are the two stages? Can you distinguish
A. Subjective phase, which is when the offender still has control over his acts. And the Objective phase, which is the time where
offender can still change his mind.

Q. Definition of an overt act

14
A. An overt act is an act of execution, which is external, related to the offense and not indicative of another offense. There must
be physical activity, which shows the intention to commit a crime.

Q. Police catches X making a hole through the wall of a store. He is charged with attempted robbery. Is this correct? (People v.
Dumahao)
A. This was not an overt act of stealing or robbing. It was an external act of cutting the wall, however it was not related to the
offense of attempted robbery. By the cutting of the wall, youre not sure if he wants to take something inside. Cutting of a hole is
only trespass to dwelling according to SC. But Trinidad says youre not even sure if hell go thru the wall.

Q. What is an indeterminate offense?
A. When it is susceptible of various interpretations.

Q. People v. Gonzales. 3 men entered a house and hit the man in the house. They were charged with attempted robbery.
A.

Q. Is it still indeterminate if they take the wallets?
A.

Q. A doctor performs an abortion. Police want to do an entrapment. A policewoman goes to the doctor, puts a pillow and says
she needs an abortion. Doctor arrives for the abortion. He boils the abortion instruments. Police arrive. He is charged of
attempted abortion. Can he be convicted? Is the boiling indicative of intent to abort? Cant he say hes just boiling it to clean it?
A. Yes, he can be convicted. It is an equivocal act. Susceptible to many interpretations but when the intent has already been
established, even if the overt act is equivocal, it is now indicative of the crime. In this example, the intent to abort has already
been established. The acts show his intent to abort. But if there was no prior agreement to abort, then you cannot charge him.

Q. Differentiate between subjective and objective phase of the felony
A.

Q. X wants to poison his wife, so he bought explosives so he can watch his wife explode. He wasnt able to light the explosives.
Is he punishable?
A.

Q. X and Y plan to rob the bank. X waits for Y who never shows up. Y reports to police re: their conspiracy. Authorities saw X
waiting for Y. They arrested X for attempted robbery. Is this correct?

15
A. If the crime is attempted robbery and the act is just the act of waiting, he cannot be convicted. There is no direct relation to
the offense. Overt act must have a direct relation to the offense. Waiting does not mean he is going to rob the bank. However, if
he admits that he was there to rob the bank, and then he can be convicted on the basis of his submission.

Q. Suppose that X waits for Y then goes in the bank with his firearms. He is walking in the bank with his firearms. Authorities
inspect and find them then arrest him and charge his with attempted robbery.
A.

Q. What is an overt act
A.

Q. X wants to kill his wife by poisoning her. He mixes the poison with the food of his wife. Wife wakes up, but the husband
dropped the plate of the wife and grabs the spoon from the wife. Can you charge husband with attempted parricide?
A.

Q. What is the concept of desistance?
A.

Q. What is the effect of spontaneous desistance in an attempted felony?
A.

Q. Objective v. Subjective of the felony
A.

Q. Where does it stop for it to be subjective?
A.

Q. What is a frustrated stage of a felony?
A.

Q. X aims for the chest and shoots Y. There is mortal wound but Y does not die. Can you convict X of frustrated homicide even
without the physicians testimony? Can this be frustrated homicide?
A. Yes, as long as you can prove the intent to kill. If the intent to kill cannot be proven, it will only be serious physical injuries

Q. X aims his gun at Y but misses and does not inflict any wound. Can be charged with attempted homicide, even if there is no
wound?

16
A. Yes, even if there is no wound, because of Xs intent to kill, he can be liable for attempted homicide.

Q. What is the significance of a mortal wound in homicide?
A. The absence of the mortal wound makes the act attempted homicide even if there is intent to kill. Therefor the presence of the
mortal wound makes the act frustrated or consummated homicide.

Q. Frustrated v. Attempted Homicide
A. Frustrated Homicide does not belie on the belief of the accused if the person is dead or not. The issue is whether or not a
mortal wound was caused. If there was a mortal wound, then you can convict one of frustrated homicide due to the intent to kill.
On the other hand, in attempted homicide does not need a mortal wound even there is intent to kill.

Q. Can you think of crimes, which do not have a frustrated stage?
A. Corruption of public officials, Arson and Robbery or Theft.

Q. X is caught beating the police light by a police officer. X hands his license with 100 pesos. Policeman accepts. What are
the crimes?
A. The crime of the police official is direct bribery. Crime of X is corruption. Both are already at the consummated stage.

Q. What is the policeman does not accept?
A. There is only attempted corruption on the party of X. Police has no crime.

Q. Stages of arson
A. In arson, the slightest burning is already consummation of the crime. There is also an attempted stage when one shows intent
to burn. For example, pouring kerosene all over the house but the authorities stop the criminal. There is no frustrated arson.
However, in Atty. Amuraos book there is a stray case. Atty. Trinidad is of the opinion that the case is wrong.

Q. Stages of robbery or theft
A. As soon as you acquire and posses the thing, the crime of robbery or theft is already consummated. If you are stopped, then it
is attempted robbery. There is no frustrated stage for these crimes.

Q. Gravamen of offense in rape? What consummates rape?
A. The slightest penetration of the labia consummates rape. Not the pudendum. Also take note that there must be penetration, not
mere touching.

Q. Can a rape victim be a virgin?
A. Yes because the hymen is far from the labia.

17

Q. X goes on top of the woman and fondles her private parts for 2 hours. Is this attempted rape?
A. No. It would be acts of lasciviousness in acts of lasciviousness; there are lewd designs or sexual designs upon a person. If this
were to be rape, the perpetrator would have penetrated immediately.

Q. Acts of lasciviousness v. Attempted rape
A. In attempted rape, there must be intent to have carnal knowledge.

Q. In adultery, the gravamen is sexual intercourse. Each intercourse is a count in adultery. Is there a frustrated stage?
A. No. Once you have sexual intercourse and perform all the acts of execution, it is impossible that sex is not produced as a
consequence. Remember that in the frustrated stage, all acts of the execution necessary to produce the felony has been
performed but the crime is not produced by reason of some cause independent of the will of the perpetrator.

Q. Is desistance legally effective after the passing of the subjective phase?
A.

MEETING 4

Article 8 11 (a)
Q. What is conspiracy?
A.

Q. Is conspiracy punishable?
A.

Q. Give examples of when conspiracy is punishable
A. Crimes against the state such treason. Trinidad says that since the crime is against the state, if the crime is committed, then
no one will survive the crime, thats why the conspiratorial act is punished.

Q. Is it possible to be charged for conspiracy and proposal?
A. No. Once the proposal is accepted, the parties become conspirators.

Q. X and Y conspire to commit rebellion. X backs out. Y commits acts of rebellion. Did X, the one who backed out incur?
A. Yes. It is punishable conspiracy. Conspiracy in this case is the inchoate offense. Conspiracy alone consists the crime; there
is no need to do any further act. Once they actually commit rebellion, they are liable to rebellion, not rebellion and conspiracy.

18
Once you perform the object of a punishable conspiracy, you become liable for the offense because conspiracy becomes a means
of incurring the crime.

Q. What if X and Y Conspire to commit treason. Only X commits treason.
Y is not liable for treason because he did not commit treason. But he is liable for conspiracy.

Q. What are the two kinds of conspiracy?
A. Express and Implied Conspiracy. Express conspiracy is when there is a prior agreement between the parties. In this case, it is
possible that not all the conspirators are at the scene of the crime. For example, the mastermind, who is a principal by induction,
does not usually appear at the crime scene.
As for an implied conspiracy, it is important that everyone is at the scene of the crime when they execute an act. It is another
term for an instant agreement. To be liable, the party must have performed an act in furtherance of the crime or showed support.

Q. How do you prove express conspiracy?
A. Previous agreements, Direct committed acts, providing moral support or assistance or moral ascendancy.

Q. WXYZ agree to commit murder. They plan to kill X in his house. Is it possible that all are charged under conspiracy even if
only one or some are present? Do they have to be at the scene of the crime?
A.

Q. What is the participation of a person who is a conspirator but not at the scene of the crime?
A. It depends. If it is an express conspiracy, the person can still be held liable.

Q. WXYZ plan to rape their next-door neighbor. W went in. X held the arms of the offended party. Y opened the legs. Z
penetrated her. Can W claim that he was not liable for rape because he only opened the door?
A.

Q. Is negligence possible in conspiracy?

Q. If a person is charged with homicide thru negligence, can you prove conspiracy?

Q. Is negligence compatible with conspiracy?
A. No


19
Q. Is it important to determine degree of participation in conspiracy?
A.

Q. Does there have to be equal participation in conspiracy
A.

Q. WXYZ conspire to kill A. W drives the car. X hold arms. Y acts as look out. Z is supposed to stab the offending party.
Before Z stabs the offending party, W leaves because of a phone call. Is W liable?
A. No. Desistance made during conspiracy, if made before an overt act by the conspirators, makes the desistance legally
effective.

Q. What if Z only stabs the leg? A tiny scratch is made then the call comes in. X leaves. Is W liable?
A. Yes. Once there is an overt act, the desistance of a conspirator is useless.

Q. XYZ rob a house. House is filled with paintings. X took 10 murals. Y got 7. Z about 4. They are now convicted for 100
thousand each and imprisonment. Z says he will pay less. Is he correct?
A.

Q. In conspiracy, can you acquit one of the conspirators, and convict the others? Is it possible that one of them is acquitted, while
the others are convicted?
A. Yes

Q. XYZ plan to rob a house. They arrive at the house and announce the robbery. The owner screams. X stabs the owner. X is
charged with Robbery with Homicide. So are the others. Can Y and Z claim they are not party of the Homicide?
A. Yes. There are certain crimes, which are indivisible, meaning you cannot split the two offenses. If the offense is indivisible,
everyone is liable. These crimes are Robbery and homicide. Rape and homicide. Robbery and rape. In robbery, killing is a
natural consequence of the crime. The announcement of robbery is announcement that human life is also in danger.

Q. What should Y and Z do for the judge to rule in their favor?
A. If you prove that Y and Z tried to prevent the assault, then only the one who committed the 2
nd
crime is liable.
To recap, as a general rule, conspirators are liable for the unplanned crime. Exception is when the conspirators can prove that
they tried to prevent the second crime.


20
Q. XYZ plan to kill caretakers of a villa and the owner. Owner arrives, XYZ wanted to poison. Rice A has rat urine. Owner
doesnt eat it. Plain rice had chips of glass, which were accidentally put. Owner dies. Do you blame XYZ for the death of the
owner?
A. XYZ are not liable. You cannot kill the person who died. The object of conspiracy is to kill the person with rat urine. If he
died due to something else, he cannot be liable for the death. Even if you willed his death. It is not attempted homicide because
in attempted homicide you can still change your mind and desist commission of the crime. If he died because of what he ate, the
object of conspiracy did not cause his death

Q. What is the Amount of proof needed to establish conspiracy
A.

Q. What is implied conspiracy
A.

Q. In implied conspiracy is it necessary that all the conspirators are present at the scene of the crime?
A. Yes.

Q. Is it enough that they are at the scene of the crime?
A. No.

Q. What is a proposal to commit a crime
A.

Q. X proposes to Y that they commit rebellion. If Y agrees, what is the liability of X and Y?
A.

Q. X proposes. Y accepts. They then commit rebellion. What is the liability? What happens to the proposal?

Q. What is a special law?
A.

Q. In case of conflict of RPC and Special law, which should prevail? Exception?
A.

Q. What is article 10?

21
A.

Q. What is a special law?
A. Punishes offenses, which are not in the penal code. They do not amend the penal Code.

Q. If there is anything missing in special law, what is the role of the RPC? Exception.
A. The RPC is supplementary. It provides for what is missing.

Q. When can the RPC NOT supplement the special law?
A. The RPC cannot supplement special law when there is express prohibition in the special law prohibiting the application the
RPC provisions or when the application of the special law is impracticable, unfeasible and conflicting.

Q. Situation where RPC cannot supplement what is missing in the special law?
A. When there is no express prohibition in the special law, if the application law is in conflict, then you do not apply the RPC.

Q. In case of conflict between the RPC and the special law, which one prevails?
A. The special law.

Q. What RPC provisions cannot be applied to special laws?
A. Article 48, Complex Crimes. Art 6, Stages of commission of the crime because there are no frustrated and attempted stages in
the special laws, Provisions in the RPC which are specifically applicable to special laws, Provision on the interruption of
prescriptive period, Retroactivity of laws if favorable to the accused, Article 100 on civil liability. Mitigating, Aggravating
circumstances, graduation of liabilities.

Q. What RPC provisions apply to special laws?
A. Subsidiary penalty, Forfeiture.

Q. X is going to Canada. He has in his vest, pocket, Gold bars. Under special law, prohibits exportation of gold bars unless you
secure permit from central bank. X did not secure permit. Can he be charged?
A.

Q. X is charged with violation of Election Code. X was convicted and sentenced. New law amending penalties reducing. Can
you apply the reduced penalty?
A.


22
Q. Suppose that as a special law regarding the Dangerous Drugs Act reduces the penalties are reclusion perpetua, depending on
grams of drugs possessed. Do you ignore the penalties in the DDA?
A.

Q. Different types of felonies?
A.

Q. Y stabs X. X suffers a mortal wound. If there is no physicians testimony, can you convict X for frustrated homicide?
A. No. The statement that one suffers a mortal wound is self-serving. This is frustrated homicide only.

MEETING 5
Q. Difference between Admission of guilt and Admission of fact
A. An admission of fact is a pre-requisite to claiming justifying circumstances. This is why the burden or proof is with the
defendant. Ex. Admission of killing a person.

Q. What are justifying circumstances?
A.

Q. Is there civil liability in justifying circumstances?
A.

Q. What is the first justifying circumstance?
A.

Q. 1st requisite
A.

Q. Are all aggressions unlawful?
A. Not all aggression is unlawful.

Q. Example of lawful aggression
A.

Q. X comes home and finds intruder in her house touching her jewelry. X shoots the intruder. Is she justified?
A.


23
Q. X is walking on a dark alley. A man jumps behind her. She kills the man. Is she justified?
A. Yes. Honor is in danger.

Q. Man is at a party. Ends up making out with a girl in his car. Then he realizes the girl is a man. He pushes the girl-guy out
and starts kicking him. The girl-guy stabs him. Is girl-guy justified?
A. No.

Q. Principle behind justifying circumstances
A.

Q. Burden of proving self-defense
A.

Q. Doctrine of stand your ground when in the right
A.

Q. Right to defend property
A.

Q. Does one have to wait for assault of property?
A. X and Y agree to fight at 4 pm. At 3:30 PM, X stabs Y. Can Y claim self-defense?

Q. X is 6 ft. Y is aims a gun at him. Y is a 3 year old. X throws a knife and kills Y. Is X justified?
A.

Q. X kills Y. Police finds X with the murder weapon. X says nothing but on the day of trial, he claims self-defense. Will the
judge believe him?
A.

Q. X and Y fight. X gets a knife. Y wrestles the knife. X climbs a tree and throws a big rock at Y. Y shoots him. Is Y
justified? What if the tree is bare and there is only 1 rock? What if X throws a coconut, which is harder than a rock?
A.

Q. X and Y are fighting. X draws a knife. Y gets the knife and stabs X on the chest. Is Y justified?
A.


24
Q. What if X if 6 ft and Y is 48. Y has a knife and stabs X.
A.

Q. What if Y stabs him more after stabbing X on the chest?
A.

Q. What does reasonable means employed mean?
A.

Q. Y finds out about her husbands affair with X. She goes to Xs house and strangles X when X opens the door. X kills Y. Is
X, the other woman justified?
A.

Q. Is a slap on the face unlawful aggression?
A.

Q. If X slaps Y on the face and Y stabs X, is Y justified?
A.

Q. X punches Y on the face really hard. All of Xs teeth fall off. X shoots with a riffle and ends up killing Y and other people.
X justified?
A.

Q. Unlawful provocation v. unlawful aggression
A.

Q. Requisites of provocation
A.

Q. X and Y are Best friends. G is the ex of X. G and Y make out in front of X. X is about to stab Y. Y gets hold of the knife and
stabs X. Is the kissing of G and Y sufficient provocation coming from Y?
A.

Q. Husband catches his wife kissing his friend. Husband is about to stab his friend but his friend kills him first. Is this self-
defense?

25
A.

Q. What are the requisites of defense of relatives?
A.

Q. X and Y are arguing. B is Xs brother. X draws out a knife and is about to kill Y. Y gets the knife and is now about to kill X.
B shoots Y. Is B justified?
A.

Q. Same facts. X and B are brothers. But this time X and Y agree to fight. X is about to stab Y. Y takes hold of the knife and is
now about to stab X. B shoots Y. Is B justified?
A.

Q. XYZ are friends. They all agree to kill A by stoning them to death. While they are stoning A to death, A brings out a gun and
aims at Z. The brother of Z walks in and sees A pointing his gun. The brother does not know about the agreement of XYZ. The
brother of Z shoots A. Will the brother of Z be justified?
A.

Q. Who are the relatives covered by this provision
A.

Q. Husband and wife obtain legal separation. The husband kills the dude raping his wife. Is he covered by this provision?
A.

Q. Why is it important to know the difference of defense of relatives v. defense of strangers? Which requisite is different?
A.

Q. Requisite no. 3 is the main difference
A.

Q. X sees his friends about to rape his wife. He shoots his friend. His reason for shooting was because he hated his friend, not
because he wanted to save his wife. He merely figured that now would be the perfect opportunity to kill his friend. Is he
justified?
A.


26
Q. Who are the relatives within he same decree?
A.

Q. Meaning of "by affinity"?
A.

Q. Consanguinity vs. affinity
A.

Q. Up to what degree of relative by consanguinity is covered
A.

Q. Requisites for defense of stranger
A.

MEETING 6

Q. Requisites of state of necessity?
A.

Q. Suppose X and Y are on a banca in the middle of the waters. The banca capsizes and it cannot hold two of them. Only one
can stay to survive. X punches Y. Y survives. Is there criminal liability for X?
A. Yes. X is justified therefor he incurs no criminal liability because of the preservation. Paragraph 4 is worded wrongly. The
law contemplates either a greater evil or an equal evil/injuries that are impending.

Q. What if there is a prohibition against using that size of the banca. Will X still be exempted from criminal liability?
A. The rule is that when you are put in such a situation because you violated a law, you are no longer justified. If you are
negligent, even if the requisites for justification are present, you will not be justified. You are going to go to jail because you
violated the law, which prohibited the act. (Atty. Trinidad says this doesnt make sense)

Q. X is convicted for a crime and is currently serving sentence. He escapes prison. Is his act justified?
A. No justified evasion of sentence.

Q. Is justifying circumstances, is there civil liability?

27
A. No. As a general rule, the accused is relieved from criminal and civil liabilities because the victim in the aggressor. However,
in paragraph 4, avoidance of an evil injury or injury, there is still civil liability because the person who is offended in this case is
a passive personality. The person at whose expenses someone benefitted is innocent. This brings about the state of necessity,
which requires the balancing of two evils.

Q. Requisites of fulfillment of a duty or lawful exercise of a right or office.
A.

Q. X is a police officer. He was patrolling a street. He saw two persons about to rob the store. He fired a warning shot but they
didnt mind him. He then shot both of them. Is this in fulfillment of duty?
A.

Q. Can he shoot merely because it is a consummated crime?
A.

Q. X is a prison guard. Y is to be executed on Monday at 11 am. There was a memo that there would be a brown out on Monday
at 11 am. So X executed the prisoner at 10:45. Is he justified?
A. No. Paragraph 5 applies.

Q. X is a detention prisoner and has been arrested for murder his neighbor. Chief of police makes a report. X attempts to escape.
The police fires a warning shot. X has a knife, so the police officer shot X. Is the police justified?
A. No. Force should be the last resort of the officers under rule 11 of the Rules of Court.

Q. Requisites of right of duty or lawful exercise
A.

Q. Rule to be observed in preventing arrests
A.

Q. Is there civil liability in paragraph 5?
A.

Q. Paragraph 6 Requisites
A.


28
Q. X is a governor. Y is the chief of staff. The term of the governor expires today. X gives an order to chief of staff to dismiss
another employee. He hands a note, which was signed yesterday. Y is to serve the note tomorrow. Is the act of Y justified?
A.

Q. When do you apply par 5 when do you apply paragraph 6.
A. Both are about duties. If there is no order from a subordinate, you apply paragraph 5. But once there is an order, you apply
paragraph 6.

Q. What are exempting circumstances?
A.

Q. Define insanity
A.

Q. How can you tell if a person is insane?
A. Concomitants of mental disorder are not necessarily manifestation of insanity

Q. X has been seeing a psychiatrist all his life. He misses a session for a week. He went home and sees wife and starts stabbing
her for no apparent reason. Was he insane at commission of the crime?
A.

Q. What is presumed regarding insanity?
A.

Q. What if it is proven that he is insane at time of killing? He is in asylum. He bribes his way and gets a pass. He goes home,
sees Santa clause and kills Santa? Assume that everyone in the asylum was insane thats why he was able to fool them.
A.

Q. What is the reckoning point of insanity as an exempting circumstance?
A. At the time of commission of the crime, not after the crime.

Q. Suppose X kills wife while sleepwalking. Is he exempted?
A. Yes. The state of somnambulism is embraced by the state of insanity.

Q. What if X kills Y during a terminal stage of malaria or rabies?

29
A. Exempted.

Q. What if X is hypnotized?
A. As of now, it is not exempting because it is alter-somnambulism. There is only partial loss of consciousness.

Q. Is kleptomania exempted?
A. Not exempting he is conscious of his acts. Is is presumed that his acts are voluntary.

Q. Is Pedophilia exempted?
A.

Q. Is direct testimony to prove insanity at commission of the crime?
A.

Q. What is the rule on minority? When is he exempt?
A. 15 and below - absolutely exempt. Above 15 below 18, you need to determine discernment. If he acted without discernment
intervention.

Q. What is discernment?
A.

Q. If a child 15 years and above acted with discernment. What is the procedure to follow?
A. If he acted with discernment diversion. If capable of change, he is exempted. But if he is not capable of changing, then his
sentence is suspended then he serves the sentence.

Q. What if he acted without discernment?
A.

Q. What is an accident?
A.

Q. It is a windy day. X is burning leaves. The leaves fly and burn a house. Is this an accident?
A.

Q. If first requisite is missing, what felony will be produced?

30
A.

Q. If it is a culpable felony, meaning not all requisites are not present, what is the penalty?
A.

Q. Requisites of paragraph 5
A.

Q. X and Y are kidnapped by bandits. The bandits tell X he has to beat up X.
A.

Q. XYZ rob a house. They realize the owner is a noisy woman. So they killed the woman. X tells Y to kill her. Y points gun at
X, X shoots the woman. Is he exempted?
A.

Q. X and Y classmates. X tells Y, Ill punch you if you dont punch our professor. Is there uncontrollable fear or irresistible
force?
A.

Q. What kind of force must be present?
A. Actual force, imminent force.

Q. Requisites of uncontrollable fear
A.

Q. What is the difference of par 5 irresistible force and 6 uncontrollable fear?
A. In Paragraph 5 irresistible force, the physical force actually exists and must come from a 3rd person. In paragraph 6,
uncontrollable fear, there is no threat via force.

Q. What is paragraph 7?
A.

Q. What kind of felony is in paragraph 7?
A.

MEETING 7

31
Q. Distinguish between Instigation and Entrapment
A. Difference is the mens rea. In entrapment, it comes from the accused. Entrapment is not a defense. Usually resorted to in
Buy-busy. Entrapment is a form of arrest. There is actual commission of the crime.
In instigation the criminal intent comes form the accused. There is a negation of criminal liability in instigation.

Q. Which one is an absolutory cause?
A. Instigation is absolutory because at best, we are tempted to commit crimes. At the very least, the police should stop
themselves from dangling prizes for us to commit such crimes.

Q. What is a frame up? Is there liability on the part of the officer? If the person is framed up, did he actually commit a crime?
A. Frame up is the opposite of entrapment. Accused is not committing a crime. Must be reviewed by court.
In entrapment, the subjective test focuses on the criminal such as his reputation, his tendency to commit such crimes. Objective
test focuses on the police in apprehension of the crime.

Q. What are mitigating circumstances?
A.

Q. Can a privileged mitigating be offset by an aggravating circumstance?
A.

Q. Is being over 70 years old a privileged circumstance?
A. No. It was before when the death penalty was present because it was not implemented if above 70 and that would lower the
degree of the punishment.

Q. Is minority privileged?
A. Yes.

Q. Par. 1 of mitigating circumstances.
A.

Q. Incomplete exempting circumstance of insanity?
A. No.

Q. Is there an incomplete exempting circumstance of minority?
A. No.


32
Q. In the first justifying circumstance of self-defense, is it possible to have incomplete self-defense without unlawful aggression?
A. Incomplete justifying- one or more requisites or elements is not present. See the requisites. If any are missing, then you can
invoke defense. There must always be unlawful aggression.

Q. Par 4 of 11 Incomplete State of necessity
A. X is dying of cancer. Tells his friend to kill her slowly. Physician does. Cannot state of necessity. But it can be incomplete
state of necessity.

Q. Incomplete Fulfillment of duty or exercise of a right
A. People v. Oanis. Police were looking for fugitive. Shot the person they saw sleeping. Incomplete fulfillment of duty.

Q. Incomplete Lawful order of superior?
A. Military says beat up subordinate. Not a lawful order but it is incomplete obedience to lawful order of superior.

Q. 15 and below?
A. Means the day before your birthday. If you commit a crime on your birthday, you are already 15, and the exemption is
removed. You are already the beginning the next 365 days of your life. Absolute exemption if 15 below

Q. Incomplete plea of accident?
A. If lawful act and intention is absent, then there is an intentional felony because there is unlawful act. If no due care or no fault
culpable felony. Under 365 of negligent felonies.
When requisite of lack of due care and lack of fault are absent you cannot invoke incomplete circumstance of accident.
Automatically under article 365.

Q. Par. 3 of Mitigating. What are the requisites?
A.

Note RE: PARAGRAPH 3 cannot invoke in culpable and special laws

Q. X is driving beyond driving speed. He runs over someone and kills someone. He is charged with reckless imprudence
resulting to homicide. Can he invoke lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong in culpable felonies?
A.

Q. Why cant you invoke lack of intent in negligent felonies?
A. In negligent, there is no intent.


33
Q. Can you invoke lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong this in special laws?
A.

Q. Can you invoke lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong in a conspiracy to inflict injuries, and in the process, someone dies?
A.

Q. X and Y are fighting. X hits Y on the head with a large piece of rock. Charged with murder. Can X invoke lack of intent to
commit so grave a wrong?
A.

Q. X is a nanny. She is taking care of a 2 year old. She then hits the baby who is throwing tantrums. Toddler dies. Can X
invoke lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong?
A.

Q. Evident disproportion between the means employed and the
A.

Q. X is raping a woman. X puts socks on mouth. She dies cause she cant breathe. Can X invoke lack of intent to commit so
grave a wrong? Even if its just 2 minutes?
A. Yes. The death of the person was not expected just because there was a sock in her mouth.

Q. What is sufficient provocation?
A.

Q. Husband and wife. Husband has no job. Wife berates him while in the room. Should have just married the cumpadre. The
next day, he kills his wife, is this sufficient provocation?
A. Yes.

Q. What if he kills her right after? Can it be mitigated even it was only verbal?
A. No when provocation is stale, the action becomes an aggression. Yes, even if it is only verbal, it an be provocation.

Q. What does immediate in provocation mean?
A.

Q. If he kills her the next day, is this immediate vindication of a grave offense?
A.

34

Q. Vindication of grave offense v. Sufficient provocation
Provocation directed at the accused or person committing felony, must be immediate
Vindication against accused or relatives, proximate (as long as effects of offense are still agonizing the accused)

Q. Can the relative of accused be the person provoked in sufficient provocation?
A.

Q. What is the basis for mitigation of a grave offense?
A.

Q. X is at a party. He says that all Customs are robbers. Accused is from customs. Accused kills X. Can this be mitigated?
A. No. It was a mere general statement. It was not personal.

Q. Accused saw X beating up brother. The next day accused looked for the person who beat up the brother. He kills this person.
Can passion and obfuscation be invoked?
A.

Q. Does law allow considerable lapse of time to pass in passion ad obfuscation?
A. No

Q. Does the law allow considerable lapse of time in provocation?
A. No. It must be immediate.

Q. Sufficient provocation v. Passion and obfuscation?
A.

Q. Boy and Girl are live-in parties. Girl goes to the convent. Boy urges her to come back but she refuses so he hacks her to
death. Can he invoke passion and obfuscation?
A. No. Must come from lawful sentiments.

Q. Same facts. Finds girl having sex. Kills girl and the other guy. Can he invoke passion and obfuscation?
A. Yes.

Q. What was the difference between the two scenarios?
A. In the first, there is just a desire for self-fulfillment. In the second, there is hurt, which is a lawful sentiment.

35

Q. If he finds her in the arms of another man. He kills her the next day?
A. There is no passion or obfuscation.

Q. Mother comes homes. Finds daughter having sex with another man. Mother scolds boyfriend. Boyfriend stabs the mother.
Can he invoke passion or obfuscation?
A. No. Exercise of her right as a mom.

Q. X and Y are fighting. X kills Y. Can you claim passion and obfuscation arising from a fight?
A. No. It is inherent in all fights.

Q. What is a voluntary surrender?
A.

Q. Voluntary surrender and plea of confession are both present. Is there just one or two Mitigating circumstances?
A.

Q. X kills Y. After killing Y, X surrenders weapon but claims self-defense?
A. No. It must be unconditional.

Q. X kills Y then goes into hiding for a year. X surrenders only when his photos are posted. He surrenders. Is there voluntary
surrender?
A. Not anymore. If state incurred expenses in order to find you, even if there is no warrant, then the surrender is voluntarily,
regardless of what fugitive feels.

Q. Does the posting of bail mean voluntary surrender?
A.

Q. What about the plea of guilty in open court?
A.

Q. If x makes confession to police is this mitigating?
A.

Q. Par. 8.

36
A.

Q. If you're deaf but not dumb? Or you're dumb but not deaf, is this mitigating?
A.

Q. Last sentence?
A.

Q. Polio victim committed estafa. Mitigated?
A.

Q. X freak accident. Lost his tongue. He cannot speak. He is in love with his neighbor so he rapes her. Will his liability be
mitigated?
A.

Q. Is insanity covered by par 9?
A.

Q. Can kleptomania invoke par 9?
A.

Q. What should the illness do?
A.

Q. If creditor does not want to pay the debtor. Debtor is spending extravagantly, is that a mitigating circumstance if creditor kills
debtor

Missing: notes re: Special laws

37

MEETING 8

Q. What is an Aggravating Circumstance? What are the 5 kinds of Aggravating Circumstances?

38
A.

Q. What are generic aggravating circumstances?
A. Atty. Trinidad: All are generic aggravating circumstances.

Q. What are qualifying circumstances?
A.

Q. What are inherent circumstances?

Q. What are specific aggravating circumstances?
A.

Q. What are special aggravating circumstances?
A.

Q. What is the difference between generic and special aggravating circumstance?
A.

Q. Difference between qualifying and generic circumstance?
A.

Q. Do you still need to allege generic circumstances?
A.

Q. Circumstance of treachery. If you want to make sure the crime is murder, nor just homicide. You write in the complaint that
the crime is attended with treachery and the facts constituting treachery are alleged.
A.

Q. Requisites for paragraph 1.
A.

Q. Who is the offended person in par 1?
A.

39

Q. If X is the director of health. He has the vaccines for chicken pox to be distributed. He appropriates a box of the vaccines.
He is charged with malversation. Can you aggravate his liability for malversation with abuse of office by public officers?
A.

Q. If a police officer holds a gambling session in his house and asks his fellow police officers. He is charged with illegal
gambling. Will you aggravate his liability for illegal handling by abuse of public position?
A.

Q. X is in his police uniform. He goes to the house of Y and says he has to go to the precinct. Y goes along with him. X kills Y
in the car. Will you aggravate the crime by abuse of public office?
A.

Q. X is a licensed officer in the mayors office. His job includes giving licenses to applicants. His neighbors give him 4 thousand
each so he could purchase for them computers at discount. He pockets the money. Will his liability be aggravated by the abuse
of public position?
A.

Q. Is it essential that the crime be related to the functions of his office/official functions or is it enough that he uses the
ascendance of prestige of his office?
A.

Q. Par 2 Requisites

Q. X is the mayor in charge of giving permits and licenses. He visits the market to check if he needs to renew vendors. Vendor
A and B are arguing. A stabs B.
A. Par 2 in contempt of a mayor in authority because the Mayor is outside the premises of his office performing or discharging
his official duties.

Q. Mayor is campaigning for election. A stabs B in front of mayor. Will that be a discharge of official duties outside his office?
A. No.

Q. A and B are fighting. Mayor tries to pacify them. Vendor A stabs Mayor. Does Par 2 apply?
A. No. It is par. 5. However Trinidad says this is questionable because Direct assault (person authority is attacked in the
performance of his duties).

40

Q. What if A and B stab each other in front of the mayor?
A.

Q. Requisites of Par. 5
A.

Q. Suppose Vendor A and B had a fight and they decide to meet again at the city hall. Vendor A stabs Vendor B inside the office
of the mayor, who is working. What applies? Paragraph 2 or 5?
A. Par. 5 applies because the crime is done in the presence of the person in authority who is discharging the function of his office
in his office premises.

Q. Mayor tries to pacify them. A stabs mayor. Will you apply paragraph 5?
A.

Q. Difference of Par 2 and 5?
A.

Q. Chief Executive is in a salon. X kills Y in front of her. Will Par 5 apply?
A. Yes. As long as you commit a crime in the presence of the Chief executive, regardless of where he or she is, the crime is
aggravated.

Atty Trinidad Notes re: difference of par. 2 and 5
Note that par 2 and 5 are separated. This is to emphasize that in the place of Palace of chief executive and place of religious
worship, the chief executive doesnt even have to be there, nor does he have to be performing any functions/any mass being
celebrated. The person in authority can be the person violated under Par. 5. However Atty. Trinidad thinks this is already a
separate crime. No need to aggravate because it is a crime against a public authority.

Par. 2 and 5.
The offended party is a person in authority only. Agents are not included. Persons in authority (see book). An Agent is there to
maintain peace and order. A person in authority has a power over a special group. Ex. Director of Health. Super intendent of
schools. Head of Police. You have jurisdiction over a certain class. Agents are not included as offended parties in par2 and 5.
Similarities. Both of them concern persons in authority. These persons are in the discharge of their official functions.
Difference is that in Par 2, the person is discharging his official functions outside the premises of his office.
In par 5, the offended party is the person in authority discharging his functions within his office.
In par 2, the person in authority CANNOT be the offended party. In par. 5, the person in authority can be the offended party.

41
In Par 5, it does not matter if the chief executive is not in his palace. It does not matter is he is not performing his functions. As
long as you commit the crime in the palace, this applies.

Q. X sees his friend praying in the chapel in school. X goes in and stabs Y. Will paragraph 5 apply?
A. No. Consider that the chapel is not the same category of the chief executive. The church is as special as the palace of the
chief executive.
But if mass is regularly held even if chapel, still aggravating

Q. Par. 3
A. Sex, Age and Rank.

Q. When is sex aggravating?
A. When the person deliberately chose or ignored the sex of the offended party but not when being female is inherent in the crime
such as the crime of rape. This is applicable only in crimes against persons and honor.

Q. Can the male be the offended party?
A. No. Male sex is presumed capable of defending himself

Q. If the woman looks like a man and you inflict physical injuries on her thinking that she was male, does this aggravating
circumstance apply?
A. No.

Q. Husband and wife are separated but share custody. Husband beats up his son and because his ex wife was nagging him, he
punches her. Will sex be aggravating?
A.

Q. Female Teacher picks on a college student. The college student one day beats up the teacher. Will sex be aggravating?
A.

Q. Can you consider this aggravating circumstance in the crime of rape?
A.

Q. If he looks like a man and you realize its a woman, will this apply?
A. No. It does not matter who the offended party is.

42

Q. Can you consider this aggravating circumstance in a robbery case?
A.

Q. Do you consider sex as aggravating if there was a previous relationship between the parties?
A. No

Q. Does sex aggravate robbery?
A. No.

Q. Suppose the employee is 70 years old. Employer is a strong 25 year old man. The employee does not instructions well.
Employer is upset and beats up the employee. Will age be aggravating?
A. No. Age is not aggravating. Exception is when there is a subordinate superior relationship between the younger and older
party.

Q. Suppose that X is sleeping and arose to the sound of a noise outside the window. There is a procession of children. He went
down, grabbed one of the boys and inflicts serious physical injuries. Will age be aggravating?
A. No. Age is not aggravating when the offender who looses his volitional faculties commits the crime.

Q. When is rank aggravating?
A.

Q. If a lawyer attacks a doctor, will rank be aggravating?
A.

Q. What is a dwelling?
A. Any place for rest and recreation that must be a structure.

Q. What does dwelling include? What other parts of the house are included?
A.

Q. What about the dependencies? Is the foot of the stairs part of the dwelling?
A.

Q. If a person enters a house that is forbidden to be entered, and is now charged for trespassing, will dwelling be aggravating in
the crime of trespassing?

43
A.

Q. How about in robbery? In what kind of robbery is trespassing inherent?
A.

Q. X breaks in the house of Y by breaking the window. This is robbery with force upon things. Is dwelling aggravating?
A.

Q. If he goes in the house thru the door because it was unlocked. Owner starts to scream, so he holds the gun against the owner.
This is now robbery with violence and intimidation against persons. Is dwelling aggravating in robbery with violence against
persons?
A.

Q. X is a driver and his employer was berating him in his car. X kills the Employer when they get to the house. Is dwelling
aggravating? Does the provocation remove the aggravating circumstance of dwelling?
A. Yes. Even if the owner gave the provocation, it was given outside the dwelling. But if the provocation happens inside the
house, then the dwelling will not be aggravating.

Q. Difference of vacationer and guest?
A.

Q. X is in his house. Y enters the house and drags X out in to his car. Y drives around the kills X in the basketball court of the
village. Will dwelling be aggravating?
A.

Q. First floor of the house is the dental clinic. Second floor is where dentist lives. While he was working, a robber barges in and
stabs the dentist. Is dwelling aggravating?
A.

Q. Suppose that there is a prostitute house. There is a small room where the prostitutes can rest. X, a prostitute, decides to rest
there while the others are entertaining. The ex boyfriend of X goes to the prostitute house to look for X and finds her in the room
and kills her. Will dwelling be aggravating?
A. No. Even if they get to rest there, it is still a public or business place, which takes it out of the meaning of dwelling. Dwelling
should be peaceful and is the sanctuary. If there is commercial activity going on, it is not a dwelling.

Q. If you live in a mobile home, will dwelling be aggravating? Or the cars where the actors rest?

44
A. Yes, if you can prove that they rest and recreate there.

Q. If the person owns the mobile home and he is killed there. Is it aggravating?
A.

Q. X is a vendor in the market. He sleeps there four times a week. He is then killed in the market. Will dwelling be
aggravating?
A.

Q. Suppose that X visits her sister who has just given birth. While she was there, Y goes there and kills X. Will the crime be
aggravating?
A. No. Not aggravating.

Q. What if X stays there for 3 nights?
A. Yes. It is now aggravating.

Q. What if you check in a hotel and the crime is committed in your hotel room?
A. Dwelling is aggravating. Note the difference of hotel guest and hotel patron. Hotel guest is entitled to the protection of the
hotel. It must be done in the hotel room. If it is done in the lobby, it is no longer aggravating.

Q. Husband and Wife have a friend. They allow the friend to stay in the house. Wife and friend have an affair. In the liability for
adultery, will dwelling be aggravating?
A. Aggravating as against the wife, but not against the paramour according to the SC. But Atty. Trinidad disagrees because they
have identical rights and privileges, which makes the dwelling no longer aggravating.

Q. What is abuse of confidence?
A.

Q. When do you abuse confidence?
A.

Q. If a nanny of a baby kills the baby. Is this aggravating?
A. Yes.

Q. X is a provincial lass. Her mom calls a friend and asks the friend if she can stay there. The friend molests X. Was there
abuse of confidence?

45
A. No because there was no showing that the provincial lass showed an confidence in the friend. But if she later on trusts him,
then yes there is abuse of confidence because of the trust reposted. Living together engenders some sort of trust, there has to be
another relationship such as guardianship or support to shows that one has already the trusted the other. Not all forms of living
together builds a case for abuse of confidence. Even if you all live together in dormitory. If she then losses her trust in him,
there is no longer abuse in confidence.

Q. What if the provincial lass steal the watch of the friend? Is it aggravating as abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness?
A.

Q. In abuse of confidence, must there be an existing relationship, which engenders confidence?
A. Yes. There must be direct relation between the offender and offended party.

Q. How about in obvious ungratefulness?
A. No need for relationship between the offender and offended. No antecedent relationship. Example, X brings beggar to the
house and X steals.

Q. What is night time?
A. Sunset to Sunrise according to the Civil Code.

Q. X waits for Y, knowing that she gets out of office at 4 pm. Y comes out at 8 pm. X shoots Y. Is this aggravating?
A. Accused must have intentionally or deliberately used nighttime to perform the act.

Q. Rule on accidental encounters.
A.

Q. When will the use of flashlight not negate the existence of nighttime? (When will night time still be present despite the
luminosity of the flashlight?)
A. If the flashlight provides luminosity, aggravating circumstance of night time is not applicable.

But when you use the flashlight so you can commit the crime at night, then night time is still aggravating notwithstanding the
minimum light provided the flashlight. So as long as you use it because you want to commit the crime at night, then the
flashlight does not negate the finding of aggravating circumstance of night.

Q. Nanny murders a 3 year old toddler at 11 am. She waits until 8 pm before throwing the body of the toddler into the sea. Is
nighttime aggravating since the crime was committed in the morning?
A. Yes. Crime of Murder is committed in the morning. If you seek nighttime for escape, then night time aggravates.

46
1. Specially sought for by the offender.
2. Aids in the facilitation of the crime
3. Allows escape without discovery

Q. Is it aggravating if the crime commences in the morning and ends at night?
A.

Q. Two tests in aggravating to see if there is presence of aggravating circumstance of nighttime?
A. 1. Objective Test -
2. Subjective test especially sought for.

Q. Doctrine of absorption in nighttime
A. If the crime was committed at night and treachery also was used, nighttime will absorb treachery. Becomes significant in
crimes where treachery and other circumstances which may be absorbed in treachery are also present.

Q. Do the tests both have to be complied with?
A. No. Either will do.

Q. X rapes a woman at 5 pm. Crime was multiple rape. X ended at 10 pm. Was night time present?
A. Crime should be committed and terminated at night time. A rape that started at 5 pm, and ended at 8 pm is not aggravated by
nighttime. Especially if it is countinous. As long as all the motions are successive, so that you cannot say that the accused
entertained the advantage at night during that period.

Q. News reporter says that sunset is at 5:42 pm. At 5:42 pm, you commit the crime. Is this aggravating?
A. No. This is not immediately aggravating. As long as there is still light, there is no aggravating circumstance.

Q. What is an uninhabited place?
A. Mathematically, if the houses are at least 200 M away from one another, then it is uninhabited. If it is very far from the town,
it is also uninhabited. However, it is the nature of the place that is significant. For example if the houses are 100 M apart but the
houses are covered with shrubs, you cannot see anything in the house, any crime can be committed inside the house without
being detected, then the crime is still committed in an uninhabited place. Note that this does not apply to cities. You cannot
perceive with your senses? Then that is uninhabited.

Q. What is the linear measure of an uninhabited house
A. At least 200 meters away from each other.


47
Q. Xs body was discovered 10 minutes after the crime was committed. Was this in an uninhabited place?
A.

Q. Houses are 100 M away form each other but covered with lanterns, shrubs and vines. X kills Y in one of these houses. Is this
an uninhabited place?
A.

Q. If an American white man is killed in a place where aetas live, is this an uninhabited place?
A.

Q. Is it enough that the place is uninhabited ex. No one lives in this place.
A.

Q. Crime happens in Subic. There is an office excursion. X stabs Y on the banca. Banca is 100 M away from shore. Is this
uninhabited?
A. Yes. Probability of help is impossible.

Q. What is a band?
A. At least 4 armed men. Refers to women. Arms mean anything capable of inflicting violence. Not necessarily fire arms.

Q. Group 1 has 4 members, all armed. Group 2 has 3 members, also all armed. Group 1 kills everyone in Group 2. Is band
present?
A. No band if the opponents are equally armed. If the opponents are more or less equally armed, then band will not be an
aggravating because this will no longer facilitate the commission of the crime by one as against the other. Only if the 4 are
armed, and the other are not armed, then it is aggravating.

Q. A forcefully takes O from his house. They go to a hideout where B, C and D were waiting for O. All are armed. A then
leaves. BCD all stab O. Is there band?
A. In a band, all of the armed men must be principals by direct participation. Therefor this was not a band because they did not
unite for the commission of a crime. If one is only a principal by inducement and there are 3 principals by direct participation,
then there is no band.

Q. Can you consider band as against an accomplice?
A. No. It is appreciated only against the principals by direct participation numbering in at least 4.

Q. Can band be taken against accomplices?

48
A. No only principals by direct participation numbering by at least 4.

Q. Does band absorb aid of armed men?
A. Yes.

Q. Is band absorbed in treachery?
A. Yes.

Q. 4 armed men attack X. X uses a Samurai Sword in the room, which was merely for display. Is there a band?
A. Band will still be present. The absence or presence of this circumstance does not rely on the success or failure of the
perpetrator. As long as the 4 armed men purposely compose themselves as a band to facilitate a crime, it does not matter if
efforts line up with their plans.

Q. X wants to kill his wife. So he met with two men. They arrive at Xs house at 9 pm. The two men go there with armed men.
X kills the men. Is there a band?
A.

Q. What kind of aid? Is indirect aid still aid?
A. The armed men must be accomplices only.

Q. X wants to kill A. If X obtains the help of Y and Z, both armed, what is the crime of X? X kills A. Y and Z wait outside.
What is Xs crime? How about Y and Z?
A. For X, it is murder qualified by aid of armed men.

Q. Can you obtain the aid of armed men if X tells Y and Z, I want to kill A. Y and Z agree. They go the house and kill A
together. Did X commit murder with aid of armed men?
A. No. There was conspiracy, thus they are all principals by direct participation. Aid of armed men is present only in so far as
armed men are considered as accomplices. More than that, there is already conspiracy.

Q. No aid of armed men if the principle of ____ is present.
A. Conspiracy. Aid of armed men is not aggravating.

Q. What is recidivism?
A.


49
Q. X and Y are robbing a house. Earth shook. They hurried up and were able to rob more because of the earthquake. Is par. 7
present? Note that they were already robbing when the earthquake was happening?
A. No, because you cannot say that the accused took advantage of the calamity.

Q. When does par. 7 apply?
A. Only if the crime happens after the calamity happens.

Note: Aid of armed men can be either direct or indirect. The armed must not be principals because they cannot be armed men
from whom you are obtaining aid. When you say aid, they are not superior to the principal. If they are acting in a conspiracy,
then they are not acting as aids.

Q. What is recidivism?
A.

Q. X was convicted 30 years ago for homicide. He is convicted for serious physical injuries. Do you still consider this as
recidivism?

Q. X was convicted 20 years ago for homicide. Midway thru sentence, he is pardoned. Now charged with serious physical
injuries. Is he still recidivist not withstanding the pardon? How about amnesty?
A.

Q. Reitaracion/Habituatlity requisites
A.

Q. X is being tried for murder. He is convicted. 20 years ago, he served sentence for serious physical injuries. 15 years ago he
was convicted of serious physical injuries. This is pending. Is there reiteracion.
A.

Q. If a person is both a recidivist and a habitual criminal, what would he be? Recidivist or habitual
Q. Requisites for price, rewards or promise?
A.

Q. X and Y are BFFs. X is married to W and they are always fighting. Y kills W. X gives Y 100. Is this aggravated?
A. No because reward must be the primordial reason. No one was induced.

Q. Can you convict them under conspiracy?

50

Q. Failure of consideration. Do you still consider price reward or promise?
A.

Q. Evident premeditation requisites
A.

Q. Two kinds of conspiracy. Implied/Express. Express: can you assume that there is evident premeditation there?
A. Yes because they preplanned the crime before committing it.

Q. Implied. Can you assume evident premeditation?
A. No. Planning not manifest.

Q. X planned to kill Y after work. Out came Y. X shot him. Wrong person!
A. Nope, no evident premeditation here.

Q. X says I will kill the first person at the gym today. Y arrives then is killed.
A. There is evident premeditation.

Q. X tells Y everyday that he will kill him. X sees Y and kills him. Evident Premeditation?
A. No. Mere constant threats is a mere casual remark. Anything that happens unexpectedly with passio obfuscation or when
volitional faculties are impaired, there is no evident premeditation.

Q. Person to be killed is undetermined. (I will kill anyone I bump into)
A. Even if not identified, as long as a certain person will be killed. Object of the crime is undetermined but there is still a specific
person.

Q. X passes a particular route everyday. Y knows this. Y waits for X and shoots him. Is there evident pre meditation. (waiting
for a person who takes the same route he takes everyday)
A. No. Not automatically. (Case in book)

Q. If you kill Xs brother instead of X. Evident premeditation?
A. No. Q. Evident premeditation does not apply to error in personae.

Q. Whats the difference of Fraud. Cunning and Craft?

51
A. Words Fraud. Cunning and traitor Craft. If you hide identity Disguise. If you dont use words, it is cunning. If words
are used, it is fraud.
Cunning act in such as way so you wont be suspected.

Q. What is craft?
A. When you use cunning and trickery.

Q. Fraud?
A. When you use words.

Q. Disguise?
A. Hide identity

Q. XYZ robbed a house. X and Y tell Z theyll hangout but then they kill Z so they dont have to split the loot into 3. Is this
craft or deceit?
A. Fraud because words were used. If it simply says X lured without indicating what X said, then it is cunning.

Q. What do you use in fraud?
A.

Q. X took shabu. His eyes were very red. he did not want his parents to know that they did drugs. X visits them in sunglasses.
Is this disguise?
A. No. People see beyond your intentions. Purpose of disguise it to hide. Sunglasses also wont cover your entire face.

Q. X rapes a woman. X covers his face with charcoal. Is there disguise?
Q. X and Y boarded a jeepney pretending to be passengers. They then rob the other passengers. Is this robbery with craft or
fraud or disguise?
A.

Q. What aggravating circumstances by itself constitute a crime?
A.

Q. Par 12. in relation to section 62.
A. All constitute a crime.

Q. X throws explosive in house because he doesnt like the design. What is the crime

52
Q. Destruction of property. Not aggravating because the use of explosives already included by law in the crime. When the
aggravating circumstance is part of the crimes definition, you do not aggravate.

Q. What if you kill someone inside without intending to do so?
A. One act produces two grave felonies. Complex Crime of destruction of property and homicide. You do not aggravate.

Q. If you want to kill the owner via explosives
A. If there is intent to kill, murder qualified by par 12.

If intention is to kill, MURDER qualified by par 12. You no longer say it was aggravated unless it is parricide.
Parricide is qualified by relationship. You cannot qualify it again, therefor aggravating becomes generic.
par 12, although they are qualifying, if there is intent to kill, they give way to other circumstances to give way to murder.

Q. If you want to kill your wife in your house. You poison her. You burn your own house to hide her body . What is your
crime?
A. Murder and arson. If another crime is committed to conceal another offense, usually there are two offenses.

Q. If you dont like the house of your neighbor, and you throw explosives at it without intent to kill, what is your crime? it is
aggravated by use of explosives?
A. Destruction of property only. You do not aggravate with use of explosives because it is already included in destruction of
property. When the aggravating circumstance is already included by law in the definition of the crime, then you no longer
aggravate the crime. Use of explosives is part of destruction of property.

Q. What if your intention is to damage the house of the neighbor, you throw explosives not knowing that the head of the house is
there and he dies.
A. Since one act produces two grave felonies: Complex Crime of destruction of property with homicide.
If death is unintentional and you commit a crime which has par. 12 in its definition, you always produce Complex Crime of
resulting death with destruction of property. Complex crime is not aggravated.

Q. Suppose you want to kill by throwing explosives. Owner dies
A. if you use any of the means in paragraph 12 because your intention is to kill, you will always have Murder Qualified by the
means of par 12.

Q. When is there abuse of superior strength?
A.

53

Q. Requisites of abuse of superior strength?
A.

Q. X is a janitor who peeks through a hole in the dormitory. 10 girls ran after the janitor who is 85 lbs. Was there abuse of
superior strength?
A. No because there was passion and obfuscation

Q. Is there superior strength when there is passion and obfuscation?
A. No

Q. 85 lbs man who is 410 rapes a gymnast who is 110 lbs who is fit. Is this abuse of superior strength?
A.

Q. 3 men with knives running after a police officer who is holding a gun?
A.

Q. X intoxicates Y. X leaves him in the car and he dies of carbon monoxide. Is abuse of superior strength?
A. Totally unable to put up a defense means that it is treachery already.

Q. Treachery requisites
A.

Ceasefire
Atty. Trinidad Notes

Treachery
Definition
o sudden attack
o inability of defended party to put up a defense or
o employment of means which are consciously adopted so that the offended party cannot put up a defense
General Rule Treachery cannot be presumed
Exceptions- Treachery can be presumed from certain circumstances
o when the victim is a child, there is conclusive presumption of treachery
o if the head is decapitated or severed from the body treachery is assumed
however it is only a body part that is severed from the body, treachery is not presumed

54
unless you can prove that the party was removed while the victim was alive- but this
would be cruelty.
o if the hands are tied treachery is assumed
Frontal Attacks do not necessarily mean that there was no treachery
o possible that the attack was frontal but sudden
ex. X and Y were having dinner. Y then shoots X when they stand
o However, if the attack is frontal and the danger is visible and perceptible no treachery
Back Attack
o mere back wounds do not mean treachery
o if there is only one wound, you cannot presume that there was treachery
o If there are multiple back wounds, then treachery is presumed
but rebuttable
Suddenness of Attack does not necessarily mean treachery
o possible that there was a preceding fight
When should treachery be present? i
o if the fight is continuous or cannot be divided into stages, treachery must be present at inception of the fight.
one continuous attack, no treachery at inception, no treacher
o if assault can be broken into stages, treachery must be present at the time the fatal blow was inflicted.
Effects of Treachery
o Treachery Qualifies Homicide to Murder or
o Simple aggravating circumstance
ex. physical injuries with treachery still serious physical injuries, the crime is not qualified.
if there is a warning of the danger, then there is no treachery
o ex. X is walking to ABC. X shoots A and then Y. C cannot claim treachery because he was already
forewarned of the impending danger
Name calling does not amount to a warning
o thus even if the victim was called, there may still be treachery
Concept of treachery impossibility to put up a defense

IGNOMINY
moral order and humiliation
In the crime of rape, the natural effect is shame. Since the the natural effect of the crime is shame, then ignominy is not
aggravating.
o ex. in the crime of rape
however, if there are means employed that add shame aside from the other natural consequences of the crime, then
ignominy is still aggravating.

55
o ex. rape upside down or doggy style

CRUELTY
physical suffering of the offended party
prolong the suffering
victim must still be alive at time of cruel means
when shots are successive, the purpose is to ensure that the victim dies immediately
o no cruelty

SCOFFING
victim is already dead

UNLAWFUL ENTRY
must be entry not exit

FORCIBLE ENTRY
robbery: you must always enter the place.
if you reach in the house only theft aggravated by forcible entry

PAR 20
exempting 15 and below
this case its below 15
using a motorbike to get the lady who was bathing by the river
o rape aggravated by vehicle b
if he is already there then he rapes the girl then leaves the place
o no longer aggravating
If purely escape not aggravating.
o Must be escape and commission of the crime to be aggravating

OTHER AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES NOT ENUMERATED
ex. taking drugs and rape someone during a state of when youre high
unlicensed fire arm is aggravating


56
ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES

Intoxication must be at time of commission the crime
- prosecution must prove that the accused was drunk.
- then you prove that he was always drunk or if he wasnt, he drank to embolden himself.

Habitual drunkard: every time he drinks, he is always drunk
drunkard state of intoxication. not enough that you drink a lot

X drinks because he sees his wife seeing someone else. He is drunk at time of commission of the crime
Defendant must prove that you were drunk, thereafter that you are not drunk all the time or that you did not drink after planning
to kill your wife.

it either mitigates or aggravates. but not the case in other alternative circumstnaces

if prosec proves habitual or intentional - aggravate
if you cant prove intoxication, never mind.

DEGREE OF INSTRUCTION
aggravating when the accused his degree of instruction to commit the crime, takes advantage
mitigating unable to resist the consequences of his primitive ways

must have relation to the crime.
there are certain crimes that do not have connection because you dont have to be schooled. equal gravity whether lightened or
the unenlightened. ex. adultery, rape, arson.

RELATIONSHIP
- crimes against persons or property

Crimes against Property
-generally mitigating
- can also be exempting
=-mitigating in crime of robbery, usurpation, fraudulent and arson
- exempting in swindling, theft, malicious mischief art 332
art 20 accessories - spouse and certain relatives except if they profitted by the commission of the crime


57
Crimes against persons
1. Ordinary rule
- aggravating if the offended party is an ascendant of the offender
- mitigating if offended party is descendant or lower in degree
2. Extraordinary rule
- relationship is always aggravating regardless of the position of the offender and offended party

X inflicts less serious physical injury upon Y.
if X is the mom and Y is the son,
son inflicts LSP on mom aggravating
if x is the mom who inflicts less serious injuries of son mitigating

when do you apply the ordinary rule
- only if the crime is less serious or slight physical injury.
see art 265- less serious physical injuries says that the offended party is the ascendant, parents, teacher , penalty is higher.
also includes slight physical injury
applies to parent child, less serious physical injuries does not apply in parricide.

extraordinary killing
X kills Y. X is lower degree. Y is lower degree does not really matter because for serious physical injuries or murder see art.
263
- if the offended party is an of those enumerated in parricide 246 and 248, penalty is aggravated
- if murder or parricide or serious physical injuries relationship is always aggravating regardless of the position of the
offended and offending party

neither mitigating nor aggravating
-parricide because relationship is inherent or integral part of the offense
- excessive chastisement of parent against child

relatives of varying degrees
relatives of same degree brother kills sister
relatives by affinity - brother kills brother in law look at over all circumstances, if brother kils brother in law because brother in
law was having affair with wife, relationship will be aggravating.
aggravating if same degree


58

Crim Recits As of Aug 16

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Crim Recits As of Aug 16

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Zep Rivera

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen