JANUARY 1, 1932
yet, when the vessel enters Phil. territorial sea, can it be prosecuted? Yes,
Article 2. Application of its provisions. - Except as provided in the treaties
and laws of preferential application, the provisions of this Code shall be
enforced not only within the Philippine Archipelago, including its
atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone, but also outside of its
jurisdiction, against those who:
1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the
Philippine Islands or obligations and securities issued by the
Government of the Philippine Islands;
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into
these islands of the obligations and securities mentioned in the
presiding number;
4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an
offense in the exercise of their functions; or
5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and
the law of nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code.
(Principles of Generality, Territoriality and Prospectivity)
(Nationality of the ship depends on its registration)
(Rationale for #2 and #3: to protect economic security of the Philippines)
(#5 i.e. treason, espionage, provoking or disloyalty during war, piracy,
mutiny. Purpose of penal laws involving national security is to protect the
domestic order and crimes against national and economic security of the
Philippines. The law is designed to protect not only the national and
economic security of the country, and should reach beyond the boundaries
of the Philippines, wherever they may be found.)
(English (territorial) – the territorial State has jurisdiction, except when
it merely concerns internal management of the vessel. French (flag) – the
flag of registration has offense, as long as it does not disturb the peace.)
(Rule: the territorial State has priority. If it fails to do so, the Philippines
may act under Art. 2.)
(Is it possible that a crime was committed beyond the territorial sea, but
if it is a continuing crime.)
Article 3. Definitions. - Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies
(delitos).
Felonies are committed not only be means of deceit (dolo) but also by means
of fault (culpa).
There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent and there
is fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of
foresight, or lack of skill.
(DOLO: Freedom, Intent, Motive) (CULPA: Freedom, Intent, Negligence)
(If there is mistake of fact, then there is no criminal intent. One is not
culpable for dolo. The one invoking it must act with good faith.)
(Abberatio ictus: This is mistake in the victim of the blow. There is still
criminal liability, which is generally increased (because it either becomes a
complex crime or two separate crimes – against the intended and the real
victim. Treachery applies because if the accused fired at his intended target
but missed, the victims are helpless to defend themselves.)
(Error in Personae: This is mistake in the identity. It may or may not
lower criminal liability depending on the crime committed and if the intended
crime is of equal or different gravity. Ex. X intended to kill Y, but instead
killed his father, Z by mistake. Instead of homicide, it became parricide. In
this case, Art. 49 will govern: error in personae becomes mitigating (apply
maximum period of homicide as penalty).
(Praeter Intentionem: The accused did not intend to commit so grave a
wrong as that committed. This is a mitigating circumstance under Art. 13.
But if the means used to commit the desired crime would also logically and
naturally bring about the actual felony, praeter intentionem does not apply.)
(Is reckless imprudence under 365 a felony under Art. 3? Yes. It is a quasi-
offense. Note the difference: Under Art. 3, culpa is mode of committing a
crime, while in Art. 365, culpa itself is the crime punished, thus it is a
felony.)
(Are crimes punishable by SPLs automatically crimes malum prohibitum?
Not all. Some can be malum in se. Plunder is malum in se, for three
reasons: 1. Although defined by SPL, it is malum in se because the crimes
constitutive of plunder are mala in se. Under the law, mitigating and
extenuating circumstances are applicable to plunder. 2. The predicate
crimes are punishable by RP to death. 3. Plunder is inherently immoral and
wrong. Sec. 27B of the Omnibus election code: a member of the BEI
who tampers with election results. The crime is malum in se, although
the crime is defined by SPL. It is inherently immoral and wrong to tamper
with election results.)
Article 4. Criminal liability. - Criminal liability shall be incurred:
1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful
act done be different from that which he intended.
2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense
against persons or property, were it not for the inherent
impossibility of its accomplishment or an account of the employment
of inadequate or ineffectual means.
(Proximate Cause: “The cause, which in its natural and continuous
sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury
and without which the result would not occurred”)
(Par. (1) is specific: it refers only to delitos.)
(Par. 2 – impossible crimes: Elements: 1. The offender performed an act
which would be an offense against persons or property 2. He performed the
act with criminal intent 3. Accomplishment of the act is inherently impossible
or the means employed were inadequate or ineffectual)
(Factual or physical impossibility There is intent and performance but
no accomplishment due to extraneous circumstances that makes
accomplishment impossible. Legal impossibility There is intent and
performance of a crime, but the consequence could not result into a crime.)
Article 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. -
Consummated felonies as well as those which are frustrated and attempted,
are punishable.
A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution
and accomplishment are present; and it is frustrated when the offender
performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a
consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes
independent of the will of the perpetrator.
There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a
felony directly or over acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution
which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other
than this own spontaneous desistance.
(Differs from preparatory acts, which are just means or measures necessary
to produce the desired end.)
(The nature of the wound controls, not the belief of the person.)
(Formal Crimes: Those that are always consummated because the offender
cannot perform all the acts necessary to consummate the offense without
consummating it. Physical Injuries, Slander))
Article 7. When light felonies are punishable. - Light felonies are punishable
only when they have been consummated, with the exception of those
committed against person or property.
(Those infractions of law where the penalty is arresto menor or fine not
exceeding 200 pesos)
(Only principals and accomplices are punished. Accessories are not liable
because light felonies are punishable with arresto menor and accessories
are penalized two degrees lower than the principal, which is non-existent in
this case.)
Article 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony. - Conspiracy and
proposal to commit felony are punishable only in the cases in which the law
specially provides a penalty therefor.
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.
There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony
proposes its execution to some other person or persons.
(The moment they actually commit treason or rebellion, conspiracy loses its
juridical personality and it becomes a mere mode to commit a crime.)
(Two types of Conspiracy: Express conspiracy There is prior agreement
A conspirator is liable as long as he appeared in the scene of the crime.
Except when he is the mastermind, where it doesn’t matter whether he
appears or not, since he is a principal by inducement. Degree of actual
participation is immaterial: all conspirators adopt the acts of the others.
Implied conspiracy Deduced from the acts of the offenders. The
agreement to pursue a common design and the unity of purpose is
instantaneous. It is essential that the conspirator participated in the
commission of the crime. Mere presence is not enough because mere
presence does not prove intent to join the commission of the crime, without
prior agreement.)
(Characteristics of Conspiracy: Singularity of intent and unity of execution)
(Generally, no; it does not apply to crimes defined in SPL. However, if the
SPL provides that conspiracy to commit a crime under that law is a crime in
itself, then it is.)
(Does Article 4, par. 1 apply to Article 8? o Yes. Each conspirator is
responsible for everything done by his confederates, which follow
incidentally in the execution of the common design, as one of its probable
and natural consequences even though not intended as part of the original
design. Conspirators are held to have intended the consequences of their
act, by engaging in conspiracy. So, liability extends to collateral acts
incident to and growing out of the conspiracy.)
(Conspiracy continues until the object is attained. Conspiracy is a continuing
event, unless in the meantime, they abandon the conspiracy or the
conspirators are arrested.)
Article 9. Grave felonies, less grave felonies and light felonies. - Grave
felonies are those to which the law attaches the capital punishment or
penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive, in accordance with Art.
25 of this Code. (prision mayor to reclusion perpetua)
Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes with penalties which
in their maximum period are correctional, in accordance with the above-
mentioned Art. (destierro, suspension, arresto mayor, prision correccional)
Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which a
penalty of arrest menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos or both; is
provided.
(Complex crimes require grave or less grave felonies)
Article 10. Offenses not subject to the provisions of this Code. - Offenses
which are or in the future may be punishable under special laws are not
subject to the provisions of this Code. This Code shall be supplementary to
such laws, unless the latter should specially provide the contrary.
(Only as to Penalty the RPC will apply suppletorily to Special laws if the latter
do so provide)
Article 11. Justifying circumstances. - The following do not incur any
criminal liability:
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that
the following circumstances concur;
First. Unlawful aggression.
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it.
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
person defending himself.
2. Any one who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse,
ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural or adopted brothers
or sisters, or his relatives by affinity in the same degrees and those
consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, provided that the first
and second requisites prescribed in the next preceding circumstance
are present, and the further requisite, in case the revocation was
given by the person attacked, that the one making defense had no
part therein.
3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger,
provided that the first and second requisites mentioned in the first
circumstance of this Article are present and that the person
defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil
motive.
4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does not act
which causes damage to another, provided that the following
requisites are present;
First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to
avoid it;
Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful
means of preventing it.
5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful
exercise of a right or office.
6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior
for some lawful purpose.
(An absolutory cause means that the accused does not incur criminal
liability.)
(Other absolutory causes: The offender was instigated, Spontaneous
desistance in the attempted stage, Attempted or frustrated light felonies,
except against persons and property, Accessories in light felonies, Accessory
relatives who help relatives escape (Art. 20), Art. 247 – death under
exceptional circumstances, Somnambulism, Mistake of fact (Achong),
Repeal of penal law, whether absolute or modification.)
(Self-defense include: Defense of body and limb, Rights as person, including
honor, Property and liberty.)
(If the accused admitted killing the victim and pleads self-defense, is the
burden of proof shifted to accused? o No. The burden of proof never shifts;
only the burden of evidence shifts.)
(Unlawful Aggression: Actual peril to one’s life, or merely a threat, but
real and imminent)
(What do you consider? 1. Whether the aggressor was armed 2. The
nature and quality of weapon used 3. Physical conditions and sizes of the
parties involved)
(What is the extent of defense of property rights? o May use such force as
reasonably necessary to prevent or repel the unlawful physical invasion of
his property. This does not seem to involve the taking of human life. In
order to defend against the person, there must be aggression not just
against property rights but also against the person of the owner.)
(Provocation is sufficient if it is sufficient to incite the person to attack.)
(Can one invoke Article 11 in Article 247 cases? o Suggestion: Husband
also has right to invoke his honor and defend it, so Art. 11 can be invoked
by the one discovering the sexual congress. He can also invoke 247,
obviously. o Prefer 11 over 247, because the latter results in destierro. It
is not a penalty, but a limitation of his liberty.)
(Can you invoke Art. 247 if there is mistake of fact? o Yes. Apply the Achong
doctrine by analogy.)
(Battered Woman Syndrome: is a justifying circumstance,
notwithstanding absence of any requisites of self-defense. Phases : 1.
Tension-building phase, 2. Acute battering incident, 3. Tranquil, loving
phase.)
(What are the characteristics of the BWS? o 1. The woman believes the
violence was her fault o 2. inability to place responsibility for the violence
elsewhere o 3. She fears for her and her children’s lives o 4. Irrational belief
that offender is omnipresent and omniscient)
(What are the requisites of lawful exercise of right or duty (Article 11, par.
5)? o 1. Act out of duty or office o 2. Injury caused is the consequence of
the performance of that duty or right)
(What is the limitation on the performance of duties? o It must be exercised
neither capriciously nor oppressively, and within reasonable limits. There
must act with sound discretion.)
(What are the requisites of obedience to superior order? o 1. An order has
been issued by a superior. o 2. The order is for a legal purpose o 3. The
means used to carry out the order were lawful)
(What if the order is illegal? Cannot follow the order unless it is apparently
legal and the subordinate did not know it was actually illegal.)
Article 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. - the
following are exempt from criminal liability:
1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted
during a lucid interval.
When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which
the law defines as a felony (delito), the court shall order his
confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums established for
persons thus afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to leave
without first obtaining the permission of the same court.
2. A person under nine years of age.
3. A person over nine years of age and under fifteen, unless he has
acted with discernment, in which case, such minor shall be
proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Art. 80 of
this Code.
When such minor is adjudged to be criminally irresponsible, the
court, in conformably with the provisions of this and the preceding
paragraph, shall commit him to the care and custody of his family
who shall be charged with his surveillance and education otherwise,
he shall be committed to the care of some institution or person
mentioned in said Art. 80.
 4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care,
causes an injury by mere accident without fault or intention of
causing it.
5. Any person who act under the compulsion of irresistible force.
6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear
of an equal or greater injury.
7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when
prevented by some lawful insuperable cause.
(o 1. Imbecility or insanity o 2. Minority o 3. Accident o 4. Compulsion of
irresistible force o 5. Impulse of uncontrollable fear o 6. Insuperable or
lawful cause)
(There is technically a crime, although the person is exempt from liability.
The basis here is that the person is not acting with complete intelligence.
There is no mens rea.)
(Characteristics are: o The act is criminal, but the criminal is exempt from
criminal Liability o But there is civil liability o The emphasis is the actor, not
the act)
(Under RA 9344, how are minors classified? o Children at risk are those
vulnerable to and at the risk of committing criminal offenses due to personal,
familial, and social circumstances. o Children in conflict with the law are
those accused of or adjudged as having committed criminal offenses.)
(What are the benevolent features of RA 9344? o Age 15 and below = age
of absolute irresponsibility Exempt from criminal liability Subject to
intervention program o Age over 15 and under 18 = criminally liable only
where there is discernment No liability if there is lack of discernment.
Also subject to intervention program. Liable if there is discernment.
However, he will under a diversion program. o Is the minor over 15 but
below 18 acting with discernment still entitled to the privileged mitigating
circumstance under Article 68(2)? Yes. RA 9344 did not change this.)
(What are the diversion programs for those over 15 but below 18 acting with
discernment? Note: these are without going through court proceedings o 1.
When the penalty of the crime is not over 6 years: Crimes with victims:
Diversion program before law enforcement officer or punong barangay
Involves mediation, family conferencing, conciliation with child and
parents/guardians Crimes without victims: Diversion program before
the local DSWD officer, with child and parents/guardians o 2. When the
penalty of the crime exceeds 6 years: Diversion is before courts In
case the penalty is not more than 12 years or just a fine, the court can
determine whether diversion is appropriate or not o 3. If the offense does
not fall under any of the above or the child or parents/guardian does not
consent to diversion, the one handling the case forwards the records to the
prosecutor or court within 3 days – and then the case is filed according to
regular process)
(Can a child be detained pending trial? Yes, but only as a last resort and
only for the shortest possible period of time. The authorities can resort to
alternative measures such as close supervision, intensive care, or placement
with a family/educational setting.)
(What is the rule on automatic suspension of sentence? o Children below 18
at the time of commission of the crime found guilty of the offense are placed
under suspended sentence without need of application. The court then
determines and imposes the appropriate disposition measures afterwards.
o What if the then-child is over 18 years old upon the pronouncement of
guilt? It doesn’t matter; there is still suspended sentence. o What if the
child reaches 18 while under suspended sentence? The court determines
whether to: 1. Discharge the child 2. Order execution of sentence
3. Extend suspended sentence for a certain period, or until he reaches the
maximum age of 21 o What if the child undergoes period of actual detention
or commitment? It will be credited in full.)
(What is the provision on probation? Upon application at any time, the court
can place the child on probation in lieu of service of sentence. (This
amended the Probation Law))
(What is a status offense and how is it treated under the law? o Any conduct
which is not an offense when committed by an adult will not be considered
an offense and is thus not punished if committed by a child. o Ex. curfew
laws)
(Did Ra 9344 retroact? o Yes, it retroacted to pending cases and those
minors already convicted.)
(Under 9344, the minor is still exempt from specific offenses even if he or
she acted with discernment. What are these? o 1. Vagrancy o 2. Prostitution
o 3. Mendicancy o 4. Sniffing rugby o What happens? These persons
would undergo appropriate counseling and treatment program.)
(When is a child in conflict with the law subject to preliminary investigation
and filing of information? o 1. Child does not qualify for diversiono 2. Child
or parents/guardians do not agree to diversion o 3. Prosecutor determines
that diversion is not appropriate for the child, considering
assessment/recommendation of the social worker.)
(Who are the minors disqualified from suspension of sentence? o 1. One who
once enjoyed suspension of sentence already o 2. Convicted for offense
punishable by death or life imprisonment Note: “punishable” need not be
“actually punished” especially since the death penalty has been abolished o
What was the ground under PD 603 that was repealed by RA 9344? When
the child is already 18 upon promulgation of sentence. This is impliedly
repealed by the provision stating that under RA9344, the age of commission
of the crime is the determination of suspension of sentence, and not the age
during promulgation of the judgment.)
(After suspension of sentence, what is the disposition order? o After
sentence, the court sets disposition conference within 15 days from
promulgation Minor, parents/guardian, and social worker are present o Can
issue: 1. Care, guidance, and supervision orders 2. Drug and alcohol
rehab 3. Participation in group counseling and the like 4. Commitment
to youth rehab center of DSWD/other centers)
(When there is doubt if the person is a minor or not, what is the appropriate
proceeding? o There is presumption of minority. o File for summary
proceeding in Family Court.)
(What if the minor was alleged as a coconspirator? o The presumption of
acting without discernment still applies. o Evidence of conspiracy does not
automatically mean the minor acted with discernment in the commission of
the crime.)
(May the presumption still apply even if the allegation was reckless
imprudence under Art. 365? o Yes.)
(S.C. AM 02-1-18: o If the minor committed a crime and the time the law
took effect, he was already 21, can he enjoy the benefit of suspension of
sentence)
(If a minor is charged with a heinous crime punishable by death or RP-death,
is he entitled to suspension of conviction? o Yes. Ubi lex non distinguit, nec
non distinguire debemos.)
(What are the requisites of accident? o 1. performing lawful act with due
care o 2. causes injury to another o 3. without intent or negligence. What if
there is negligence? o Article 365 applies: quasi-crime of reckless
imprudence o Accident and negligence are mutually exclusive. o What is the
difference between accident and negligence? Accident – without fault of
the human being. Cannot be anticipated. Negligence – when there is
some degree of fault in the person. NOTE: Under Art. 365, the court will not
consider Art. 13 and 14 in imposing the penalty because this crime is NOT
intentional.)
(What are the elements of irresistible force? o 1. Force is physical and must
come from an outside source o 2. The accused acts not only without a will
but even against his will, reduced to a mere instrument o 3. The duress,
force, fear, or intimidation present is imminent and impending, as to induce
well-grounded fear of death or serious bodily injury Thus, the fear must
not be speculative, fanciful, or imagined)
(What are the elements of uncontrollable fear? o 1. Threat which caused the
fear of an evil greater than or equal to the act accused was required to
commit o 2. The evil promised was of such gravity and imminence that an
ordinary man would succumb to it)
(What is an insuperable cause? o It applies to felonies by omission – where
the failure to do so is due to a lawful or insuperable cause. o A common
example is failure to comply with art. 125 of the number of hours when a
person arrested must be delivered to judicial authorities, when there is a
long holiday or the judicial offices are not open, or there is a
calamity/accident that met them.)
Chapter Three
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MITIGATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Article 13. Mitigating circumstances. - The following are mitigating
circumstances;
1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the requisites
necessary to justify or to exempt from criminal liability in the
respective cases are not attendant.
2. That the offender is under eighteen year of age or over seventy
years. In the case of the minor, he shall be proceeded against in
accordance with the provisions of Art. 80.
3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong
as that committed.
4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended
party immediately preceded the act.
5. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a
grave offense to the one committing the felony (delito), his spouse,
ascendants, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees.
6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to
have produced passion or obfuscation.
 7. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a person
in authority or his agents, or that he had voluntarily confessed his
guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for
the prosecution;
8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering
some physical defect which thus restricts his means of action,
defense, or communications with his fellow beings.
9. Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the
will-power of the offender without however depriving him of the
consciousness of his acts.
10. And, finally, any other circumstances of a similar nature and
analogous to those above mentioned.
(o 1. Incomplete justifying and exempting circumstances o 2. Under 18 or
over 70 Correlate with RA 9344 o 3. Praeter intentionem o 4. Sufficient
provocation or threat by the offended party preceded the act o 5. Proximate
vindication of grave offense o 6. Passion or obfuscation o 7. Voluntary
surrender or voluntary confession prior to prosecution’s presentation of
evidence o 8. Physical defect restricts means of action, defense,
communication o 9. Illness diminishes will-power without complete
deprivation of consciousness o 10. Analogous circumstances No similar
provision for aggravating circumstances)
Ordinary Privileged Specific
Lower to minimum Lower by one or more To Specific felonies
period degree only
If 2 or more, lower by
one or more degree
Can be offset by ACs Cannot be offset by
ACs
Cannot be imposed on Can be imposed on
indivisible penalties indivisible penalties
(When can praeter intentionem not be invoked? o RA 8049 – lack of intent
to commit so grave a wrong as committed CANNOT be invoked by accused
in hazing incidents.)
(What other rule must be taken into account vis-àvis praeter intentionem?
o Art. 4(1) – presumption that person intends all the natural and logical
consequences of his felony. o How to resolve: the means employed and the
result must be so disparate that the result is not the logical and natural
consequence of the means)
(Can both treachery and Art 13(3) be invoked together? o Yes. Treachery
refers to the manner or method used to kill the victim, while praeter
intentionem refers to the state of mind of the person. They may co-exist.)
(What are the elements of sufficient provocation? 1. Sufficient, 2.
Immediately preceding the commission of the crime, 3. Originate from the
offended party)
(What is necessary for passion or obfuscation to be considered? o It must
arise from lawful sentiments of the accused. The offended party must have
done an act unlawful and sufficient to excite passion or obfuscation o It must
not come from lawlessness or revenge, or an illegitimate relationship)
(Can vindication of grave offense co-exist with passion or obfuscation? o No.
If they arise from the same facts, only one will be appreciated)
(Can treachery co-exist with passion or obfuscation? o No. Treachery
CANNOT co-exist with passion and obfuscation. When a person acts with
passion or obfuscation, he loses his reason and self-control, which is
inconsistent with treachery, because one who acts with treachery
presupposes that he adopted a mode of attack of killing the victim. o Contra:
treachery can co-exist with praeter intentionem)
(What are the elements of voluntary surrender? o 1. Offender surrendered
to a person in authority or his agent o 2. Offender surrendered before arrest
is effected o 3. Surrender is voluntary, 4. No pending warrant of arrest or
information filed)
(What are the requisites of voluntary plea of guilt? o 1. Made in open court
o 2. Spontaneous and unconditional o 3. Prior to presentation of evidence
by the prosecution)
(May voluntary plea of guilt and voluntary surrender both be considered in
one case? o Yes. They are two separate and distinct circumstances not
arising from the same facts. The offended party is entitled to two mitigating
circumstances)
(What is the character of the plea of guilty? o It must be unconditional and
the accused must admit to the offense charged.)
(What is relevant for the mitigating circumstance of physical defects and
illness? o The defect or illness must relate to the offense charged, because
the defect must have restricted his means of action, defense, or
communication with his fellow human beings.)
(What is necessary for illness that diminishes willpower of the accused? o It
must only diminish and not deprive the offender of the consciousness of his
acts; otherwise, it is an exempting circumstance)
Chapter Four
CIRCUMSTANCE WHICH AGGRAVATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Article 14. Aggravating circumstances. - The following are aggravating
circumstances:
1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position. (a
special aggravating circumstance. (RA 7659, Sec. 23))
2. That the crime be committed in contempt or with insult to the
public authorities.
3. That the act be committed with insult or in disregard of the
respect due the offended party on account of his rank, age, or sex,
or that is be committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if the
latter has not given provocation.
4. That the act be committed with abuse of confidence or obvious
ungratefulness.
5. That the crime be committed in the palace of the Chief Executive
or in his presence, or where public authorities are engaged in the
discharge of their duties, or in a place dedicated to religious worship.
6. That the crime be committed in the night time, or in an
uninhabited place, or by a band, whenever such circumstances may
facilitate the commission of the offense.
Whenever more than three armed malefactors shall have acted
together in the commission of an offense, it shall be deemed to have
been committed by a band. (Generic)
7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a conflagration,
shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or other calamity or misfortune.
8. That the crime be committed with the aid of armed men or
persons who insure or afford impunity.
9. That the accused is a recidivist.
A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall
have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime
embraced in the same title of this Code.
10. That the offender has been previously punished by an offense
to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or
more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty.
11. That the crime be committed in consideration of a price, reward,
or promise.
12. That the crime be committed by means of inundation, fire,
poison, explosion, stranding of a vessel or international damage
thereto, derailment of a locomotive, or by the use of any other
artifice involving great waste and ruin.
13. That the act be committed with evidence premeditation.
14. That the craft, fraud or disguise be employed.
15. That advantage be taken of superior strength, or means be
employed to weaken the defense.
16. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia).
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes
against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the
execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its
execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the
offended party might make.
17. That means be employed or circumstances brought about which
add ignominy to the natural effects of the act.
18. That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry.
There is an unlawful entry when an entrance of a crime a wall, roof,
floor, door, or window be broken.
20. That the crime be committed with the aid of persons under
fifteen years of age or by means of motor vehicles, motorized
watercraft, airships, or other similar means. (As amended by RA
5438).
 21. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be
deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not necessary for
its commissions.
(1. Advantage of public position, 2. In contempt of or with insult to public
authorities o 3. With insult or disregard of rank, age, or sex, or in the
dwelling of the offended party, if the latter did not provoke o 4. Abuse of
confidence or obvious ungratefulness o 5. Committed in the palace of the
Chief Executive, or in his presence, or where public authorities are
discharging their duties, or in a place of religious worship o 6. Nighttime, or
in an uninhabited place, or by a band o 7. Committed during a conflagration,
shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic, or calamity o 8. With aid of armed men
or persons who insure/afford impunity o 9. Recidivism o 10. Reiteracion o
11. Price, reward, or promise o 12. By means of inundation, fire, poison,
explosion, stranding of a vessel, derailment of locomotive, use of any artifice
involving waste and ruin o 13. Evident premeditation o 14. Craft, fraud, or
disguise o 15. Superior strength or means employed to weaken the defense
o 16. Treachery, 17. Ignominy o 18. Committed after unlawful entry o 19.
Committed after breaking through a wall, roof, floor, door, or window o 20.
With aid of persons under 15 years old, or motor vehicles o 21. Cruelty)
(Compare with mitigating circumstances: o This list is exclusive, whereas in
mitigating circumstances, there are analogous circumstances allowed o
Aggravating circumstances must be alleged in the information, mitigating
circumstances need not (since they’re matters of defense))
(What are the types of aggravating circumstances? o 1. Generic aggravating
Apply generally to all crimes Can be offset by ordinary mitigating
circumstances Increases penalty to maximum period Are additional
rapes or killing in the case of robbery with rape or robbery with homicide,
for instances, aggravating? No, it’s not enumerated under law as such.
It’s an anomalous situation, but doubt is resolved in favor of the accused.)
(2. Qualifying circumstances Cannot be offset by any mitigating
circumstance Changes nature of crime Must be alleged in the
Information as such new offense No need to increase the penalty because
the change in the crime itself has changed the penalty as well to a higher
one Can qualifying circumstances not alleged in the information but
proved in trial be appreciated as generic aggravating circumstances? No,
due to the amendment in Criminal Procedure)
(3. Special or specific aggravating circumstances Apply to specific
felonies; found outside Art. 14)
(4. Inherent circumstances Those already integral to the crime and thus
cannot aggravate the penalty Ex. In the crime of falsification of document
by public authority, then “abuse of public position” is deemed inherent.
Same with malversation and other crimes by public officers.)
(What is the special aggravating circumstance introduced by RA 7659? o
Committed by an organized/syndicated group – impose maximum penalty
if the offense was committed by any person belonging to an organized or
syndicated crime group (2 or more persons collaborating or mutually helping
one another for purposes of gain in the commission of the crime))
(What are the special aggravating circumstances introduced by RA 8353,
Article 266-B? o See crimes against persons: ex. victim is under 18 and
rapist is relative, gave victim AIDS, committed by AFP/PNP, etc.)
(What are the requisites of contempt/insult of public authority? o 1. crime
committed o 2. person in authority engaged in exercise of public position o
3. offender knew he was a person in authority o 4. victim is NOT a person
in authority)
(#3 What is required for this aggravating circumstance to apply? o There
must be deliberate intent to insult or show manifest disregard for the age,
rank, sex. Not merely because the victim is a female or has a rank, this
A.C. applies)
(When is the A.C. of “sex” not applicable? o 1. If the accused acted with
passion or obfuscation, o 2. when there is an amorous relationship between
the accused and the victim, o 3. When there is a relationship of employer
employee, 4. When the sex of the victim is inherent in the crime)
(Is insult to rank, age, sex absorbed by treachery? o No. The aggravating
circumstances of age and sex cannot be absorbed by treachery. Treachery
pertains to manner of commission. Insult to age, rank, sex refers to
relationship.)
(Does dwelling apply when both parties live in the same house? o Generally,
it is not aggravating. Except when the offender and offended lived in the
same house, the crime is aggravated by dwelling, because the room was
deemed a dwelling, notwithstanding being in the same house. Each room
although located in the same house is considered a dwelling separate and
independent of the adjacent rooms.)
(What is considered as dwelling? Includes every dependency of the house
and every integral part of the house. Includes staircase, enclosure under
the house, and the terrace. To be considered as dwelling, it must be used
exclusively for rest and comfort)
(Does the offender have to actually enter the house? o No. The law does
not require that the offender must also be in the house. The offender can
shoot from outside the house and kill a person inside – it is still considered
as dwelling)
(Does dwelling apply in robbery? o Distinguish: o Dwelling is aggravating in
robbery with homicide or robbery with intimidation of persons. o However,
in robbery with force upon things, dwelling is inherent in the crime.)
(When is nighttime absorbed by treachery? o If it is part of the treacherous
means to insure execution of the crime. Otherwise, it is separately
appreciated.)
(What determines if the crime was committed in an uninhabited place
(despoblado)? o It is not the distance, but the possibility or impossibility of
immediate aid to be obtained. The more important consideration is if the
commission of the crime makes it possible for the victim to receive aid.)

(A person dies inside a building burned on purpose. When is it homicide, (Band: Art. 266-B if rape is committed by 2 or more persons, the offender
and when is it arson? o Intent determines: o 1. If the intent is to burn the is sentenced from RP to death (special aggravating circumstance)
house, then the burning is arson even if a person dies. Homicide is
absorbed. o 2. If the intent is to kill the person and the burning was the (When is crime by a band a qualifying circumstance, and not just a generic
means employed to commit the crime, it is homicide. o 3. If the intent is to aggravating circumstance? o Only Article 294, pars. 3 to 5. This is robbery
kill the person, and the house is burned to cover up the crime, then it is with violation against persons. o Recall: Par 1: with homicide band is
homicide and arson as separate crimes. There is no special complex crime aggravating Par 2: with rape, intentional mutilation, and lesiones graves
of homicide with arson.) resulting into blindness, impotency, imbecility, or insanity aggravating
Par 3 to 5: other kinds of robbery with violence against persons band is
(What are the elements of abuse of confidence? o 1. Offended party reposed qualifying)
trust and confidence to offender o 2. Offender abused this trust and
confidence) (#8 Requisites for aid of armed men? o 1. Armed men or persons took part
in the commission of the crime directly or indirectly o 2. Accused availed
(What must be the character of the confidence reposed? o The confidence himself of aid of such men or relied upon them when the crime was
must be IMMEDIATE AND PERSONAL such that it gives the accused some committed)
advantage and makes it easier to commit the crime.)
Band Armed men Organized crime
(#5 What are contemplated here? o 1. Committed in palace of Chief syndicate
Executive o 2. Committed in the presence of Chief Executive o 3. Committed All are principals Accomplices
in place where public officers are discharging duties o 4. Committed in place At least 4 armed men Number immaterial At least two person
of worship Distinguish 1, 2, and 4 from 3: For palace, presence of CE, Crimes not specified Crimes not specified Crimes are for gain
and place of worship it is enough that the offense was committed in that (Band – whenever more than three armed malefactors shall have acted
place For public officers in discharge of their duties, it is necessary that together in the commission of an offense.)
the performance of function is being done)
(#9 Recidivist – in one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have
(#6 If all three are present, are these separate aggravating circumstances been previously convicted by final judgement of another crime embraced in
or only one? o General rule: only one applies. o Exception: These may be the same title of the RPC)
considered separate and distinct if their elements are distinctly perceived
and can subsist independently of each other, revealing greater perversity.)
(What is reiteracion? o Elements: 1. The offender has previously been
punished (has served sentence) 2. First offense must have had a greater
(What are the tests of night time? o Subjective test – when night time was or equal penalty; 3. Or two or more prior offenses with lighter penalty)
sought purposely to commit the crime. o Objective test – when nighttime
facilitated the commission of the crime. It is not enough that the crime was
Recidivism Reiteracion
committed in night time. There must be evidence that night time was sought
for, or the nocturnity facilitated the commission of the offense) Previous conviction by final Previous service of sentence
judgment
Under same title of the RPC No need to be under same title
 No requirement as to penalty in One crime or greater penalty or at
prior conviction least two crimes of lesser penalty
(What is habitual delinquency? o Elements: 1. Within a period of 10 years
from date of release or last conviction 2. For falsification, robbery, estafa,
theft, serious or less serious physical injuries (FRETSeL) 3. Found guilty
of said crimes a third time or oftener)
(#13 What are the elements of evident premeditation? o 1. Proof of time
when the accused came up with the determination to commit the crime o 2.
Overt act by accused showing he determined to commit the crime and that
he clung to that determination. o 3. Lapse of time between the
determination and decision to carry it out.)
(Does evident premeditation apply to conspiracy? o If two or more persons
conspire to commit a crime, and they decide to commit it, there may be
evident premeditation if the conspiracy allowed the conspirators to ponder
upon and reflect on their decision to commit a felony. o Differentiate: 1.
instant conspiracy: has no evident premeditation 2. non-instant
conspiracy: time to reflect)
(#14Distinguish: o 1. Craft – cunning or intellectual trickery to carry out the
evil design o 2. Fraud – deceit, insidious words and machinations o 3.
Disguise – concealment of identity. ABSORBED BY TREACHERY)
(#15 When is there superior strength? o Offenders intentionally employ
disproportionate force to the means of defense available to the offended
party. ABSORBED BY TREACHERY)
(#16 For treachery to exist either as a generic aggravating or qualifying
circumstance, what two conditions must apply? o 1. Employment or means,
manner, or method of execution that would ensure the safety of the offender
from any defense or retaliation of the offended party o 2. Deliberate act of
the offender or conscious choice of the means, manner, or method of
execution Shown through a) prior conduct of the offender; b) relationship
of the parties; c) nature of the killing)
(Is treachery qualifying in special complex crime of kidnapping with murder?
o Yes. If the victim of kidnapping is killed with treachery, it is a special
complex crime of kidnapping with murder. o So treachery can apply, under
the Escote rule.)
(Does suddenness of attack per se prove treachery? o No, Mere suddenness
of the attack does not by itself suggest treachery, unless the offender used
the suddenness of the attack as means or method to ensure success of
strike. o Chance attacks or crimes done in the spur of the moment, or those
preceded by heated altercation, are NOT treacherous)
(May treachery be considered if the wrongful act done be different from that
intended by the offender? o Treachery is present even if the victim killed is
different the one intended to be killed (because what only matters is the
means of killing). o Treachery may be present in aberratio ictus or error in
personae, again because it is not the intent but the means/method that
matters.)
(What is the nature of killing by poisoning? o Treachery is inherent in killing
by poisoning. If the offender poisoned the victim, treachery is inherent.)
(#17 What is ignominy? o Circumstance pertaining to a moral order which
adds disgrace or obloquy to the material injury caused to the offended party
and tends to make the crime more humiliating)
(#18-19 When is there unlawful entry? o When an entrance is through a
way not intended for such purpose o Must be for purposes of entry and not
escape When is it inherent? o 1. Trespass o 2. Robbery with force upon
things)
(#20 The minor himself is not liable)
(#21 What is cruelty? o Unnecessary physical pain in the commission of the
crime)
(What is the test? o Whether the accused deliberately and despicably
augmented the wrong committed by him by causing another wrong not
necessary for its commission, or inhumanly increasing the suffering of the
victim, slowly and gradually)
Chapter Five
ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES
Article 15. Their concept. - Alternative circumstances are those which must
be taken into consideration as aggravating or mitigating according to the
nature and effects of the crime and the other conditions attending its
commission. They are the relationship, intoxication and the degree of
instruction and education of the offender.
The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into consideration
when the offended party in the spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate,
natural, or adopted brother or sister, or relative by affinity in the same
degrees of the offender.
The intoxication of the offender shall be taken into consideration as a
mitigating circumstances when the offender has committed a felony in a
state of intoxication, if the same is not habitual or subsequent to the plan
to commit said felony but when the intoxication is habitual or intentional, it
shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance.
(When is relationship aggravating and when is it mitigating? o Relationship
is aggravating in crimes against chastity, whether offender is of higher or
lower degree relative o Relationship is mitigating in crimes against property)
(Article 332. Persons exempt from criminal liability. - No criminal, but only
civil liability, shall result from the commission of the crime of theft, swindling
or malicious mischief committed or caused mutually by the following
persons:
1. Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by affinity in
the same line.
2. The widowed spouse with respect to the property which belonged
to the deceased spouse before the same shall have passed into the
possession of another; and
3. Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if
living together.
The exemption established by this article shall not be applicable to strangers
participating in the commission of the crime. Relationship is Exempting)
(Relationship is mitigating in crimes of robbery Art 294-302, Usurpation Art.
312, fraudulent insolvency Art. 314 and Arson Arts. 321-322, 325-326)
(Relationship is aggravating in crimes against persons in case where the
offended party is relative of higher degree than the offender, or when the
offender and the offended party are relatives if the same level as killing he
brother.)
(When is intoxication mitigating? o If not habitual, or not pursuant to
planning a felony, and affected mental faculties o It is aggravating if there
is habitualness or intentional intoxication)
(What is the rule on education? o Low education may be mitigating but never
aggravating o High education may be aggravating but never mitigating o
When is the high education of a person aggravating? When his education
puts him in better position than the ordinary offenders. Ex. estafa by a
lawyer)
(When is education ignored? o 1. If the crime is basically wrong like
parricide, murder, rape, or robbery, it is immaterial whether the offender is
schooled or not. o 2. Education has already been considered by the provision
such as abortion conducted by a physician.)
Title Two
PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR FELONIES
Article 16. Who are criminally liable. - The following are criminally liable for
grave and less grave felonies:
1. Principals.
2. Accomplices.
3. Accessories.
The following are criminally liable for light felonies:
1. Principals
2. Accomplices.
(May a private corporation, partnership, or association or other juridical
entity be criminally liable? o The general rule is that corporations are not
criminally liable because there is no criminal intent. o Except: when the law
provides that officers or employees are liable.)
(Who are liable? o 1. Grave and less grave offenses: principals, accomplices,
accessories o 2. Light offenses: principals and accomplices)
Article 17. Principals. - The following are considered principals:
1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act;
2. Those who directly force or induce others to commit it;
3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another
act without which it would not have been accomplished.
( When do these provisions apply? o These provisions only apply when
two or more people are acting criminally. Otherwise, it’s just the principal.)
(What should the overt act consist of for principals by direct participation?
o 1. Active participation o 2. Or giving moral assistance to the other
conspirators. Mere presence Exercising moral ascendancy)
(Can someone not be in the scene of the crime and still be a principal? o
Yes. For example, there is conspiracy and one is on look-out duty for
policemen. o For as long as the conspirators perform specific acts that were
coordinated pursuant to the conspiracy.)
(If rape was committed by 2 or more persons, what happens? o Commission
of rape by two or more persons is a qualifying circumstance that requires
imposition of RP/death.)
(What is the rule for Robbery with homicide? o General rule: the act of one
is act of all, even if only one co-conspirator killed the victim. o Is it possible
that one is liable only for robbery but not robbery with homicide? Yes, if
one desisted before the homicide was committed. For instance, one
prevented the other from stabbing the victim)
(How does one become a principal by direct inducement? o 1. Directly
forcing another to commit a crime Using irresistible force Causing
uncontrollable fear o 2. Direct inducing another to commit a crime Giving
price, reward, or promise Using words of command)
(What are the requisites to become a PDI? o 1. Inducement made directly
with intent of procuring the commission of the crime o 2. Inducement is the
determining cause of the commission of the crime by material execution)
(When does one become a principal by indispensable cooperation? o Direct
participation in the criminal design by another act without which the crime
could not have been committed.)
Article 18. Accomplices. - Accomplices are those persons who, not being
included in Article 17, cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous
or simultaneous acts.
(What are the acts of accomplices? o Prior or simultaneous acts not
indispensable for the commission of the crime, and not overt acts for
commission thereof.)
(What are the requisites to be liable as an accomplice? o 1. Offender took
part in the execution of the crime by previous or simultaneous acts o 2. He
intended to take part in the commission of the crime)
(Contrast a conspirator from an accomplice: o Both the conspirator and
accomplice know of the crime and agree with the criminal resolution. The
conspirators decide, and the accomplices merely concur and cooperate. o
The crime is performed by the PDP, while the accomplice is merely an
instrument of the conspirators – not members of the conspiracy.)
(May one be charged and convicted as accomplice or accessory even before
principal charged or convicted? Or should the PDP first be convicted before
accomplice and accessory be charged or convicted? What are their
corresponding liabilities? o As long as commission of the crime can be
proven beyond reasonable doubt, determination of criminal responsibility of
accessory may be determined independently of and separately from liability
of the PDP. o If the case against PDP is dismissed, the case against
accomplice or accessory must also be dismissed because the liability of the
latter is subordinate to that of the PDP. o But the dismissal of the case
against the latter does not necessarily result in dismissal of the case against
the PDP.)
Article 19. Accessories. - Accessories are those who, having knowledge of
the commission of the crime, and without having participated therein, either
as principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission in any
of the following manners:
1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the
effects of the crime.
2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects
or instruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery.
3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the
principals of the crime, provided the accessory acts with abuse of
his public functions or whenever the author of the crime is guilty of
treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the life of the Chief
Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime.
( Who is an accessory? o One must have knowledge of the commission of
the felony, and he participates after the commission by any of the acts
enumerated in Art. 19. His participation must not be that of a principal or
accomplice.)
(What are the requisites to become an accessory? o 1. Knowledge of the
commission of the crime o 2. Without participating therein o 3. Perform any
of the following acts (see below).)
(What are the three acts of accessories in Article 19? o 1. By profiting
themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime o
2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime (corpus delicti), or the
effects or instruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery o 3. By
harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principal, and –
A. the accessory acts with abuse of public functions OR B. the accessory
is a private individual, and the author of the crime is guilty of: i. treason,
ii. murder, iii. parricide, iv. or attempt to take life of the Chief
Executive, v. or is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime)
(What is PD 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law)? o One who acquires stolen property
is criminally liable as an accessory under Art. 19 or as a principal for fencing
under PD 1612. Prosecution has the option.)
(When does one become a principal for fencing – requisites? o 1. The crime
of robbery or theft must be committed, and accused did not participate in
the commission thereof. o 2. The accused then acquires the proceeds of the
robbery or theft, and he has actual knowledge thereof or he should have
known the subject is from such acts o 3. Intent to acquire)
Article 20. Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability. - The
penalties prescribed for accessories shall not be imposed upon those who
are such with respect to their spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate,
natural, and adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the
same degrees, with the single exception of accessories falling within the
provisions of paragraph 1 of the next preceding article.
(Who are the accessories exempt from liability? o Those who are accessories
vis-à-vis spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate/natural/adopted
brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity of the same degree o When does
it not apply? To paragraph 1 (profiting from the crime) o [N.B. this listing
is limited (not up to 4th degree of consanguinity) and is the same scope as
the alternative circumstance of relationship])
(What if a policeman furnishes the means for his brother to escape with
abuse of public position? Is he exempt? o He is. Blood-ties are more
powerful than call of duty. Moreover, the law does not distinguish between
private citizens and public officers.)
or presenting false evidence o 4. Giving false or misleading information to
law enforcement agents)
Prescription of penalties What are the prescriptive periods for penalties?
o Death and RP 20 years o RT, PM, other afflictive penalties 15 years
o Correctional penalties 10 years o AM 5 years o Light penalties 1
year
N.B. This differs from prescription of crimes in the ff ways: 1. RT drops
from 20 years to 15 years 2. Light penalties increase from 2 months to 1
year 3. Libel and slander have no special periods
When does prescription of penalties start to run? o The prescriptive period
for penalties begins to toll when the accused commits the crime of evasion
of service of sentence.
When is it interrupted? o 1. Defendant surrenders o 2. Defendant
captured o 3. Goes to foreign country where the Philippines has no
extradition treaty o 4. Commits another crime before expiration of period
When can a straight penalty be imposed? o When BOTH minimum and
maximum durations of imprisonment are less than 1 year (outside coverage
of the ISL).
Who are disqualified from probation? o [Type of conviction] o 1. Sentenced
to maximum term of more than 6 years o 2. Convicted of subversion or any
crime against national security or public order o 3. Those who have
perfected appeal o [Had prior record] o 4. Previously convicted by FJ of
offense punished by imprisonment not less than 1 month and 1 day and/or
fine not less than 200 o 5. Once been on probation.
What is the number one rule? o if you file appeal, you lose benefit of
probation. If you file for probation, you cannot appeal.

(What is PD 1829 or Obstruction of Justice? o Those who assist the principal

What is the remedy if the court denied petition for probation? o If there was
to escape may be prosecuted under PD 1829 as a principal for obstruction
GADALEJ, the remedy is Rule 65 (Certiorari)
of justice. When convicted, the penalty imposed is the higher penalty
between PD 1829 and any other law, including the RPC.)
Prescription of crimes When do crimes prescribe? o Death, RP, RT 20
years o PM, other afflictive penalties 15 years o Correctional penalties
(What are the acts amounting to Obstruction of Justice? o [preventing] o 1.
10 years o AM 5 years o Light offenses 2 months o Libel and similar
Preventing witnesses from testifying o 2. Harboring or concealing the
offenses 1 year o Oral defamation, slander by deed 6 months o N.B.
offender o 3. Obstruction of service of court processes/orders or disturbing
Remember 20y-10y-2m as the usual rule; then remember that the two
proceedings in fiscal or Court o 4. Solicitation or acceptance of benefit to
“mayors” are 5y less than their brethren. Remember, finally, that libel and
desist in prosecution o 5. Using threats to prevent a person from appearing
slander are 1 year and 6 months, respectively.
in proceedings o [misleading] o 1. Altering or suppressing evidence o
2.using fictitious name to conceal crime or evade prosecution o 3. Making
What is the nature of destierro? o Destierro is correctional: prescribes in 10
years.
When does the period start running? o When crime is discovered by the
offended party, authorities, their agents
When is the period interrupted? o 1. Counted when complaint filed for
preliminary investigation with public prosecutor or the OMB. What if it’s
a crime punishable under Summary Procedure? When it is filed directly
with the court Or when it is filed with the prosecutor o 2. Offender is
outside the Philippines – this does not contemplate very brief trips abroad.
When does the period resume? o 1. When proceedings terminate without
the accused being convicted or acquitted o 2. When proceedings are
unjustifiably stopped for reasons not imputable to the accused.
How about continuing crime? When does period being to run? o Prescriptive
period runs after the occurrence of the LAST act.
But what is the rule for marriage? o Prescriptive period should begin to run
from when State or agents or offended party acquired actual knowledge of
the second marriage. Unlike property registration, registration of marriage
is not constructive knowledge of marriage.
What is the 3-fold rule? Maximum duration of the sentence cannot be
more than 3-times the length of time of the most severe penalty. For RP,
treat its duration as 30 years, in calculating the three-fold rule.
What is the maximum period for sentences? Always 40 years. Do not
include subsidiary imprisonment penalty in the computation of 40 years.
Article 23. Effect of pardon by the offended party. - A pardon of the
offended party does not extinguish criminal action except as provided in
Article 344 of this Code; but civil liability with regard to the interest of the
injured party is extinguished by his express waiver.
Article 27. Reclusion perpetua. - Any person sentenced to any of the
perpetual penalties shall be pardoned after undergoing the penalty for thirty
years, unless such person by reason of his conduct or some other serious
cause shall be considered by the Chief Executive as unworthy of pardon.
Reclusion temporal. - The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be from twelve
years and one day to twenty years.
Prision mayor and temporary disqualification. - The duration of the penalties
of prision mayor and temporary disqualification shall be from six years and
one day to twelve years, except when the penalty of disqualification is
imposed as an accessory penalty, in which case its duration shall be that of
the principal penalty.
Prision correccional, suspension, and destierro. - The duration of the
penalties of prision correccional, suspension and destierro shall be from six
months and one day to six years, except when suspension is imposed as an
accessory penalty, in which case, its duration shall be that of the principal
penalty.
Arresto mayor. - The duration of the penalty of arresto mayor shall be from
one month and one day to six months.
Arresto menor. - The duration of the penalty of arresto menor shall be from
one day to thirty days.
Bond to keep the peace. - The bond to keep the peace shall be required to
cover such period of time as the court may determine.
Article 45. Confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds or instruments of the
crime. - Every penalty imposed for the commission of a felony shall carry
with it the forfeiture of the proceeds of the crime and the instruments or
tools with which it was committed.
Such proceeds and instruments or tools shall be confiscated and forfeited in
favor of the Government, unless they be property of a third person not liable
for the offense, but those articles which are not subject of lawful commerce
shall be destroyed.
Article 48. Penalty for complex crimes. - When a single act constitutes two
or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary
means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall
be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period.
Article 62. Effect of the attendance of mitigating or aggravating
circumstances and of habitual delinquency. - Mitigating or aggravating
circumstances and habitual delinquency shall be taken into account for the
purpose of diminishing or increasing the penalty in conformity with the
following rules:
1. Aggravating circumstances which in themselves constitute a
crime specially punishable by law or which are included by the law
in defining a crime and prescribing the penalty therefor shall not be
taken into account for the purpose of increasing the penalty.
 2. The same rule shall apply with respect to any aggravating
circumstance inherent in the crime to such a degree that it must of
necessity accompany the commission thereof.
3. Aggravating or mitigating circumstances which arise from the
moral attributes of the offender, or from his private relations with
the offended party, or from any other personal cause, shall only
serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of the principals,
accomplices and accessories as to whom such circumstances are
attendant.
4. The circumstances which consist in the material execution of the
act, or in the means employed to accomplish it, shall serve to
aggravate or mitigate the liability of those persons only who had
knowledge of them at the time of the execution of the act or their
cooperation therein.
5. Habitual delinquency shall have the following effects:
(a) Upon a third conviction the culprit shall be sentenced to
the penalty provided by law for the last crime of which he
be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision
correccional in its medium and maximum periods;
(b) Upon a fourth conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced
to the penalty provided for the last crime of which he be
found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision mayor
in its minimum and medium periods; and
(c) Upon a fifth or additional conviction, the culprit shall be
sentenced to the penalty provided for the last crime of which
he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision
mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its
minimum period.
Notwithstanding the provisions of this article, the total of the two penalties
to be imposed upon the offender, in conformity herewith, shall in no case
exceed 30 years.
For the purpose of this article, a person shall be deemed to be habitual
delinquent, is within a period of ten years from the date of his release or
last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robo,
hurto, estafa or falsification, he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third
time or oftener.
Article 70. Successive service of sentence. - When the culprit has to serve
two or more penalties, he shall serve them simultaneously if the nature of
the penalties will so permit otherwise, the following rules shall be observed:
In the imposition of the penalties, the order of their respective severity shall
be followed so that they may be executed successively or as nearly as may
be possible, should a pardon have been granted as to the penalty or
penalties first imposed, or should they have been served out.
For the purpose of applying the provisions of the next preceding paragraph
the respective severity of the penalties shall be determined in accordance
with the following scale:
1. Death,
2. Reclusion perpetua,
3. Reclusion temporal,
4. Prision mayor,
5. Prision correccional,
6. Arresto mayor,
7. Arresto menor,
8. Destierro,
9. Perpetual absolute disqualification,
10 Temporal absolute disqualification.
11. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted
for, the right to follow a profession or calling, and
12. Public censure.
Notwithstanding the provisions of the rule next preceding, the maximum
duration of the convict's sentence shall not be more than three-fold the
length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed
upon him. No other penalty to which he may be liable shall be inflicted after
the sum total of those imposed equals the same maximum period.
Such maximum period shall in no case exceed forty years.

In applying the provisions of this rule the duration of perpetual penalties

(pena perpetua) shall be computed at thirty years. (As amended).

Article 91. Computation of prescription of offenses. - The period of

prescription shall commence to run from the day on which the crime is
discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents, and shall
be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information, and shall
commence to run again when such proceedings terminate without the
accused being convicted or acquitted, or are unjustifiably stopped for any
reason not imputable to him.

The term of prescription shall not run when the offender is absent from the
Philippine Archipelago.
[G.R. No. 133489 & 143970. January 15, 2002]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs. RONALD a.k.a ROLAND GARCIA y FLORES,* RODANTE ROGEL y
ROSALES, ROTCHEL LARIBA y DEMICILLO, and GERRY B.
VALLER, accused-appellants.
Third. We go into the criminal liability of each accused-appellant. There
is no doubt that Gerry Valler and Ronald Garcia are principals by direct
participation and co-conspirators in the kidnapping for ransom of
Atty. Tioleco. Their respective participation in perpetrating the crime cannot
be denied. As regards their liability as co-conspirators, we find the same to
have also been shown beyond reasonable doubt. Conspiracy exists when
two or more persons come to agreement concerning the commission of a
felony and decide to commit it for which liability is joint. [114] Proof of the
agreement need not rest on direct evidence as the felonious covenant itself
may be inferred from the conduct of the parties before, during, and after
the commission of the crime disclosing a common understanding between
them relative to its commission.[115] The acts of Valler and Garcia in
coordinating the abduction, collection of ransom and detention of their
victim indubitably prove such conspiracy.
Lariba and Rogel were caught inside the house where Atty. Tioleco was
detained.
The time Lariba and Rogel were caught, Atty. Tioleco had already
been rendered immobile with his eyes blindfolded and his hands handcuffed.
No evidence exists that he could have gone elsewhere or escaped. At the
precise moment of their apprehension, accused-
appellants Lariba and Rogel were unarmed although guns inside one of the
rooms of the house were available for their use and possession.
Assessing these established circumstances in the manner most
favorable to Lariba and Rogel, we conclude that they were merely guarding
the house for the purpose of either helping the other accused-appellants in
facilitating the successful denouement to the crime or repelling any attempt
to rescue the victim, as shown by the availability of arms and ammunition
to them. They thus cooperated in the execution of the offense by previous
or simultaneous acts by means of which they aided or facilitated the
execution of the crime but without any indispensable act for its
accomplishment. Under Art. 18 of The Revised Penal Code, they are mere
accomplices.
In People v. De Vera[117] we distinguished a conspirator from an
accomplice in this manner -
Conspirators and accomplices have one thing in common: they know and
agree with the criminal design. Conspirators, however, know the criminal
intention because they themselves have decided upon such course of action.
Accomplices come to know about it after the principals have reached the
decision, and only then do they agree to cooperate in its execution.
Conspirators decide that a crime should be committed; accomplices merely
concur in it. Accomplices do not decide whether the crime should be
committed; they merely assent to the plan and cooperate in its
accomplishment. Conspirators are the authors of a crime; accomplices are
merely their instruments who perform acts not essential to the perpetration
of the offense.
In the instant case, we cannot deny knowledge on the part
of Lariba and Rogel that Valler and Garcia had kidnapped Atty. Tioleco for
the purpose of extorting ransom and their cooperation to pursue such crime.
But these facts without more do not make them co-conspirators since
knowledge of and participation in the criminal act are also inherent elements
of an accomplice.[118] Further, there is no evidence indubitably proving
that Lariba and Rogel themselves participated in the decision to commit the
criminal act. As the evidence stands, they were caught just guarding the
house for the purpose of either helping the other accused-appellants in
facilitating the success of the crime or repelling any attempt to rescue the
victim as shown by the availability of arms and ammunition to them. These
items contrast starkly with the tried and true facts against Valler and Garcia
that point to them as the agents ab initio of the design to kidnap
Atty. Tioleco and extort ransom from his family.
Significantly, the crime could have been accomplished even without the
participation of Lariba and Rogel. As stated above, the victim had been
rendered immobile by Vallerand Garcia before the latter established
contacts with Floriana Tioleco and demanded ransom. The participation
of Lariba and Rogel was thus hardly indispensable. As we have held
in Garcia v. CA, in some exceptional situations, having community of design
with the principal does not prevent a malefactor from being regarded as an
accomplice if his role in the perpetration of the homicide or murder was,
relatively speaking, of a minor character.[119] At any rate, where the
quantum of proof required to establish conspiracy is lacking and doubt
created as to whether the accused acted as principal or accomplice, the
balance tips for the milder form of criminal liability of an accomplice.[120]
We are not unaware of the ruling in People v. Licayan that conspiracy
can be deduced from the acts of the accused-appellants and their co-
accused which show a concerted action and community of interest. By
guarding Co and Manaysay and preventing their escape, accused-appellants
exhibited not only their knowledge of the criminal design of their co-
conspirators but also their participation in its execution.[121] But the instant
case is different. Considering the roles played by Lariba and Rogel in the
execution of the crime and the state the victim was in during the detention,
it cannot be said beyond reasonable doubt that these accused-appellants
were in a real sense detaining Atty. Tioleco and preventing his escape.
G.R. No. 84163 October 19, 1989
LITO VINO, petitioner,
vs.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE COURT OF
APPEALS, respondents.
The first issue that arises is that inasmuch as the petitioner was charged in
the information as a principal for the crime of murder, can he thereafter be
convicted as an accessory? The answer is in the affirmative.
Petitioner was charged as a principal in the commission of the crime of
murder. Under Article 16 of the Revised Penal Code, the two other categories
of the persons responsible for the commission of the same offense are the
accomplice and the accessory. There is no doubt that the crime of murder
had been committed and that the evidence tended to show that Jessie
Salazar was the assailant. That the petitioner was present during its
commission or must have known its commission is the only logical
conclusion considering that immediately thereafter, he was seen driving a
bicycle with Salazar holding an armalite, and they were together when they
left shortly thereafter. At least two witnesses, Ernesto and Julius Tejada,
attested to these facts. It is thus clear that petitioner actively assisted
Salazar in his escape. Petitioner's liability is that of an accessory.
This is not a case of a variance between the offense charged and the offense
proved or established by the evidence, and the offense as charged is
included in or necessarily includes the offense proved, in which case the
defendant shall be convicted of the offense proved included in that which is
charged, or of the offense charged included in that which is proved. 5
In the same light, this is not an instance where after trial has begun, it
appears that there was a mistake in charging the proper offense, and the
defendant cannot be convicted of the offense charged, or of any other
offense necessarily included therein, in which case the defendant must not
be discharged if there appears to be a good cause to detain him in custody,
so that he can be charged and made to answer for the proper offense. 6
In this case, the correct offense of murder was charged in the information.
The commission of the said crime was established by the evidence. There is
no variance as to the offense committed. The variance is in the participation
or complicity of the petitioner. While the petitioner was being held
responsible as a principal in the information, the evidence adduced,
however, showed that his participation is merely that of an accessory. The
greater responsibility necessarily includes the lesser. An accused can be
validly convicted as an accomplice or accessory under an information
charging him as a principal.
At the onset, the prosecution should have charged the petitioner as an
accessory right then and there. The degree of responsibility of petitioner
was apparent from the evidence. At any rate, this lapse did not violate the
substantial rights of petitioner.
The next issue that must be resolved is whether or not the trial of an
accessory can proceed without awaiting the result of the separate charge
against the principal. The answer is also in the affirmative. The
corresponding responsibilities of the principal, accomplice and accessory are
distinct from each other. As long as the commission of the offense can be
duly established in evidence the determination of the liability of the
accomplice or accessory can proceed independently of that of the principal.
The third question is this-considering that the alleged principal in this case
was acquitted can the conviction of the petitioner as an accessory be
maintained?
In the present case, the commission of the crime of murder and the
responsibility of the petitioner as an accessory was established. By the same
token there is no doubt that the commission of the same offense had been
proven in the separate case against Salazar who was charged as principal.
However, he was acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt by the same
judge who convicted Vino as an accessory. The trial court held that the
identity of the assailant was not clearly established. It observed that only
Julius Tejada identified Salazar carrying a rifle while riding on the bicycle
driven by Vino, which testimony is uncorroborated, and that two other
witnesses, Ernesto Tejada and Renato Parvian who were listed in the
information, who can corroborate the testimony of Julius Tejada, were not
presented by the prosecution.
The trial court also did not give due credit to the dying declaration of the
victim pinpointing Salazar as his assailant on the ground that it was not
shown the victim revealed the identity of Salazar to his father and brother
who came to his aid immediately after the shooting. The court a quo also
deplored the failure of the prosecution and law enforcement agencies to
subject to ballistic examinations the bullet slug recovered from the body of
the victim and the two empty armalite bullet empty shells recovered at the
crime scene and to compare it with samples taken from the service rifle of
Salazar.
Hence, in said case, the acquittal of the accused Salazar is predicated on
the failure of the prosecution to adduce the quantum of evidence required
to generate a conviction as he was not positively identified as the person
who was seen holding a rifle escaping aboard the bicycle of Vino.
A similar situation may be cited. The accessory was seen driving a bicycle
with an unidentified person as passenger holding a carbine fleeing from the
scene of the crime immediately after the commission of the crime of murder.
The commission of the crime and the participation of the principal or
assailant, although not identified, was established. In such case, the Court
holds that the accessory can be prosecuted and held liable independently of
the assailant.

We may visualize another situation as when the principal died or escaped

before he could be tried and sentenced. Should the accessory be acquitted
thereby even if the commission of the offense and the responsibility of the
accused as an accessory was duly proven? The answer is no, he should be
held criminally liable as an accessory.

Although in this case involving Vino the evidence tended to show that the
assailant was Salazar, as two witnesses saw him with a rifle aboard the
bicycle driven by Vino, in the separate trial of the case of Salazar, as above
discussed, he was acquitted as the trial court was not persuaded that he
was positively identified to be the man with the gun riding on the bicycle
driven by Vino. In the trial of the case against Vino, wherein he did not even
adduce evidence in his defense, his liability as such an accessory was
established beyond reasonable doubt in that he assisted in the escape of the
assailant from the scene of the crime. The identity of the assailant is of no
material significance for the purpose of the prosecution of the accessory.
Even if the assailant can not be identified the responsibility of Vino as an
accessory is indubitable.

WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is denied and this denial is

FINAL.
G.R. No. 172716 November 17, 2010 benefit the accused who, in lieu of serving multiple penalties, will only serve
the maximum of the penalty for the most serious crime.
JASON IVLER y AGUILAR, Petitioner,
vs.
HON. MARIA ROWENA MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, Judge of the In contrast, Article 365 is a substantive rule penalizing not an act defined
Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 71, Pasig City, and EVANGELINE as a felony but the mental attitude behind the act, the dangerous
PONCE, Respondents. recklessness, lack of care or foresight, a single mental attitude regardless
of the resulting consequences. Thus, Article 365 was crafted as one quasi-
1) Reckless Imprudence is a Single Crime; its Consequences on crime resulting in one or more consequences. Article 48 is incongruent to
Persons and Property are Material Only to Determine the Penalty the notion of quasi-crime resulting in one or more consequences.

Quasi-offenses penalize “the mental attitude or condition behind the act, the
dangerous recklessness, lack of care or foresight, the imprudencia punible,”
unlike willful offenses which punish the intentional criminal act. These
structural and conceptual features of quasi-offenses set them apart from the
mass of intentional crimes.
Article 48 is incongruent to the notion of quasi-crimes under Article 365. It
is conceptually impossible for a quasi-offense to stand for (1) a single act
constituting two or more grave or less grave felonies; or (2) an offense
which is a necessary means for committing another.

Prosecutions under Article 365 should proceed from a single charge

2) Prior Conviction or Acquittal of Reckless Imprudence Bars regardless of the number or severity of the consequences. In imposing
Subsequent Prosecution for the Same Quasi-offense penalties, the judge will do no more than apply the penalties under Article
365 for each consequence alleged and proven. In short, there shall be no
splitting of charges under Article 365, and only one information shall be filed
in the same first level court.
Once convicted or acquitted of a specific act of reckless imprudence, the
accused may not be prosecuted again for that same act. For the essence of
the quasi-offense of criminal negligence under Article 365 of the Revised
Penal Code lies in the execution of an imprudent or negligent act that, if
intentionally done, would be punishable as a felony. The law penalizes thus
the negligent or careless act, not the result thereof.

The gravity of the consequence is only taken into account to determine the
penalty, it does not qualify the substance of the offense. And, as the careless
act is single, whether the injurious result should affect one person or several
persons, the offense (criminal negligence) remains one and the same, and
cannot be split into different crimes and prosecutions.

3) Article 48 Does Not Apply to Acts Penalized Under Article 365 of

the Revised Penal Code

Article 48 is a procedural device allowing single prosecution of multiple

felonies falling under either of two categories: (1) when a single act
constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies (thus excluding from
its operation light felonies); and (2) when an offense is a necessary means
for committing the other. The legislature crafted this procedural tool to
G.R. No. L-40995 June 25, 1980 The crimes thus proved to have been committed are forcible abduction with
rape and sixteen (16) separate rapes attended by the aggravating
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, circumstances of superiority and use of a motor vehicle without any
vs. mitigating circumstance.
EULALIO BOHOS, ET AL., defendant-appellant.
WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is modified in that Eulalio Bohos
The simultaneous acts of the four accused — two of them holding Myrna's is sentenced to suffer not thirteen (13) but seventeen (17) death penalties;
hands and the other two covering her mouth as they accosted her on the it is affirmed in all other respects. Costs de officio.
highway; the four of them dragging Myrna aboard the truck which they
stopped and where she was violated by one of them with the assistance and
encouragement of the three others; the four of them alternately and
successively ravishing her inside the house of Teodoro Engio three times
each on the night of September 17, 1966, and one each the following
morning while one held complainant's right arm, another held her left arm
and another stretched her legs wide apart - together with other
circumstances, make evident a community to design, an indicia of a
conspiracy to abduct complainant forcibly for the satisfaction of their carnal
desire against her will .

We are satisfied that there was conspiracy among the four accused to abduct
and rape Myrna so that the act of any one was also the act of the others.

Appellant's other point is: "Even if we may assume purely for the sake of
argument that the complaining witness was forcibly abducted and then
raped thirteen times, we submit that there was only one forcible abduction,
with rape and that was the one allegedly committed on the truck or jeep.
Any subsequent acts of intercourse in the house against her wig would be
only separate acts of rape and can no longer be considered separate
complex crimes of forcible abduction with rape.

This point is well taken. There was only one forcible abduction with rape
which was the one committed in the truck. Thus in People vs. Jose, et
al., G.R. No. L-28232, Feb. 6, 1971, 37 SCRA 450, where the four accused
forcibly abducted Maggie de la Riva and each of them raped her, this Court
held "that even while the first act of rape was being performed, the crime
of forcible abduction had already been consummated, so that each of the
three succeeding crimes of the same nature can not legally be considered
as still connected with the abduction — in other words, they should be
detached from, and considered independently of, that of forcible abduction
and, therefore, the former can no longer be complexed with the latter." (At
p. 475.)

We have examined the record to ascertain if there was indeed forcible

abduction with rape and other rapes in order to set our minds at ease. And
the evidence is over-whelming so as to satisfy even the most skeptical
reviewer that the crimes were in fact committed.
G.R. No. 33463 December 18, 1930

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
BASILIO BORINAGA, defendant-appellant.

The only debatable question, not referred to in the briefs, but which must
be decided in order to dispose of the appeal, is: Do the facts constitute
frustrated murder or attempted murder within the meaning of article 3 of
the Penal Code? Although no exact counterpart to the facts at bar has been
found either in Spanish or Philippine jurisprudence, a majority of the court
answer the question propounded by stating that the crime committed was
that of frustrated murder. This is true notwithstanding the admitted fact that
Mooney was not injured in the least.

The essential condition of a frustrated crime, that the author perform all the
acts of execution, attended the attack. Nothing remained to be done to
accomplish the work of the assailant completely. The cause resulting in the
failure of the attack arose by reason of forces independent of the will of the
perpetrator. The assailant voluntarily desisted from further acts. What is
known as the subjective phase of the criminal act was passed.
ACT NO. 3326 – AN ACT TO ESTABLISH PERIODS OF PRESCRIPTION
FOR VIOLATIONS PENALIZED BY SPECIAL ACTS AND MUNICIPAL
ORDINANCES AND TO PROVIDE WHEN PRESCRIPTION SHALL BEGIN
TO RUN
Section 1. Violations penalized by special acts shall, unless otherwise
provided in such acts, prescribe in accordance with the following rules: (a)
after a year for offenses punished only by a fine or by imprisonment for not
more than one month, or both; (b) after four years for those punished by
imprisonment for more than one month, but less than two years; (c) after
eight years for those punished by imprisonment for two years or more, but
less than six years; and (d) after twelve years for any other offense punished
by imprisonment for six years or more, except the crime of treason, which
shall prescribe after twenty years. Violations penalized by municipal
ordinances shall prescribe after two months.
Sec. 2. Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the commission of the
violation of the law, and if the same be not known at the time, from the
discovery thereof and the institution of judicial proceeding for its
investigation and punishment.
The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are instituted
against the guilty person, and shall begin to run again if the proceedings are
dismissed for reasons not constituting jeopardy.
Sec. 3. For the purposes of this Act, special acts shall be acts defining and
penalizing violations of the law not included in the Penal Code.
Sec. 4. This Act shall take effect on its approval.