CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
CRIMINAL LAW 1
Table of Contents
Chapter I. Fundamental Principles of
Criminal Law ...................................................4
I. Definition..............................................4
II. State Authority to Punish Crime ............4
A. Sources of Criminal Law ..................5
B. Penal Legislation .............................5
III. Basic Principles....................................5
A. Generality of Criminal Law ...............5
B. Territoriality of Criminal Law .............6
C. Prospectivity of Criminal Law ...........7
D. Legality (nullum crimen nulla poena
sine lege) .................................................8
E. Strict Construction of Penal Laws
Against State: The “Doctrine of Pro Reo” ..8
IV. Basic Maxims in Criminal Law ..............9
Chapter II. Felonies ......................................10
I. Differentiating Felonies, Offense,
Misdemeanor and Crime ............................10
II. Felonies: How Committed ..................10
A. Elements of Felonies .....................10
B. Requisites of Dolo or Malice ...........11
III. Classification of Felonies ....................14
IV. Crimes Defined and Penalized by
Special Laws ..............................................16
Chapter III. Fundamental Principles of
Criminal Liability...........................................18
I. Proximate Cause ...............................18
II. Omission............................................20
III. Impossible Crimes .............................20
IV. Liability for Incomplete Elements and
Incomplete Crimes .....................................21
A. Classification Under Art. 6 ..............21
B. Development of a Crime ................22
C. Attempted and Frustrated Crimes...22
D. Factors in Determining the Stage of
Execution of a Felony .............................26
V. Proposal and Conspiracy ...................26
VI. Plural Crimes .....................................31
A. Complex Crimes ............................31
B. Special Complex/Composite crimes
33
C. Continued and Continuing Crimes ..33
Chapter IV. Circumstances Affecting Criminal
Liability .........................................................36
I. Justifying Circumstances ....................36
II. Exempting Circumstances ..................43
III. Mitigating Circumstances ...................45
IV. Aggravating Circumstances ................52
V. Alternative Circumstances ..................69
VI. Absolutory Causes .............................71
VII. Extenuating Circumstances ............73
TABLE of CONTENTS
2
CRIMINAL LAW 1
Chapter V. Persons Criminally Liable ......... 74
I. Principals ........................................... 74
A. By Direct Participation ................... 74
B. By Inducement .............................. 74
C. By Indispensable Cooperation ....... 75
II. Accomplices ...................................... 75
A. When is one regarded as an
accomplice: ........................................... 75
B. What are the other traits of an
accomplice: ........................................... 75
C. Requisites: .................................... 75
III. Accessories ....................................... 75
A. When accessories are not criminally
liable: ..................................................... 75
B. When one cannot be an accessory:76
C. When an accessory is exempt from
criminal liability: ..................................... 76
D. When an accessory is NOT exempt
from criminal liability even if the principal is
related to him: ........................................ 76
E. Other instances when one becomes
an accessory: ........................................ 76
Chapter VI. Penalties .................................... 78
I. General Principles ............................. 78
II. Penalties Which May Be Imposed ...... 78
A. Scale of Principal Penalties ........... 79
B. Scale of Accessory Penalties ......... 79
C. Major Classification ....................... 79
D. Other Classifications of Penalties... 79
III. Specific Principal and Accessory
Penalties .................................................... 79
A. Capital Punishment: Death Penalty 79
B. Afflictive Penalties ......................... 80
C. Correctional Penalties.................... 82
D. Light Penalties ............................... 83
E. Penalties Common to Afflictive,
Correctional and Light Penalties ............. 84
IV. Accessory Penalties .......................... 85
A. Perpetual or Temporary Absolute
Disqualification ...................................... 85
B. Perpetual or Temporary Special
Disqualification ...................................... 85
C. Suspension from Public Office, the
Right to Vote and Be Voted for, the Right
to Practice a Profession or Calling ......... 86
D. Civil Interdiction ............................. 86
E. Indemnification or Confiscation of
Instruments or Proceeds of the Offense . 86
F. Payment of Costs .......................... 86
V. Measures Not Considered Penalty ..... 86
VI. Application and Computation of
Penalties .................................................... 87
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER TABLE of CONTENTS

VII. Special Rules for Certain Situations

94
A. Complex Crimes ............................94 3
B. Crimes Different from That Intended

CRIMINAL LAW 1
95
C. Where the Offender Is Below 18
Years .....................................................96
D. The Three-Fold Rule ......................96
VIII. The Indeterminate Sentence Law
(ISL) 98
IX. Execution and Service of Penalties .. 100

Chapter VII. Extinguishment of Criminal

Liability ....................................................... 104
I. Total Extinguishment ........................ 104
A. By the Death of the Convict .......... 104
B. By Service of Sentence ................ 105
C. By Amnesty ................................. 105
D. By Absolute Pardon ..................... 105
E. By Prescription of the Crime (Art. 90)
106
F. By Prescription of Penalties (Art. 92)
106
G. By Marriage of the Offended Woman
with the Offender .................................. 107
II. Partial Extinguishment ..................... 107
A. By Conditional Pardon ................. 107
B. By Commutation of Sentence ....... 107
C. For Good Conduct Allowances ..... 107
D. By Parole ..................................... 107
E. By Probation ................................ 108

Chapter VIII. Civil Liabilities Arising from a

Felony ......................................................... 109
I. In General ........................................ 109
II. Civil Liability in Certain Cases .......... 110
A. Civil Liability for Acts Committed by
an Insane or Imbecile or Minor under 9 or
over 9 and less than 15 Who Acted with
Discernment ......................................... 110
B. Civil Liability for Acts Committed by
Persons Acting under Irresistible Force or
Uncontrollabe Fear ............................... 110
C. Civil Liability of Persons Acting under
Justifying Circumstances ...................... 110
D. Civil Liability of Innkeepers and
Similar Persons .................................... 110
E. Subsidiary Liability of Other Persons
110
III. What Civil Liability Includes .............. 111
1. Restitution or Restoration ............. 111
2. Reparation of the Damage Caused
112
3. Indemnification of Consequential
Damages ............................................. 112
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Chapter I. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES of CRIMINAL LAW

Chapter I. Fundamental Principles of

CRIMINAL LAW 1
CRIMINAL LAW 1 TEAM
Criminal Law
Prof. Ildefonso Jimenez 4
Faculty Editor

CRIMINAL LAW 1
The first section is a review of certain definitions,
Regie Mendoza principles and concepts underlying Criminal Law as a
Lead Writer
branch of study.
Ciela Base
Mel Pana This section contains:
Kirk Avestruz
Writers I. DEFINITION AND PURPOSE OF CRIMINAL
LAW
CRIMINAL LAW II. RATIONALE BEHIND STATE AUTHORITY TO
Karichi Santos PUNISH CRIME
Subject Editor III. BASIC PRINCIPLES
IV. RELEVANT MAXIMS
ACADEMICS COMMITTEE
Kristine Bongcaron
Michelle Dy I. Definition
Patrich Leccio
Committee Heads Criminal law is that branch of public
substantive law which defines crimes, treats
PRINTING & DISTRIBUTION of their nature, and provides for their
Kae Guerrero punishment
DESIGN & LAYOUT Criminal Law vs. Criminal Procedure
Pat Hernandez Criminal Law Criminal Procedure
Viktor Fontanilla 1. Substantive 1. Remedial
Romualdo Menzon Jr. 2. Prospective 2. Retroactive
Rania Joya EXCEPTION:
LECTURES COMMITTEE favourable to the
accused
Michelle Arias
Camille Maranan
EXCEPTION TO THE
Angela Sandalo EXCEPTION:
Heads 1. accused is a
Katz Manzano Mary Rose Beley habitual delinquent
Sam Nuñez Krizel Malabanan 2. law specifies
Arianne Cerezo Marcrese Banaag prospective effect
Volunteers 3. statutory; passed 3. may be
MOCK BAR COMMITTEE by Legislature promulgated by
Legislature (e.g.
Lilibeth Perez
jurisdiction of
BAR CANDIDATES WELFARE courts) or the
Judiciary (e.g.
Dahlia Salamat Rules of Court)
LOGISTICS
Charisse Mendoza
II. State Authority to Punish Crime
SECRETARIAT COMMITTEE (ASKED ONCE IN BAR EXAMS)
Jill Hernandez
Head Art. II, Sec. 5 (1987 Constitution): Declaration of
Loraine Mendoza Faye Celso Principles and State Policies. The maintenance of
Mary Mendoza Joie Bajo peace and order, the protection of life, liberty and
Members property, and the promotion of the general welfare are
essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the
blessings of democracy.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
A. Sources of Criminal Law
1. The Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815) –
created pursuant to Administrative Order 94;
enacted January 1, 1932; based on Spanish
Penal Code, US Penal Code, and Phil.
Supreme Court decisions
2. Special penal laws and penal Presidential
Decrees issued during Martial Law.
B. Penal Legislation
1. Schools of Thought
(ASKED ONCE IN BAR EXAMS)
a. Utilitarian Theory
Primary purpose: protection of society from
actual or potential wrongdoers
b. Classical Theory
Primary purpose: retribution
Basis of criminal liability: human free will.
Endeavored to establish a mechanical and
direct proportion between crime and penalty;
there is scant regard to human element.
c. Positivist Theory
Primary purpose: Reformation;
prevention/correction.
Basis of criminal liability: the sum of the
social, natural and economic phenomena to
which the actor is exposed.
d. Eclectic/Mixed
 combines both positivist and classical
thinking
 Crimes that are economic and social by
nature should be dealt with in a positivist
manner; thus, the law is more
compassionate.
 Heinous crimes should be dealt with in a
classical manner; thus, capital
punishment.
The Revised Penal Code today follows the
mixed or eclectic philosophy. For example:
 intoxication of the offender is considered
to mitigate his criminal liability, unless it
is intentional or habitual;
Chapter I. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES of CRIMINAL LAW
 age of the offender is considered;
 woman who killed her child to conceal
5
her dishonor has in her favor a
mitigating circumstance.
CRIMINAL LAW 1
2. Limitations to penal legislation
a. Must be general in application
b. Must not partake of the nature of an ex post
facto law. (1987 Const. Art III, Sec.22)
c. Must not partake of the nature of a bill of
attainder. (1987 Const. Art III, Sec 22)
d. Must not impose cruel and unusual
punishment or excessive fines. (1987
Const. Art III, Sec 19)
e. Must not provide imprisonment for non-
payment of debts or poll tax (Art. III, Sec. 19
(1), 1987 Constitution)
f. Must not restrict other constitutional
freedoms, e.g due process, religion, free
speech, and asembly
III. Basic Principles
A. Generality (WHO?)
B. Territoriality (WHERE?)
C. Prospectivity (WHEN?)
D. Legality
E. Strict Construction of penal laws against the
State
Criminal Law has THREE CHARACTERISTICS:
General, Territorial, and Prospective.
A. Generality of Criminal Law
 Criminal law of the country is binding on all
persons who live or sojourn in Philippine
territory (Art. 14, NCC)
Limitations:
“Except as provided in the treatise or laws of
preferential application…” (Art. 2, RPC(
“…subject to the principles of public international
law and to treaty stipulations.” (Art. 14, NCC)
1. Treaty Stipulations
Examples:
1. Bases Agreement entered into by the
Philippines and the US on Mar. 14, 1947
and expired on Sept. 16, 1991.
2. Visiting Forces Agreement 1 signed on
Feb. 10, 1998.
1
Take note of the Visiting Forces Agreement, Art. V, which
defines Criminal Jurisdiction over United States military and
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
2. Laws of Preferential Application
Examples:
1. Members of the Congress are not liable
for libel or slander for any speech in
Congress or congressional committee.
(Sec 11, Art VI, 1987 Constitution)
2. Ambassadors, chiefs of states and other
diplomatic officials are immune from the
application of penal laws when they are
in the country where they are assigned. 2
(RA 75)
3. Warship Rule – a warship of another
country even though docked in the
Philippines is considered an extension of
the territory of their respective country.
Applicable also to embassies.
3. Principles of Public International Law
The following persons are exempt from the
provisions of the RPC:
a. Sovereigns and other heads of state
b. Ambassadors, ministers,
plenipotentiary, minister resident and
charges d’ affaires.
Note: consuls and consular officers are
NOT exempt from local prosecution
 Public vessels of a friendly foreign
power are not subject to local
jurisdiction.
Note: Generality has NO reference to
territoriality.
B. Territoriality of Criminal Law
1. General Rule
2. Exceptions
1. General Rule: Penal laws of the country
have force and effect only within its
territory.
 It cannot penalize crimes committed
outside its territory.
 The territory of the country is not
limited to the land where its
sovereignty resides but includes also its
civilian personnel temporarily in the Philippines in connection
with activities approved by the Philippine Government
2 3
R.A. No. 75 which penalizes acts which would impair the
proper observance by the Republic and inhabitants of the
Philippines of the immunities, rights, and privileges of duly
accredited foreign diplomatic representatives in the
Philippines
Chapter I. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES of CRIMINAL LAW
maritime and interior waters as well
as its atmosphere.
 Terrestrial jurisdiction is the 6
jurisdiction exercised over land.
CRIMINAL LAW 1
 Fluvial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction
exercised over maritime and interior
waters.
 Aerial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction
exercised over the atmosphere.
2. Exceptions
EXTRATERRITORIAL CRIMES which are
punishable even if committed outside the
Philippine territory (Art. 2, RPC) (ASKED 4
TIMES IN BAR EXAMS)
Art. 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.
 Article 2 embraces two scopes of
applications:
 General rule - Intraterritorial refers to
the application of the RPC within the
Philippine territory (land, air and water).
 Exception - Extraterritorial3 refers to
the application of the Revised Penal
Code outside the Philippines territory.
PAR. 1: Crimes committed aboard Philippine
ship or airship:
1. The RPC is applied to Philippine vessels 4 if
the crime is committed while the ship is
treading:
RA9327 (The Human Security Act) contains provisions for
extraterritorial application
4
The country of registry determines the nationality of the
vessel, NOT ITS OWNERSHIP. A Filipino-owned vessel
registered in China must fly the Chinese flag.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
a. Philippine waters (intraterritorial), or
b. The High Seas i.e. waters NOT under
the jurisdiction of any State
(extraterritorial)
2. Two rules as to jurisdiction over crimes
committed aboard merchant vessels while
in the territorial waters of another country
(i.e. a foreign vessel treading Philippine
waters OR Philippine vessels treading
foreign waters):
a. FRENCH RULE: It is the
FLAG/Nationality of the vessel which
determines jurisdiction UNLESS the
crime violates the peace and order of
the host country
b. ENGLISH RULE: the location or situs of
the crime determines jurisdiction
UNLESS the crime merely relates to
internal management of the vessel.
Note: The Philippines adheres to the
ENGLISH RULE.
BUT: These rules are NOT applicable if the
vessel is on the high seas when the crime was
committed, in these cases, the laws of the
nationality of the ship will always apply.
3. When the crime is committed in a war
vessel of a foreign country, the
NATIONALITY of the vessel will ALWAYS
determine jurisdiction because war
vessels are part of the sovereignty of the
country to whose naval force they belong.
4. International Theories On Aerial
Jurisdiction
a. Free Zone Theory
The atmosphere over the country is free
and not subject to the jurisdiction of the
subjacent state, except for the protection
of its national security and public order.
b. Relative Theory
The subjacent state exercises
jurisdiction over the atmosphere only to
the extent that it can effectively exercise
control thereof.
c. Absolute Theory
 The subjacent state has complete
jurisdiction over the atmosphere
above it subject only to the innocent
passage by aircraft of a foreign
country.
 Under this theory, if the crime is
committed in an aircraft, no matter
how high, as long as it can be
established that it is within the
Chapter I. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES of CRIMINAL LAW
Philippine atmosphere, Philippine
criminal law5 will govern.
7
Note: The Philippines adopts this theory.
CRIMINAL LAW 1
PAR. 2 & 3: Forging/Counterfeiting and
Introducing Coins or Currency Notes in the
Philippines
1. forgery is committed abroad, and
2. it refers to Philippine coin, currency note,
obligation and security
PAR. 4: When public officers or employees
commit an offense in the exercise of their
functions
Crime committed pertains to the exercise of the
public official’s functions:
 Those having to do with the discharge of their
duties in a foreign country.
 The functions contemplated are those, which
are, under the law:
 to be performed by the public officer
 in the Foreign Service of the Phil.
government
 in a foreign country.
PAR. 5: Commit any of The Crimes Against
National Security and the Law Of Nations,
Defined In Title One Of Book Two Of This
Code
 Crimes against public order (e.g., rebellion,
coup d’etat, sedition) committed abroad is
under the jurisdiction of the host country.
C. Prospectivity of Criminal Law
General rule: Acts or omissions will only be
subject to a penal law if they are committed
AFTER a penal law has already taken effect.
 Vice versa, acts or omissions which have
been committed before the effectivity of a
penal law could not be penalized by such
penal law.
Exception:
Art. 22. Penal Laws shall have a retroactive effect
 insofar as they favor the persons guilty of
a felony,
 who is not a habitual criminal,
5
See Anti-Hijacking Law, pg 263.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Exception to the Exception:
1. the new law is expressly made
inapplicable to pending actions or
existing cause of actions; or
2. offender is a habitual criminal
 Effects of repeal of penal law
 If the repeal makes the penalty lighter
in the new law,
 the new law shall be applied,
 EXCEPT when the offender is a
habitual delinquent or when the new
law is made not applicable to
pending action or existing causes of
action.
 If the new law imposes a heavier
penalty
 law in force at the time of the
commission of the offense shall be
applied.
 If the new law totally repeals the
existing law so that the act which was
penalized under the old law is no longer
punishable,
 the crime is obliterated.
 Pending cases are dismissed
 Unserved penalties imposed are
remitted
 Rule of prospectivity also applies to judicial
decisions,6 administrative rulings and
circulars.
Co vs. CA, (1993): In this case, Circular No. 4 of
the Ministry of Justice, dated December, 15,
1981, provides that “where the check is issued as
part of an arrangement to guarantee or secure
the payment of an obligation, whether pre-
existing or not, the drawer is not criminally liable
for either estafa or violation of BP 22.”
Subsequently, the administrative interpretation
was reversed in Circular No. 12, issued on
August 8, 1984, such that the claim that the
check was issued as a guarantee or part of an
arrangement to secure an obligation or to
facilitate collection, is no longer a valid defense
for the prosecution of BP 22.
Hence, it was ruled in Que vs. People that under
the new Circular, a check issued merely to
guarantee the performance of an obligation is
covered by BP 22.
However, consistent with the principle of
prospectivity, the new doctrine should not
apply to parties who had relied on the old
6
Art. 8, Civil Code
Chapter I. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES of CRIMINAL LAW
Circular and acted on the faith thereof. No
retrospective effect.
8
Rationale for the prospectivity rule: the
punishability of an act must be reasonably
CRIMINAL LAW 1
known for the guidance of society.
 Limitations on the power of Congress to
enact penal laws:
1. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder
shall be enacted. (Art. III, Sec. 22, 1987
Constitution).
 Ex post facto law – a law that would
make a previous act criminal
although it was not so at the time it
was committed
 Bill of attainder – a legislative act
that inflicts punishment without trial,
its essence being the substitution of
legislative fiat for a judicial
determination of guilt
2. No person shall be held to answer for a
criminal offense without due process of
law (Art. III, Sec. 14 (1), 1987
Constitution).
3. It should not impose cruel and unusual
punishment nor should it impose
excessive fines.
4. No imprisonment for non-payment of
debts (Art. III, Sec. 19 (1), 1987
Constitution)
5. Must not restrict constitutional freedoms,
e.g due process, religion, free speech, &
assembly
D. Legality (nullum crimen nulla poena
sine lege)
Art. 21. No felony shall be punishable by any penalty
not prescribed by law prior to its commission.
 There is no crime when there is no law
punishing the same.
 Limitation:
 Not any law punishing an act or
omission may be valid as a criminal law.
If the law punishing an act is ambiguous,
it is null and void.
E. Strict Construction of Penal Laws
Against State: The “Doctrine of Pro
Reo”
 Pro Reo doctrine: Whenever a penal law is
to be construed or applied and the law
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
admits of two interpretations - one lenient
to the offender and one strict to the offender-
 that interpretation which is lenient or
favorable to the offender will be
adopted.
 Basis: Fundamental rule that all doubts
shall be construed in favor of the
accused and presumption of innocence
of the accused.
Art. III, Sec. 14(2), 1987 Constitution: In all
criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be
presumed innocent until the contrary is proved.
Note: This is peculiar only to criminal law.
 EQUIPOISE RULE:
 When the evidence of the prosecution
and the defense are equally balanced,
the scale should be tilted in favor of the
accused in obedience to the
constitutional presumption of
innocence.7
In the case of Aoas vs. People (2008), in a
prosecution for theft based solely on
circumstantial evidence, the fact that some beans
were scattered on the floor inside and in front of
the stall of petitioner and in the parking lot does
not necessarily lead to the conclusion that
petitioner is the perpetrator of the crime of
stealing beans.
This cannot be equated with the principle of law
that a person in possession or control of stolen
goods is presumed to be the author of the
larceny.
Absent proof of any stolen property in the
possession of a person, as in the case at bar, no
presumption of guilt can arise.
Instead, the constitutional presumption of
innocence should prevail in petitioner’s favor.
The prosecution failed to show that the
circumstances invoked completely discount the
possibility that persons other than petitioner could
have perpetrated the crime.
Thus, where the proven facts and circumstances
are capable of two or more explanations, one of
which is consistent with innocence and the other
with guilt, the evidence does not fulfill the test of
moral certainty and is not sufficient to convict the
accused.
7
Ursua v. CA (1996); Corpuz v. People (1991)
Chapter I. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES of CRIMINAL LAW
In the case of People vs. Abdulah (2009), the
Court stated that as a corollary to the
constitutional precept that the accused is 9
presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, a
CRIMINAL LAW 1
conviction based on circumstantial evidence must
exclude each and every hypothesis consistent
with his innocence.
The circumstances proved must be concordant
with each other, consistent with the hypothesis
that the accused is guilty and, at the same time,
inconsistent with any hypothesis other than that
of guilt.
IV. Basic Maxims in Criminal Law
1. Actus Non Facit Reum, Nisi Mens Sit Rea
“The act cannot be criminal where the mind
is not criminal.”
U.S. vs. Catolico (18 Phil. 504, 508)
Facts: Accused was a justice of the peace who
rendered decisions for damages based on breach
of contract. The defendants failed to pay the
bonds required on time, so upon petition of the
plaintiffs, the accursed dismissed the appeals and
ordered the sums attached and delivered to
plaintiffs in satisfaction of the judgment. Accused
was prosecuted for malversation.
Held: The act of the accused was not unlawful.
Everything he did was done in good faith under
the belief that he was acting judiciously and
correctly. The act of a aperson does not make
him a criminal, unless his mind be criminal.
2. Actus Me Invito Factus Non Est Meus Actus
“An act done by me against my will is not my
act.”
3. El Que Es Causa De La Causa Es Causa
Del Mal Causado
“He who is the cause of the cause is the
cause of the evil caused.”
 This is the rationale in par. 1 of Article 4
which enunciates the doctrine of
proximate cause.
 He who commits an intentional felony is
responsible for all the consequences
which may naturally and logically result
therefrom, whether foreseen or intended
or not.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Chapter II. FELONIES

Chapter II. Felonies Intentional Felony v. Culpable Felony

INTENTIONAL CULPABLE 10
I. DIFFERENTIATING FELONIES, OFFENSE, 1. Act is malicious. 1. Not malicious.

CRIMINAL LAW 1
MISDEMEANOR, AND CRIME
II. FELONIES: HOW COMMITTED 2. With deliberate intent 2. Injury caused is
III. CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES unintentional being just
IV. CRIMES DEFINED AND PENALIZED BY an incident of another act
SPECIAL LAWS performed without
malice.
3. Has intention to cause 3. Wrongful act results
I. Differentiating Felonies, Offense, an injury from imprudence,
Misdemeanor and Crime negligence, lack of
foresight, or lack of skill.
A. Felony: refers only to violations of the
Revised Penal Code
A. Elements of Felonies
Note: When the crime is punishable under a 1. There must be an act or omission
special law you do not refer to this as a felony.
“Crime” or “offense” are the proper terms.  ACTUS REUS/PHYSICAL ACT to be
(ASKED 3 TIMES IN BAR EXAMS) considered as a felony, there must be
an act or omission;
Importance: There are certain provisions in the
Revised Penal Code where the term “felony” is Act: any kind of body movement that
used, which means that the provision is not produces change in the outside world;
extended to crimes under special laws. includes possession

Example: Omission: the failure to perform a duty

Art. 160, RPC, Quasi-Recidivism: “A person
who shall commit a felony after having been
convicted by final judgment, before beginning
to serve sentence or while serving the same,
shall be punished under the maximum period
of the penalty.” Note that the word “felony”
is used.
B. Offense: a crime punished under a failure to issue receipt or non-disclosure
special law is called a statutory offense.
C. Misdemeanor: a minor infraction of the
 Mens rea: "a guilty mind, a guilty or
law, such as a violation of an ordinance.
D. Crime: whether the wrongdoing is punished
under the Revised Penal Code or under a
special law, the generic word “crime” can
be used.
required by law
 It is important that there is a law
requiring the performance of an act,
if there is no positive duty, there is
no liability
Examples: failure to render assistance, 8
of knowledge of conspiracy against the
government9
wrongful purpose or criminal intent" 10
 sometimes referred to in common
parlance as the gravamen of the
offense (bullseye of the crime).or
criminal or deliberate intent

For an act to be punishable, there must be a

II. Felonies: How Committed CONCURRENCE BETWEEN THE ACT and the
INTENT.
Art. 3. Definitions (RPC) — Acts and omissions
punishable by law are felonies (delitos).
2. That the act or omission must be
 Felonies are committed by means of punishable by the RPC;
deceit (dolo) or 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.
8
Art. 275. Abandonment of person in danger and
abandonment of one's own victim
9
Art. 116. Misprision of treason.
10
Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed., p. 889
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Chapter II. FELONIES

3. That the act is performed or the commission This may be shown, however, by the nature of the act,
incurred by means of dolo or culpa the circumstances under which it was committed, the
means employed and the motive of the accused 11
 Dolo is DELIBERATE INTENT

CRIMINAL LAW 1
otherwise referred to as criminal intent, 2. Freedom
and must be coupled with freedom of
action and intelligence on the part of the  Definition: voluntariness on the part of
offender as to the act done by him. the person who commits the act or
omission
 If there is lack of freedom, the offender
Liability Even in the Absence of Criminal
is exempt from liability (i.e., presence of
Intent
irresistible force or uncontrollable fear)
 There are two exceptions to the requirement
of Criminal Intent: 3. Intelligence
1. Felonies committed by CULPA (infra)
2. Offenses MALA PROHIBITA (infra)  Definition: capacity to know and
understand the consequences of one’s
B. Requisites of Dolo or Malice act
 If there is lack of intelligence, the
offender is exempt from liability (i.e.,
1. Criminal intent offender is an imbecile, insane or under
15 years of age)
 Definition: the purpose to use a
particular means to effect a result Note: If any of the elements is absent, there is
 the intent to commit an act with malice, no dolo. If there is no dolo, there could be no
being purely a mental state, is intentional felony. 11
presumed ((but only if the act is
unlawful). Such presumption arises from CATEGORIES OF INTENT:
the proof of commission of an unlawful
act. General Criminal Specific Criminal
 However, in some crimes, intent cannot Intent Intent
be presumed being an integral element The intention to do The intention to commit a
thereof; so it has to be proven something wrong definite act
Presumed from the Existence is not presumed
mere doing of a wrong
Example: in frustrated homicide, specific
act
intent to kill is not presumed but must be
The burden is upon the Since the specific intent is
proven, otherwise it is merely physical wrong doer to prove an element of the crime, the
injuries) that he acted without burden is upon the
such criminal intent. prosecution to establish its
Recuerdo v. People (2006): existence.
1) General criminal intent is an element of all crimes Illustration:
but malice is properly applied only to deliberate Ernie, without any provocation, stabbed Bert.
acts done on purpose and with design.
2) Evil intent must unite with an unlawful act for The very act of stabbing is the quantum of proof
there to be a felony. A deliberate and unlawful needed to establish the fact that Ernie intended to
act gives rise to a presumption of malice by do something wrong. This is the GENERAL
intent. CRIMINAL INTENT.
3) On the other hand, specific intent is a definite and
actual purpose to accomplish some particular However, Ernie can be liable for more than one
thing. crime; thus, prosecution must establish Ernie’s
SPECIFIC INTENT in order to determine whether he
The general criminal intent is presumed from the planned to kill Bert or merely to inflict a whole lot
criminal act and in the absence of any general of pain.
intent is relied upon as a defense, such absence Ernie can overturn the presumption of general
must be proved by the accused. criminal intent by proving that he was justified (infra),
Generally, a specific intent is not presumed. Its entitled to any exempting circumstances (due to lack
existence, as a matter of fact, must be proved by the of discernment) or there was a mistake of fact (infra).
State just as any other essential element.

11
Visbal vs. Buban, 2003
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Chapter II. FELONIES

If he is successful, then the presumption that he People v. Delos Santos (2003):

intended to do something wrong is overcome along Delos Santos stabs Flores with a kitchen knife hitting
with the need to determine specific intent. him on the different parts of his body, inflicting upon 12
him mortal wounds which directly caused his death.
However, the result of Ernie’s act will now determine

CRIMINAL LAW 1
his liability. Was his act justified that he incurs no
liability? Is he entitled to any exemption? Or is his
He then argues that since the prosecution witnesses
testified that there was no altercation between him
liability only mitigated?
and Flores, it follows that no motive to kill can be
attributed to him.
DISTINCTION Between Intent, Discernment
and Motive Held:
(ASKED 4 TIMES IN BAR EXAMS) The court held that the argument of Delos Santos is
inconsequential.
INTENT DISCERNMENT MOTIVE
Determination to the mental It is the Proof of motive is not indispensable for a conviction,
do a certain capacity to tell moving power particularly where the accused is positively identified
thing, an aim or right from wrong which impels by an eyewitness and his participation is adequately
purpose of the one to do an established.
mind. act (ex.
vengeance). In People vs. Galano, the court ruled that in the crime
Establish the Integral to the Important only of murder, motive is not an element of the offense, it
nature and element of in certain becomes material only when the evidence is
extent of intelligence NOT cases (see circumstantial or inconclusive and there is some doubt
culpability intent. below) on whether the accused had committed it.
In this case, the court finds that no such doubt exits
When Motive Becomes Material in as witnesses, De Leon and Tablate positively
Determining Criminal Liability: identified Delos Santos.
(ASKED ONCE IN BAR EXAMS)
1. Mistake of Fact (ignorantia facti excusat)
1. When the act brings about variant crimes (ASKED ONCE IN BAR EXAMS)
e.g. kidnapping v. robbery 12
2. The identity of the accused is doubtful  Definition: a reasonable misapprehension of
3. The evidence on the commission of the fact on the part of the person causing injury
crime is purely circumstantial. to another. Such person is NOT criminally
4. Also, lack of motive can aid in showing the liable as he acted without criminal intent.
innocence of the accused. 13
 A mistake of fact destroys the presumption
Illustration: of criminal intent which arises upon the
Ernie came home and found his wife in a pleasant
conversation with Burt, former suitor. Thereupon, he
commission of a felonious act.
went to the kitchen, opened a drawer and pulled out a
knife. He then stabbed Burt.  Requisites:
a. That the act done would have been
The moving force is jealousy. lawful had the facts been as the
The intent is the resort to the knife, so that means accused believed them to be;
he desires to kill Burt, the former suitor.
b. That the intention of the accused in
Ernie’s deliberate choice of something as lethal as performing the act should be lawful;
the knife shows the presence of intelligence c. That the mistake must be without fault
because it is his very awareness of the danger which or carelessness on the part of the
prompted his choice. This only means that he knew accused. When the accused is
what is right from wrong and deliberately chose to do negligent, mistake of fact is not a
what is wrong.
defense.15
Note: Discernment does not indicate the Illustration:
presence of intent, merely intelligence. 14 Thus, People v. Ah Chong (1910):
discernment is necessary whether the crime is A houseboy who stabs his roommate in the dark,
dolo or culpa. honestly mistaking the latter to be a robber
responsible for a series of break-ins in the area, and
after crying out sufficient warnings and believing
himself to be under attack, cannot be held criminally
liable for homicide.
12
People v. Puno (1993)
13
People vs Hassan, 1988
14 15
People v. Cordova 1993 People v. Oanis, 1988
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
1) Would the stabbing be lawful if the facts were
really what the houseboy believed? Yes. If it
was really the robber and not the roommate then
the houseboy was justified.
2) Was the houseboy’s intention lawful? Yes. He
was acting out of self-preservation.
3) Was the houseboy without fault or
negligence? Yes. His deliberate intent to defend
himself with the knife can be determined by the
fact that he cried out sufficient warnings prior to
the act.
Stabbing the victim whom the accused believed to be
an intruder showed a mistake of fact on his part which
led him to take the facts as they appear to him and
was pressed to take immediate action.
But: Mistake of fact NOT availing in People v.
Oanis (74 Phil. 257) because the police officers
were at fault wwhen they shot the escaped
convict who was sleeping, without first
ascertaining his identity.
2. Culpa (CONSTRUCTIVE INTENT)
 Although there is no intentional felony, there
could be culpable felony.
 The element of criminal intent is replaced by
CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE OR
IMPRUDENCE.
Is culpa merely a mode of committing a
crime or a crime in itself?
a. AS A MODE
 Under Art. 3, it is clear that culpa is
just a modality by which a felony may
be committed.
Act of Dolo OR Act of Culpa
FELONY
People vs. Faller (1939):
It was stated indirectly that criminal negligence or
culpa is just a mode of incurring criminal liability.
In this case, the accused was charged with malicious
mischief.
Malicious mischief is an intentional negligence under
Article 327. Thus, There is no malicious mischief
through simple negligence or reckless imprudence
because it requires deliberateness.
The Supreme Court pointed out that although the
allegation in the information charged the accused with
an intentional felony,
yet the words feloniously and unlawfully, which are
standard languages in an information, covers not
Chapter II. FELONIES
only dolo but also culpa because culpa is just a
mode of committing a felony.
13
b. AS A CRIME
CRIMINAL LAW 1
 In Art. 365, criminal negligence is an
omission which the article specifically
penalized.
 The concept of criminal negligence is
the inexcusable lack of precaution on
the part of the person performing or
failing to perform an act.
 Art. 365 creates a distinction between
imprudence and negligence; simple or
reckless, one might think that criminal
negligence is the one being
punished.
Act of Dolo OR Act of Culpa
INTENTIONAL CRIMINAL
NEGLIGENCE
(ART 365)
FELONIES
Quizon vs. Justice of the Peace (1995):
Justice J.B.L. Reyes dissented and claimed that
1) criminal negligence is a quasi-offense, and
2) the correct designation should not be homicide
through reckless imprudence, but reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide.
The view of Justice Reyes is sound, but the problem
is Article 3, which states that culpa is just a mode by
which a felony may result.
Elements of Culpa:
1. Negligence, reckless imprudence,
lack of foresight or lack of skill;
2. Freedom
3. Intelligence
People v. Buan (1968):
1) The accused was driving a passenger bus.
Allegedly because of his recklessness, the bus
collided with a jeep injuring the passengers of the
latter.
2) A case was filed against the accused for slight
physical injuries through reckless imprudence for
which he was tried and acquitted.
3) Prior to his acquittal, a case for serious physical
injuries and damage to property through reckless
imprudence was filed.
4) Accused claimed that he was placed in twice in
jeopardy.
Held:
The second case must be dismissed.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Once convicted or acquitted of a specific act of
reckless imprudence, the accused may not be
prosecuted again for the same act.
For the essence of the quasi-offense under Art. 365 of
the RPC lies in the execution of an imprudent act
which would be punishable as a felony.
The law penalizes the negligent act and not the
result.
The gravity of the consequences is only taken into
account to determine the penalty.
It does not qualify the substance of the offense.
Negligence – indicates deficiency of perception,
failure to pay proper attention, and to use
diligence in foreseeing the injury or damage
impending to be caused. Usually involves lack of
foresight.
Imprudence – indicates deficiency of action,
failure to take the necessary precaution to avoid
injury to person or damage to property. Usually
involves lack of skill.
Reason for punishing acts of negligence or
imprudence: A man must use his common
sense and exercise due reflection in all his acts;
it is his duty to be cautious, careful and prudent.
DOCTRINES CONCERNING CULPABLE
CRIMES
a. Emergency Rule
 A person who is confronted with a
sudden emergency
 may be left no time for thought.
 so must make speedy decision based
largely upon impulse or instinct,
 Importance: cannot be held to the
same conduct as one who has had
an opportunity to reflect,
 even though it later appears that he
made the wrong decision.
b. Doctrine Of “Last Clear Chance”
 The contributory negligence of the party
injured
 will NOT defeat the action if it be
shown that the accused might, by
the exercise of reasonable care and
prudence, have avoided the
consequences of the negligence of
the injured party.
 But: The applicability of this doctrine in
criminal cases is somewhat dubious:
Chapter II. FELONIES
Anuran v. Buno (1966):
1) The principle about the "last clear chance" would
call for application in a suit between the owners 14
and drivers of the two colliding vehicles.
CRIMINAL LAW 1
2) It does not arise where a passenger demands
responsibility from the carrier to enforce its
contractual obligation.
a) Last Clear Chance is a defense by the
defendant in a damage suit against liability by
transferring it to the plaintiff.
b) This dynamics cannot be replicated in a criminal
case because:
i. the liability is penal in nature and thus cannot
be transferred within the same case
ii. it is not a case between two parties involved
in an incident but rather between an
individual and the State.
c. Rule Of Negative Ingredient
 This is related to the doctrine of
proximate cause and applicable when
certain causes leading to the result are
not identifiable.
 This rule states that
 the prosecution must first identify
what the accused failed to do.
 Once this is done, the burden of
evidence shifts to the accused.
 The accused must show that the
failure did not set in motion the
chain of events leading to the
injury.16
Quinto vs. Andres (2005):
Causal Relationship between offense and resulting
injury
III. Classification of Felonies
This question was asked in the bar examination:
How do you classify felonies and how are
felonies defined?
 TIP: What the examiner had in mind was
Articles 3, 6 and 9. Do not write the
classification of felonies under Book 2 of the
Revised Penal Code.
 The question does not require the candidate
to classify but also to define.
 The purpose of classifying penalties is to
bring about a proportionate penalty and
equitable punishment.
 The penalties are graduated according to
their degree of severity.
 The stages (Art. 6) may not apply to all
kinds of felonies.
 There are felonies which do not admit of
division.
16
Carillo vs People, 1994
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
FELONIES ARE CLASSIFIED AS FOLLOWS:
1. According to the manner of their commission
2. According to the stages of their execution
(ASKED 9 TIMES IN BAR EXAMS)
3. According to their gravity
OTHER CLASSIFICATIONS:
4. As to count
5. As to nature
1. According to the Manner of Their
Commission
 Under Art. 3, they are classified as:
1. intentional felonies or those committed
with deliberate intent; and
2. culpable felonies or those resulting
from negligence, reckless imprudence,
lack of foresight or lack of skill.
2. According to the Stages of Their
Execution
 Under Art. 6, they are classified as:
1. Attempted
2. Frustrated
3. Consummated
 Note: The classification of stages of a felony
in Article 6 are true only to crimes under the
Revised Penal Code. It does NOT apply to
crimes punished under special laws.
 BUT: even certain crimes which are
punished under the Revised Penal Code do
not admit of these stages.
Related to this, classification of felonies
as to:
a. Formal Crimes: crimes which are
consummated in one instance.
Example: ILLEGAL EXACTION under
Article 213
 Mere demanding of an amount
different from what the law
authorizes him to collect will already
consummate a crime, whether the
taxpayer pays the amount being
demanded or not.
b. Material Felonies: crimes that have
various stages of execution
c. Crimes which have NO FRUSTRATED
STAGE: the essence of the crime is the
act itself
Example: in rape, the slightest
penetration already consummates the
crime; the same is true for arson where
Chapter II. FELONIES
the slightest burning already renders the
crime complete.
15
Valenzuela vs. People (2007):
CRIMINAL LAW 1
No crime of frustrated theft.
Facts: A grocery boy was caught trying to
abscond a box of Tide Ultrabar laundry soap from
the Super Sale Club. The guards apprehended
him at the store parking lot while trying to board a
taxi. He claimed the theft was merely frustrated
for he was not able to dispose of the goods.
Held: The Revised Penal Code provisions on
theft have not been designed in such fashion as
to accommodate the Adiao, Dino and Empelis
rulings. Again, there is no language in Article 308
that expressly or impliedly allows that the “free
disposition of the items stolen” is in any way
determinative of whether the crime of theft has
been produced. We thus conclude that under the
Revised Penal Code, there is no crime of
frustrated theft.
3. According to Their Gravity
 Under Art. 9, felonies are classified as:
1. Grave felonies or those to which
attaches to
 the capital punishment or
 penalties which in any of their
periods are afflictive;
2. Less grave felonies or those to which
the law punishes
 with penalties which in their
maximum period is correctional;
3. Light felonies or those infractions of
law for the commission of which
 the penalty is arresto menor.
(ASKED 4 TIMES IN BAR EXAMS)
 Why is it necessary to determine whether
the crime is grave, less grave or light?
 To determine
 whether these felonies can be
complexed or not;
 the prescription of the crime and
 the prescription of the penalty.
 In other words, these are felonies
classified according to their gravity,
stages and the penalty attached to
them.
 Take note that when the Revised Penal
Code speaks of grave and less grave
felonies, the definition makes a reference
specifically to Article 25 of the Revised
Penal Code.
 Do not omit the phrase “In accordance with
Art. 25” because there is also a classification
of penalties under Art. 26 that was not
applied.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Chapter II. FELONIES

 This classification of felony according to MALA IN SE MALA

gravity is important with respect to the PROHIBITA
question of prescription of crimes. 4. As to degree Degree of The act gives 16
 Ex. If the penalty is a fine and exactly of accomplishment rise to a crime

CRIMINAL LAW 1
P200.00, it is only considered a light accomplishment is taken into only when
felony under Art. 9. If the fine is imposed of crime account for the consummated.
as an alternative penalty or as a single punishment.
penalty, the fine of P200.00 is 5. As to They are taken They are not
considered a correctional penalty under mitigating and into account in taken into
Art. 26. aggravating imposing account.
circumstances penalty
 If the penalty is exactly P200.00,
6. As to degree When there is Degree of
apply Art. 26. It is considered as a
of participation more than one participation is
correctional penalty and it prescribes in offender, the generally not
10 years. If the offender is apprehended degree of taken into
at any time within ten years, he can be participation of account. All
made to suffer the fine. each in the who
commission is participated in
4. As to Count taken into the act are
 Plurality of crimes may be in the form of: account. punished to
 Compound Crime, the same
 Complex crime; and extent.
 Composite crime. 7. As to stage of Penalty is Penalty on
accomplishment computed on offenders is
5. As to Nature the basis of same whether
(ASKED 4 TIMES IN BAR EXAMS) whether he is a they acted as
a. Mala in se principal mere
b. Mala prohibita offender or accomplices
merely an or accessories
accomplice or
accessory
8. As to what Generally, the Generally,
IV. Crimes Defined and Penalized by laws are violated RPC. special laws.
Special Laws
 Dolo is not required in crimes mala
Art. 10. Offenses not subject to the provisions of prohibita.
this Code. — Offenses which are or in the future may  In those crimes which are mala prohibita,
be punishable under special laws are not subject to the act alone irrespective of its motives,
the provisions of this Code. This Code shall be constitutes the offense.
supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should  Good faith and absence of criminal intent
specially provide the contrary.
are not valid defenses in crimes mala
prohibita
Mala in se vs. Mala Prohibita (ASKED TWICE
IN BAR EXAMS) Estrada v. Sandiganbayan (2001): Estrada is
challenging the plunder law. One of the issues he
MALA IN SE MALA raised is whether plunder is a malum prohibitum or
PROHIBITA malum in se.
1. As to nature wrong from its Wrong
very nature because it is Held: Plunder is a malum in se which requires proof of
prohibited by criminal of criminal intent.
law Precisely because the constitutive crimes are mala in
2. As to use of GF a valid GF is not a se the element of mens rea must be proven in a
good faith as defense, unless defense. prosecution for plunder.
defense the crime is the
It is noteworthy that the amended information alleges
result of culpa that the crime of plunder was committed “willfully,
3. As to WON Criminal intent Criminal intent unlawfully and criminally.”
criminal intent is is an element. is immaterial,
an element BUT still It thus alleges guilt knowledge on the part of the
requires petitioner.
intelligence &
voluntariness  While intentional felonies are always mala in
se, it does not follow that prohibited acts
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
done in violation of special laws are
always mala prohibita.
 Even if the crime is punished under a
special law, if the act punished is one
which is inherently wrong, the same is
malum in se, and, therefore, good faith and
the lack of criminal intent is a valid defense;
unless it is the product of criminal
negligence or culpa.
 Likewise when the special laws require that
the punished act be committed knowingly
and willfully, criminal intent is required to
be proved before criminal liability may arise.
Note: Where malice is a factor, good faith is a
defense.
RELATION OF RPC TO SPECIAL LAWS:
SUPPLETORY APPLICATION OF RPC
 Offenses punishable under special laws are
not subject to the provisions of the RPC.
 The RPC shall be supplementary to
special laws, unless the latter should
specially provide the contrary (Art. 10, RPC)
 Article 10 is the consequence of the legal
requirement that one must distinguish
those punished under special laws and
those under the Revised Penal Code.
With regard to Article 10, observe the
distinction.
 When Applied? As a supplement to the
special law, OR simply correlate the violated
special law, if needed to avoid an injustice.
 If no justice would result, do not give
suppletory application of the Revised Penal
Code to that of the special law.
Illustration:
 A special law punishes a certain act as a crime.
 The special law is silent as to the civil liability of
one who violates the same.
 May the court pronounce that a person is
civilly liable to the offended party,
considering that the special law is silent on
this point?
Yes. Article 100 states that every person criminally
liable for a felony is also civilly liable.
That article shall be applied suppletorily to avoid an
injustice that would be caused to the private offended
party, if he would not be indemnified for the damages
or injuries sustained by him.
Ladonga v People (2005):
Spouses Ladonga were convicted by the RTC for
violation of BP. Blg. 22 (3 counts). The husband
applied for probation while the wife appealed arguing
that the RTC erred in finding her criminally liable for
Chapter II. FELONIES
conspiring with her husband as the principle of
conspiracy is inapplicable to BP Blg. 22 which is a
special law. 17
Held:
CRIMINAL LAW 1
1) B.P. Blg. 22 does not expressly prescribe the
suppletory application of the provisions of the
RPC.
2) Thus, in the absence of contrary provision in B.P.
Blg. 22, the general provisions of the RPC which,
by their nature, are necessarily applicable, may
be applied suppletorily.
3) The court cited the case of Yu vs. People, where
the provisions on subsidiary imprisonment under
Article 39 of the RPC to B.P. Blg. 22 was applied
suppletorily.
The suppletory application of the principle of
conspiracy in this case is analogous to the application
of the provision on principals under Article 17 in U.S.
vs. Ponte.
For once conspiracy or action in concert to achieve a
criminal design is shown, the act of one is the act of
all the conspirators,
and the precise extent or modality of participation of
each of them becomes secondary, since all the
conspirators are principals.
The Court in this case however ruled in favor of
Ladonga(wife) as the prosecution failed to prove that
she performed any overt act in furtherance of the
alleged conspiracy.
People vs. Rodriguez (1960):
It was held that a violation of a special law can never
absorb a crime punishable under the Revised
Penal Code, because violations of the Revised Penal
Code are more serious than a violation of a special
law.
But a crime in the Revised Penal Code can absorb
a crime punishable by a special law if it is a
necessary ingredient of the felony defined in the
Code.
People vs. Martinada:
The crime of cattle-rustling is not malum
prohibitum but a modification of the crime of theft
of large cattle.
So Presidential Decree No. 533, punishing cattle-
rustling, is not a special law.
It can absorb the crime of murder. If in the course of
cattle rustling, murder was committed, the offender
cannot be prosecuted for murder.
Note: Murder would be a qualifying circumstance in
the crime of qualified cattle rustling.17
17
Sec. 8, PD no. 533
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Chapter III. Fundamental Principles of
Criminal Liability
I. PROXIMATE CAUSE
II. OMISSION
III.IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES
IV. LIABILITY FOR INCOMPLETE ELEMENTS AND
INCOMPLETE CRIMES
V. PROPOSAL AND CONSPIRACY
VI. LIABILITY FOR PLURAL CRIMES
HOW IS CRIMINAL LIABILITY INCURRED?
 Since in Art. 3, a felony is an act or
omission punishable by law, particularly the
Revised Penal Code,
 it follows that whoever commits a
felony incurs criminal liability
 It is important to note that if the
criminal liability arises from an
omission
 such as misprision of treason or
 abandonment of helpless persons,
there must be a law requiring the
performance of such act.
 In par. 1 of Art. 4, the law uses the word
“felony,” that whoever commits a felony
incurs criminal liability.
 A felony may arise not only when it is
intended, but also when it is the product
of criminal negligence.
 Par. 2 of Art. 4 makes a person liable even
if the accomplishment of his crime is
inherently impossible.
 Art. 6 also provides for liability for the
incomplete elements of a crime.
 There are certain felonies committed by
conspiring in or proposing the
commission of certain acts, the principle
behind this can be found in Art. 8.
 Plural crimes on the other hand are
discussed under Art. 48.
THERE IS NO CRIME UNLESS THERE IS A
LAW PUNISHING IT
Art. 5.
Duty of the court in connection with acts which should
be repressed but which are not covered by the law,
and in cases of excessive penalties.
1) Whenever a court has knowledge of any act which
it may deem proper to repress and which is not
punishable by law,
2) it shall render the proper decision, and shall report
to the Chief Executive, through the Department of
Justice, the reasons which induce the court to
believe that said act should be made the subject
of legislation.
3) In the same way, the court shall submit to the
Chief Executive, through the Department of
Chapter III. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES of CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Justice, such statement as may be deemed
proper, without suspending the execution of the
sentence, 18
4) when a strict enforcement of the provisions of this
CRIMINAL LAW 1
Code would result in the imposition of a clearly
excessive penalty, taking into consideration the
degree of malice and the injury caused by the
offense.
Article 5 covers two situations:
1. The court cannot convict the accused
because the acts do not constitute a
crime.
 The proper judgment is acquittal.
 In Aoas v. People (2008; Nachura), the
prosecution has failed to show that all
the elements of the crime of theft were
present and the circumstances invoked
completely discount the possibility that
persons other than petitioner could have
perpetrated the crime.
Thus, where the proven facts and
circumstances are capable of two or
more explanations, one of which is
consistent with innocence and the other
with guilt, the evidence does not fulfill
the test of moral certainty and is not
sufficient to convict the accused.
 The court is mandated to report to the
Chief Executive that said act be made
subject of penal legislation and why.
2. Where the court finds the penalty
prescribed for the crime too harsh
considering the conditions surrounding the
commission of the crime,
 The judge should impose the law.
 The most that he could do is
recommend to the Chief Executive to
grant executive clemency.
I. Proximate Cause
 Definition: that cause, which, in a natural and
continuous sequence, unbroken by any
efficient intervening cause, produces the
injury without which the result would not
have occurred
 Criminal liability exists from the
concurrence of the mens rea and the actus
reus.
Illustration:
Dave and JR are supposed to meet in Audrey’s home
but when JR arrived Dave was not home. JR received
an SMS from Dave telling the former to get the house
key from under the doormat. Dave lets himself in and
saw an iPod on the table. JR took the iPod.
What is JR’s criminal liability? He is liable only for
theft and not robbery because the intent to gain
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
concurred only with the act of taking BUT NOT with
the act of using the owner’s keys to enter the house.
 Criminal liability for some felonies, arises
only upon a specific resulting harm
 HOMICIDE AND ITS QUALIFIED
FORMS requires DEATH of the victim to
be consummated.
 ESTAFA: requires that the victim incur
damage for criminal liability for the
consummated felony to arise
 It was discussed in the previous section that
CRIMINAL INTENT and CRIMINAL
NEGLIGENCE are elements of criminal
liability.
 Par. 1, Art. 4 with CAUSATION as the third
means of determining criminal liability.
Vda. De Bataclan v. Medina (1957):
SC laid down the definition of proximate cause:
that cause, which sets into motion other causes and
which unbroken by any efficient supervening cause,
produces a felony and
without which such felony could not have resulted.
General rule: the offender is CRIMINALLY
LIABLE for ALL the consequences of his
felonious act:
 although not intended, if the felonious
act is the proximate cause of the
resulting harm.
Thus, the person is still criminally liable
although the wrongful act done be different from
that which he intended:
1. Error in personae – mistake in the identity
of the victim (Art. 49 – penalty for lesser
crime in its maximum period)
2. Abberatio ictus – mistake in the blow (Art.
48 on complex crimes – penalty for graver
offense in its maximum period)
3. Praeter intentionem – injurious result is
greater than that intended (Art. 13 –
mitigating circumstance)
 Proximate Cause v. Immediate Cause v.
Remote Cause
Illustrations:
A, B, C, D, and E were driving their vehicles along
Ortigas Ave. A’s car was ahead, followed by those of
B, C, D, and E.
When A’s car reached the intersection of EDSA and
Ortigas Avenue, the traffic light turned red so A
immediately stepped on his brakes, followed by B, C,
and D.
Chapter III. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES of CRIMINAL LIABILITY
However, E was using his cellphone and therefore
was not aware that the traffic light had turned to red,
so he bumped the car of D, then D hit the car of C, 19
then C hit the car of B, then, finally, B hit the car of A.
CRIMINAL LAW 1
In this case, the immediate cause of the damage to
the car of A is the car of B, but that is not the
proximate cause.
The proximate cause is the negligence of E (using
his cellphone while driving) because it sets into
motion the collision of all the cars.
US v. Valdez (1921):
1) The deceased is a member of the crew of a
vessel. Accused is in charge of the crewmembers
engaged in the loading of cargo in the vessel.
2) Because the offended party was slow in his work,
the accused shouted at him. The offended party
replied that they would be better if he would not
insult them.
3) The accused resented this, and rising in rage, he Commented [i1]: I don’t understand this.
moved towards the victim, with a big knife in hand
threatening to kill him.
4) The victim believing himself to be in
immediate peril threw himself into the water.
The victim died of drowning. The accused was
prosecuted for homicide. His contention that his
liability should be only for grave threats since he
did not even stab the victim, that the victim died
of drowning, and this can be considered as a
supervening cause.
Held:
The deceased, in throwing himself into the river, acted
solely in obedience to the instinct of self-preservation,
and was in no sense legally responsible for his own
death.
As to him, it was but the exercise of a choice
between two evils, and any reasonable person under
the same circumstance might have done the same.
The accused must, therefore, be considered the
author of the death of the victim.
 This case illustrates that proximate cause
does not require that the offender needs to
actually touch the body of the offended
party.
 It is enough that the offender generated in
the mind of the offended party the belief
that made him place his life at risk.
Urbano v. IAC (1988):
1) A and B had a quarrel and started hacking each
other. B was wounded at the back.
2) Cooler heads intervened and they were
separated. Somehow, their differences were
patched up.
3) A agreed to shoulder all the expenses for the
treatment of the wound of B, and to pay him also
whatever loss of income B may have suffered.
4) B, on the other hand, signed forgiveness in favor
of A and on that condition, he withdrew the
complaint that he filed against A.
5) After so many weeks of treatment in a clinic, the
doctor pronounced that the wound was
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
already healed. Thereafter, B went back to his
farm.
6) Two months later, B came home and was chilling.
Before midnight, he died out of tetanus
poisoning.
7) The heirs of B filed a case of homicide against A.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that A is not liable.
It took into account the incubation period of tetanus
toxic. Medical evidence were presented that tetanus
toxic is good only for two weeks.
That if, indeed, the victim had incurred tetanus
poisoning out of the wound inflicted by A, he would
not have lasted two months.
What brought about the tetanus to infect his body
was his work in the farm using his bare hands.
Because of this, the Supreme Court said that the act
of B working in his farm where the soil is filthy, using
his own hands, is an efficient supervening cause
which relieves A of any liability for the death of B.
A, if at all, is only liable for the physical injuries
inflicted upon B.
People v. Enguito (2000):
1) A was mauled by B. The latter took off by riding a
motorela which contained other passengers.
2) A followed behind in another vehicle with the
intent of reporting the incident to the police. A
forced his vehicle to bump the motorela a few
times, which prompted B to jump.
3) The force of the jump caused the motorela to lose
balance thereby flipping to its left side and
injuring the other passengers.
4) A contends that he could not be guilty of any
physical injuries suffered by the other passengers
because the direct cause of the motorela turning
on its left side was the act of the driver in guiding
the vehicle while the proximate cause is the
thrust which resulted when B suddenly jumped
out of the motorela.
Held:
The argument is devoid of merit. A disregarded the
basic rule in criminal law that a person is
responsible for all the consequences of his
unlawful or wrongful act although such
consequences were different from those which he
originally intended.
Even if it be assumed that the real intention of
accused-appellant was to surrender the victim to the
police for mauling him, his act of pursuing the
victim, who was a passenger of the motorela,
resulted in the injuries of the driver and the other
passenger of the motorela.
Upon seeing that B was trying to jump out of the
motorela, A should have known that by closely
following, pushing and bumping the motorela, he
could injure the passengers, which is what happened
in this case.
Chapter III. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES of CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Instead, he persisted resulting in the motorela turning
on its side and in the opposite direction.
20
The act of accused-appellant in relentlessly pursuing
the motorela is a manifestation of his intention to
CRIMINAL LAW 1
perpetrate the crime.
People v. Acuram (2000):
1) Appellant blames the death of the victim on the
lack of prompt and proper medical attention
given.
2) He insists that the delay in giving proper medical
attendance to the victim constitutes an efficient
intervening cause which exempts him from
criminal responsibility.
Held:
The attending doctors are not liable for the death of
the victim. The perceived delay in giving medical
treatment to the victim does not break at all the causal
connection between the wrongful act of the appellant
and the injuries sustained by the victim.
It does not constitute efficient intervening cause.
The proximate cause of the death of the deceased is
the shooting by the appellant.
It is settled that anyone inflicting injuries is
responsible for all the consequences of his
criminal act such as death that supervenes in
consequence of the injuries.
The fact that the injured did not receive proper
medical attendance would not affect appellant's
criminal responsibility.
The rule is founded on the practical policy of closing
to the wrongdoer a convenient avenue of escape from
the just consequences of his wrongful act.
If the rule were otherwise, many criminals could avoid
just accounting for their acts by merely establishing a
doubt as to the immediate cause of death.
II. Omission
 Omission is inaction, the failure to perform
a positive duty which a person is bound to
do.
 There must be a law requiring the doing
or performing of an act.
 Punishable omissions in the RPC:
 Art 116: Misprision of treason
 Art 275: Abandonment of minors
 Art 276: Abandonment of helpless
persons
 Art 208: Failure to prosecute,
dereliction of duty
III. Impossible Crimes
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
 Under par. 2, Art. 4, impossible crime is an
act which would be an offense only against
person or property
 were it not for the inherent
impossibility of its accomplishment or
 on account of the employment of
inadequate or ineffectual means.
 Liability under this paragraph is incurred
only if:
 the offender has actually performed the
act against the person or property of the
intended victim and
 such act does not constitute another
felony.
Illustration:
The victim was tortured to death. He was later shot in
the back to make it appear that he was killed while
trying to escape. The accused is not a principal to an
impossible crime but an accessory to the killing
committed by the principal (People v. Saladino).
MODIFIED CONCEPT OF IMPOSSIBLE
CRIME
Intod v. CA (1992):
1) In this case, four culprits, all armed with firearms
and with intent to kill, went to the intended
victim’s house and after having pinpointed the
latter’s bedroom, all four fired at and riddled the
said room with bullets, thinking that the intended
victim was already there as it was about 10:00 in
the evening.
2) It so happened that the intended victim did not
come home that evening and so was not in her
bedroom at that time.
3) Eventually the culprits were prosecuted and
convicted by the trial court for attempted murder.
4) CA affirmed the judgment but the SC modified
the same and held the petitioner liable only for
the so-called impossible crime.
5) As a result, petitioner-accused was sentenced to
imprisonment of only six months of arresto mayor
for the felonious act he committed with intent to
kill: this despite the destruction done to the
intended victim’s house.
a. Somehow, the decision depreciated the
seriousness of the act committed,
considering the lawlessness with which the
culprits carried out the intended crime.
b. Some questions:
 Was it really the impossibility of
accomplishing the killing that brought
about its non-accomplishment?
 Was it not purely accidental that the
intended victim did not come home that
evening and, thus, unknown to the
culprits, the bedroom was empty at the
time it was shot and riddled with bullets?
Chapter III. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES of CRIMINAL LIABILITY
 Suppose, instead of using firearms, the
culprits set fire to the intended victim’s
house, believing that she was there 21
when in fact she was not, would the
CRIMINAL LAW 1
criminal liability be for an impossible
crime?
c. Until the Intod case, the prevailing belief was
that the provision of the Revised Penal Code
on impossible crime would only apply
when the wrongful act, which would have
constituted a crime against persons or
property, could not and did not constitute
another felony.
d. Otherwise, if such act constituted any other
felony although different from what the
offender intended, the criminal liability
should be for such other felony and not
for an impossible crime.
e. The belief was so because Art. 4 of the
RPC provides two situations where
criminal liability shall be incurred.
f. Because criminal liability for impossible
crime presupposes that no other felony
resulted from the wrongful act done (in other
words, there was no resulting damage or
harm), the penalty is fixed at arresto
mayor or a fine from P200.00 to P500.00,
depending on the “social danger and
degree of criminality shown by the
offender”(Art. 59), regardless of whether
the wrongful act was an impossible crime
against persons or against property.
g. In the Intod case, the wrongful acts of the
culprits caused destruction to the house of
the intended victim; this felonious act
negates the idea of an impossible crime.
 But whether we agree or not, the
Supreme Court has spoken, we have to
respect its ruling (moot and academic).
IV. Liability for Incomplete Elements and
Incomplete Crimes
A. Classification under Art. 6
B. Development of a Crime
C. Attempt and Frustration
D. Factors Determining the Stages of a Crime
A. Classification Under Art. 6
a. Consummated Felony
 When all the elements necessary for its
execution are present.
 The felony is produced
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Chapter III. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES of CRIMINAL LIABILITY

b. Frustrated Felony  When the offender commences the

 When the offender performs all the commission of a felony directly by overt
acts of execution; acts; 22
 All the acts performed would produce  He does not perform all the acts of

CRIMINAL LAW 1
the felony as a consequence; execution which should produce the
 The felony is not produced; felony;
 By reason of causes independent of  By reason of some cause or accident
the will of the perpetrator. other than his own spontaneous
desistance;
c. Attempted Felony
B. Development of a Crime
ELEMENTS OF IMPOSSIBLE CRIME ATTEMPTED FRUSTRATED CONSUMMATED
CRIMINAL
LIABILITY
1. Actus Reus  Lacking due to: Intervention  
 inherent other than own
impossibility desistance;
 employment of some but not all
inadequate acts of execution
means
2. Mens Rea    
3. Concurrence    
4. Result    
5. Causation    

a. Overt act independent crimes (i.e. Art.

 Are external acts which if allowed to 304 – possession of picklocks)
continue its natural course would  these acts do not yet constitute
definitely result into a felony. even the first stage of the acts
 It is the start of criminal liability because of execution
the offender has commenced the  intent not yet disclosed
commission of an offense with overt
acts. Illustration:
Ernie goes to the kitchen to get a knife.
Rait v. People (2008):
1) The Court found that the petitioner’s acts of b. Acts of Execution
successfully removing victim’s clothing and  usually overt acts with a logical
inserting his finger to the victim’s vagina relation to a particular
were overt or external acts in the crime of concrete offense
Rape.
 Punishable under the RPC
2) The acts were clearly the first or some
subsequent step in a direct movement Illustration:
towards the commission of the offense after
Ernie stabs Burt
the preparations are made.
 Indeterminate offense
b. Development of a crime
i. Internal acts  It is one where the purpose of the
offender in performing an act is not
 intent and plans; usually not
certain. Its nature in relation to its
punishable
objective is ambiguous.
 EXCEPTION: punishable proposals
and conspiracies  The intention of the accused must be
viewed from:
Illustration:  the nature of the acts executed by
Ernie plans to kill Burt him, and
 not from his admission.
ii. External acts
C. Attempted and Frustrated Crimes
a. Preparatory Acts
 acts tending toward the crime
 The difference between the attempted
 ordinarily not punished except
stage and the frustrated stage lies in:
when considered by law as
whether the offender has performed all
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Chapter III. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES of CRIMINAL LIABILITY

the acts of execution for the  the offender is stopped

accomplishment of a felony.  by reason of any cause outside of his
own voluntary desistance, 23
Attempted Frustrated
 the subjective phase has not

CRIMINAL LAW 1
ACTS PERFORMED: ACTS PERFORMED:
been passed and it is an attempt.
Overt acts of execution All acts of execution are
are started finished Illustration:
BUT BUT The subjective phase for Ernie was from the moment
Not all acts of execution Crime sought to be he swung his arm to stab Burt up until he finished his
are present committed is not stroke. This is the interim where he still has control of
achieved his actions.
WHY: WHY:
Due to reasons other Due to intervening  Desistance
than the spontaneous causes independent of  An absolutory cause which negates
desistance of the the will of the perpetrator criminal liability because the law
perpetrator encourages a person to desist from
POSITION IN THE POSITION IN THE
committing a crime.
TIMELINE: TIMELINE:
Offender still in Offender is already in the  But: not necessarily all criminal
subjective phase objective phase liability, if the desistance was made
because he still has because all acts of when acts done by him already resulted
control of his acts execution are already to a felony,
present and the cause of  offender will still be criminally liable
its non-accomplishment for the felony brought about his act.
is other than the What is negated is only the attempted
offender’s will
stage, but there may be other felonies
1. Attempted Stage constituting his act.
 Note: Desistance is true only in the
 Elements attempted stage of the felony.
 If under the definition of the felony,
a. The offender commences the
the act done is already in the
commission of the felony directly by
frustrated stage, desistance will NOT
overt acts;
negate criminal liability.
b. He does not perform all the acts of
execution which should produce the Illustration:
felony; Supposing Ernie (because he thought killing Burt was
c. The non-performance of all acts of too easy a revenge) desisted mid-stroke. However,
execution was due to cause or Burt felt the movement and turned. He was so
accident other than his own shocked that he suddenly backed away and tripped
spontaneous desistance. over his own feet. As Burt went down, his left eye
caught the sharp corner of a table causing a puncture
 Felony is deemed commenced by overt on his eyeball rendering him completely blind on the
acts when the following are present: left side.
 Ernie would not be liable for attempted murder
a. That there be external acts; because of his desistance (regardless of his
b. Such external acts have direct reason for doing so)
connection with the crime intended to be
 His liability would now be for serious physical
committed.
injuries because his act of raising the knife was
 Marks the commencement of the subjective the proximate cause for Burt losing an eye.
phase:
 In the attempted stage, the definition uses
Subjective phase – that portion of the acts the word “directly.”
constituting a crime,  This is significant.
1) starting from the point where the  The word “directly” emphasizes the
offender begins the commission of the requirement that the attempted felony is
crime that which is
2) to that point where he still has control  directly linked to the overt act
over his acts including their (act’s) performed by the offender,
natural course  not the felony he has in his mind.

 If between those two points People v. Lamahang (1935):

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
1) The accused was arrested while he was
detaching some of the wood panels of a store. He
was already able to detach two panels.
2) To a layman, the only conclusion that will come to
your mind is that this fellow started to enter the
store to steal something.
3) He would not be there just to sleep there.
4) But in criminal law, since the act of removing the
panel indicates only at most the intention to enter,
he can only be prosecuted for trespass.
5) The removal of the paneling is just an attempt to
trespass, not an attempt to rob.
6) Although Lamahang was prosecuted for
attempted robbery, the Supreme Court held it is
only attempted trespass because that is the
crime that can be directly linked to his act of
removing the wood panel.
 There are some acts which are ingredients
of a certain crime, but which are, by
themselves, already criminal offenses.
People v. Campuhan (2000):
1) The mother of the 4-year-old victim caught the
houseboy Campuhan in the act of almost raping
her daughter.
2) The hymen of the victim was still intact but since
in previous Orita ruling, entry into labia is
considered rape even without rupture of hymen
and full penetration is not necessary, question
arises whether what transpired was attempted or
consummated rape.
Held:
1) Attempted rape only.
2) Mere touching of external genitalia by the penis is
already rape.
3) However, touching should be understood as
inherently part of entry of penis into labia and not
mere touching of the pudendum.
4) There must be clear and convincing proof that the
penis indeed touched the labia and slid into the
female organ and NOT MERELY STROKED THE
EXTERNAL SURFACE.
5) Some degree of penetration beneath the surface
must be achieved and the labia major must be
entered.
6) Prosecution did not prove that the Campuhan’s
penis was able to penetrate victim’s vagina
because the kneeling position of the accused
obstructed the mother’s view of the alleged
sexual contact.
7) The testimony of the victim herself claimed that
penis grazed but did not penetrate her organ.
8) There was only a shelling of the castle but no
bombardment of the drawbridge yet.
2. Frustrated Stage
 Elements
a. The offender performs all the acts of
execution;
b. All the acts performed would produce
the felony as a consequence;
Chapter III. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES of CRIMINAL LIABILITY
c. But the felony is not produced;
d. By reason of causes independent of
the will of the perpetrator. 24
CRIMINAL LAW 1
 The end of the subjective phase and the
beginning of the objective phase
Objective phase – the result of the acts of
execution, that is, the accomplishment of the
crime
 If the subjective and objective phases are
complete, there is a consummated felony.
People v. Listerio (2000):
Brothers Jeonito and Marlon were walking when they
met a group composed of men who blocked their path
and attacked them with lead pipes and bladed
weapons. One stabbed Jeonito from behind. Jeonito’s
brother, Marlon, was hit on the head.
Held:
1) The SC held that the crime is a frustrated felony
not an attempted offense considering that after
being stabbed and clubbed twice in the head as a
result of which he lost consciousness and fell,
Marlon's attackers apparently thought he was
already dead and fled.
2) A crime cannot be held to be attempted unless
the offender, after beginning the commission of
the crime by overt acts, is prevented, against his
will, by some outside cause from performing all of
the acts which should produce the crime.
3) In other words, to be an attempted crime the
purpose of the offender must be thwarted by
a foreign force or agency which intervenes
and compels him to stop prior to the moment
when he has performed all of the acts which
should produce the crime as a consequence,
which acts it is his intention to perform.
4) If he has performed all the acts which should
result in the consummation of the crime and
voluntarily desists from proceeding further, it
cannot be an attempt.
Crimes which do not admit of frustrated
stage:
a. RAPE
 The essence of the crime is carnal
knowledge.
 No matter what the offender may do to
accomplish a penetration,
 if there was no penetration yet, it
cannot be said that the offender has
performed all the acts of execution.
 We can only say that the offender in
rape has performed all the acts of
execution when he has effected a
penetration.
 Once there is penetration already,
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
 no matter how slight, the offense is
consummated.
 People v. Orita, (1990): For this
reason, rape admits only of the
attempted and consummated
stages, no frustrated stage. (see the
previously cited case of People v.
Campuhan for the most recent
doctrine on penetration).
 Ortega v. People (2008, Nachura):
A 14 yr old boy was accused of
raping an 8 yr old girl. It was ruled
that despite the absence of
abrasions, rape was consummated
even with the slightest penetration
of the female organ and what is
relevant is the reliable testimony of
the victim.
b. ARSON
 One cannot say that the offender, in the
crime of arson, has already performed
all the acts of execution which could
produce the destruction of the premises
through the use of fire,
 unless a part of the premises has
begun to burn.
 If it has not begun to burn, that
means that the offender has yet to
perform all the acts of execution.
 On the other hand, the moment it
begins to burn, the crime is
consummated.
 There is no middle stage between
being not burned and burned.
c. BRIBERY
 The manner of committing the crime
requires
 the meeting of the minds between
the giver and the receiver.
 If there is a meeting of the minds,
there is consummated bribery or
consummated corruption.
 If there is none, it is only attempted.
 This leaves out the frustrated stage
because of the manner of
committing the crime.
d. CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
 Same with bribery.
e. ADULTERY
 This requires the sexual contact
between two participants.
 If that link is there, the crime is
consummated;
Chapter III. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES of CRIMINAL LIABILITY
 If such link is absent, there is only
an attempted adultery.
25
f. PHYSICAL INJURIES
CRIMINAL LAW 1
 Under the Revised Penal Code, the
crime of physical injuries is penalized on
the basis of the gravity of the injuries.
Actually, there is no simple crime of
physical injuries. You have to categorize
because there are specific articles that
apply whether the physical injuries are
serious, less serious or slight.
 If you merely say physical injuries, you
would not know which article to apply.
 This being so, you could not punish the
attempted or frustrated stage because
 you do not know what crime of
physical injuries was committed.
 Physical injuries are punished by
the result.
Illustration:
When Burt lost his left eye, Ernie’s liability was
automatically for serious physical injuries. He
would have no liability if the eye was intact.
If the eye suffered damage due to the impact, the
crime would not be frustrated nor attempted
physical injuries because the RPC still considers
this as a consummated physical injury, its gravity
depending on the duration that it took for the
damage to heal.
g. THEFT
 There is no crime of frustrated theft.
 Once there is unlawful taking, theft is
consummated.
 Either the thing was taken or not.
 Disposition of the stolen goods is not an
element of theft under the RPC
RULE OF THUMB: Felonies that do not require
any result do not have a frustrated stage
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
D. Factors in Determining the Stage of
Execution of a Felony
a. The manner of committing the crime;
b. The elements of the crime; and
c. The nature of the crime itself.
 MEN
 These three factors are helpful in trying to
pinpoint whether the crime is still in its
attempted, frustrated or consummated
stage.
a. The Manner of Committing the Crime
 Under the RPC, some crimes take two
persons to commit the crime (like
adultery).
 In bribery, the manner of committing the
crime requires the meeting of the minds
between the giver and the receiver.
 When the giver delivers the money to
the supposed receiver, but there is no
meeting of the minds, the only act done
by the giver is an attempt.
 There are instances where an intended
felony could already result from the acts
of execution already done.
 Because of this, the offender is deemed
to have performed all the acts of
execution ONLY by the existence of the
result.
 Without the resulting felony, there is no way
of determining whether or not the offender
has already performed all the acts of
execution like rape and arson.
 Thus, in determining the stage of some
crimes, the manner of execution becomes
pivotal in determining the end of the
subjective phase,
i.e. once the offender performs the act in
the manner provided for in the law, HE IS
ALREADY DEEMED TO HAVE
PERFORMED EVERY ACT FOR ITS
EXECUTION.
b. The Elements of the Crime
 Along with the manner of execution, there
are crimes wherein the existence of certain
elements becomes the factor in determining
its consummation.
 In the crime of estafa, the element of
damage is essential before the crime
could be consummated.
Chapter III. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES of CRIMINAL LIABILITY
 If there is no damage, even if the
offender succeeded in carting away the
personal property involved, estafa 26
cannot be considered as consummated.
CRIMINAL LAW 1
 On the other hand, if it were a crime of
theft, damage or intent to cause
damage is not an element of theft.
 What is necessary only is intent to
gain, not even gain is important.
 In the crime of abduction, the crucial
element is the taking away of the
woman with lewd designs.
c. The Nature of the Crime Itself
 In crimes involving the taking of human
life—parricide, homicide, and murder—
 in the definition of the frustrated stage, it
is indispensable that the victim be
mortally wounded.
 Under the definition of the frustrated stage,
to consider the offender as having
performed all the acts of execution, the acts
already done by him must produce or be
capable of producing a felony as a
consequence.
 Hence, the general rule is that there
must be a fatal injury inflicted,
because it is only then that death will
follow.
V. Proposal and Conspiracy
(ASKED 9 TIMES IN BAR EXAMS)
Conspiracy – exists when two or more persons
come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it.
Requisites of conspiracy:
1. Two or more persons come to an
agreement.
2. The agreement pertains to a commission of
a felony.
3. The execution of the felony was decided
upon.
Note: There must be participation with a criminal
resolution because simple knowledge thereof by
a person may only make him liable as an
accomplice.
General rule: Conspiracy and proposal to
commit a felony are not punishable since they
are only preparatory acts.
Exception: They are punishable only in the
cases in which the law specially provides a
penalty therefor.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Example: treason, rebellion,
insurrection, coup d’etat, sedition,
monopolies and combinations in
restraint of trade, espionage, highway
robbery, illegal association
 Rationale: Conspiracy and proposal to
commit a crime are only preparatory acts
and the law regards them as innocent or at
least permissible except in rare and
exceptional cases.
Conspiracy as a felony, distinguished from
conspiracy as a manner of incurring criminal
liability:
 As a felony, conspirators do not need to
actually commit treason, rebellion,
insurrection, etc., it being sufficient that two
or more persons agree and decide to commit
it.
 As a manner of incurring criminal liability, if
they commit treason, rebellion, etc., they will
be held liable for it, and the conspiracy which
they had before committing the crime is only
a manner of incurring criminal liability, not a
separate offense.
 In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of
all.
General rule: When the conspiracy is
established, all who participated therein,
irrespective of the quantity or quality of his
participation is liable equally, whether conspiracy
is pre-panned or instantaneous.
Exception: Unless one or some of the
conspirators committed some other crime which
is not part of the conspiracy.
Exception to the exception: When the act
constitutes a “single indivisible offense.”
 Proposal to commit a felony – when the
person who has decided to commit a felony
proposes its execution to some other person
or persons.
Requisites:
1. That a person has decided to commit a
felony; and
2. That he proposes its execution to some
other person or persons.
There is no criminal proposal when:
1. The person who proposes is not determined
to commit the felony;
2. There is no decided, concrte and formal
proposal;
Chapter III. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES of CRIMINAL LIABILITY
3. It is not the execution of a felony that is
proposed.
27
People v. Fabro (2000):
CRIMINAL LAW 1
1) Fabro’s contention that Martin was the real
curlprit being the source of the contraband does
not in any way absolve her of the crime of selling
marijuana.
2) While it is true that it was Martin who took the
money, it was Fabro who negotiated with the
poseur buyers, fetched her co-accused; and
carried and handed over the marijuana to poseur
buyer PO2 Apduhan.
3) The acts of Martin and Fabro clearly show a unity
of purpose in the consummation of the sale of
marijuana.
4) It is clear that Section 21 (b) of R.A. 6425
punishes the mere conspiracy to commit the
offense of selling, delivering, distributing and
transporting of dangerous drugs.
5) Conspiracy herein refers to the mere agreement
to commit the said acts and not the actual
execution thereof.
6) While the rule is that a mere conspiracy to
commit a crime without doing any overt act is not
punishable, the exception is when such is
specifically penalized by law, as in the case of
Section 21 of Republic Act 6425.
People v. Laurio, (1991): It must be established by
positive and conclusive evidence, not by
conjectures or speculations.
People v. Bello (2004): Conspiracy predominantly a
state of mind; established by direct proof
People v. Bulan, (2005):
1) The prosecution must prove conspiracy by the
same quantum of evidence as the felony
charged itself although, proof of previous
agreement among the malefactors to commit
the crime is not essential to prove conspiracy.
2) It is not necessary to show that all the
conspirators actually hit and killed the victim;
3) what is primordial is that all the participants
performed specific acts with such closeness and
coordination as to indicate a common purpose or
design to bring out the victim’s death.
People v. Comadre (2004):
Conspiracy is never presumed;
it must be proven with clear and conclusive proof.
Li v. People (2001):
1) Because of an altercation between Arugay and
Li, the latter armed himself with a baseball bat
and used the same to hit Arugay on the arm.
2) Arugay, armed with a bolo, retaliated by hacking
Li on the head causing the bat to fall from his
hand and leaving him unconscious or semi-
unconsious.
3) At this point in time, Sangalang, who was also
present stabbed Arugay several times which
resulted to the latter’s death.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
4) The lower court held that there was conspiracy in
the present case.
Held:
1) The existence of conspiracy should be ruled out.
Sangalang was the main actor in stabbing Arugay
to death.
2) As Li was incapacitated or probably unconscious
at the time Sangalang stabbed Arugay, it cannot
be assumed that Sangalang did what he has
done with the knowledge or assent of Li, much
more in coordination with each other.
3) Based on the circumstances, the Court is hard
put to conclude that Sangalang and Li had acted
in concert to commit the offense.
4) In fact, the stabbing of Arugay could very well be
construed as a spur-of-the-moment reaction by
Sangalang upon seeing that his friend Li was
struck on the head by Arugay. From such a
spontaneous reaction, a finding of conspiracy
cannot arise.
5) Proving conspiracy is a dicey matter, especially
difficult in cases such as the present wherein the
criminal acts arose spontaneously, as opposed to
instances wherein the participants would have
the opportunity to orchestrate a more deliberate
plan.
6) Spontaneity alone does not preclude the
establishment of conspiracy, which after all,
can be consummated in a moment’s notice —
through a single word of assent to a proposal or
an unambiguous handshake.
7) Yet it is more difficult to presume conspiracy in
extemporaneous outbursts of violence; hence,
the demand that it be established by positive
evidence.
8) A conviction premised on a finding of
conspiracy must be founded on facts, not on
mere inferences and presumption.
People v. Cenahonon (2007):
1) While it is mandatory to prove conspiracy by
competent evidence,
2) direct proof is not essential to show it – it may
be deduced from the mode, method, and
manner by which the offense was perpetrated,
or inferred from the acts of the accused
themselves
3) when such acts point to a joint purpose and
design, concerted action and community of
interest.
4) The accused herein were shown to have clearly
acted towards a common goal.
People v. Talaogan (2008):
1) Conspiracy may be proved by circumstantial
evidence.
2) It may be established through the collective acts
of the accused before, during and after the
commission of a felony that all the accused
aimed at the same object, one performing one
part and the other performing another for the
attainment of the same objective;
3) and that their acts, though apparently
independent, were in fact concerted and
cooperative, indicating closeness of personal
Chapter III. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES of CRIMINAL LIABILITY
association, concerted action and concurrence of
sentiments.
28
People v. Ramos (2004):
CRIMINAL LAW 1
1) The series of events in this case convincingly
show that San Roque and her co-accused acted
in unison and cooperated with each other in
killing Lomida.
2) Appellant was the one who opened the door and
allowed the other accused to enter the house.
3) She joined them in bringing the victim to the
residence of Ramos, her brother-in-law.
4) While her co-accused dragged the helpless
victim, tied him to a santol tree, stabbed him
twice by a bladed knife, and shot him 5 to 7
times, appellant merely watched intensely.
5) She even “turned her back” as the lifeless body of
the victim was being burned.
6) And after attaining their purpose, she fled with the
other accused.
Held:
1) In determining the existence of conspiracy, it is
not necessary to show that all the conspirators
actually hit and killed the victim.
2) The presence of conspiracy among the accused
can be proven by their conduct before, during or
after the commission of the crime showing that
they acted in unison with each other, evincing a
common purpose or design.
3) There must be a showing that appellant
cooperated in the commission of the offense,
either morally, through advice, encouragement or
agreement or materially through external acts
indicating a manifest intent of supplying aid in the
perpetration of the crime in an efficacious way.
4) In such case, the act of one becomes the act of
all, and each of the accused will thereby be
deemed equally guilty of the crime committed.
People v. Pangilinan (2003):
Doctrine of Implied Conspiracy (ASKED 1 TIME IN
BAR EXAMS) – Conspiracy need not be direct but
may be inferred from the conduct of the parties, their
joint purpose, community of interest and in the mode
and manner of commission of the offense.
Legal effects of implied conspiracy are:
 Not all those present at the crime scene will
be considered conspirators;
 Only those who participated in the criminal
acts during the commission of the crime will
be considered co-conspirators;
 Mere acquiescence to or approval of the
commission of the crime, without any act of
criminal participation, shall not render one
criminally liable as co-conspirator.
Taer v. CA, (1990):
Mere knowledge, acquiescence to, or approval of
the act, without cooperation at least, agreement to
cooperate, is not enough to constitute a
conspiracy.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
There must be an intentional participation in the crime
with a view to further the common felonious objective.
People v. Bagano (2002):
1) Jeremias and his wife Merlinda were sleeping in
their home when they were awakened by
someone repeatedly calling Jeremias' name.
2) Jeremias went to the window to see who it was
and thereafter left their room to go outside.
3) Merlinda remained in their room, but peering
through the window, she saw Cañete suddenly
embrace Jeremias as the latter was opening the
gate.
4) Thereupon, Bagano with ice pick in hand stabbed
Jeremias on the chest. Jeremias struggled to free
himself from Cañete's clasp and ran, but Bagano
gave chase.
5) Jeremias died upon arrival at the hospital.
Held:
1) Conspiracy is attendant in the commission of the
crime. For conspiracy to exist, it is sufficient
that at the time of the commission of the
offense the accused had the same purpose
and were united in its execution.
2) Proof of an actual planning of the perpetuation of
the crime is not a condition precedent.
3) From the mode and manner in which the offense
was perpetrated, and as can be inferred from
their acts, it is evident that Bagano and Cañete
were one in their intention to kill Jeremias.
4) Hence, in accordance with the principle that in
conspiracy the act of one is the act of all, the fact
that it was Bagano who delivered the fatal blow
on Jeremias and Cañete's participation was
limited to a mere embrace is immaterial.
5) Conspiracy bestows upon them equal
liability; hence, they shall suffer the same fate
for their acts.
People v. Bangcado (2000):
1) SPO1 Bangcado together with SPO1 Banisa
frisked and searched Cogasi, Clemente, Adawan
and Lino to see if they were concealing any
weapons.
2) After making sure that the victims were unarmed,
Bangcado directed the victims to form a line
against a Ford Fierra. Because Bangcado and
Banisa were holding handguns, Cogasi and his
friends did as they were told and were caught
unaware when they were shot by Bangcado.
3) Adawan and Lino died of gunshot wounds in the
head, while Cogasi and Clemente sustained head
wounds.
4) The lower court convicted both Bangcado and
Banisa for 2 counts of murder and 2 counts of
frustrated murder.
Held:
1) There being no finding of conspiracy with
Bangcado, the Court acquitted Banisa of all the
charges against him. In the absence of any
previous plan or agreement to commit a
crime, the criminal responsibility arising from
different acts directed against one and the
same person is individual and not collective,
Chapter III. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES of CRIMINAL LIABILITY
and that each of the participants is liable only
for his own acts.
2) Consequently, Banisa must be absolved from 29
criminal responsibility for the assault on the
CRIMINAL LAW 1
victims.
3) It is clear that neither the victims nor Banisa could
have anticipated Bangcado's act of shooting the
victims since the attack was sudden and without
any reason or purpose.
4) Thus, the criminal design of Bangcado had not
yet been revealed prior to the killings.
 A conspiracy is possible even when
participants are not known to each other.
When several persons who do not know
each other simultaneously attack the victim,
the act of one is the act of all, regardless of
the degree of injury inflicted by any one of
them. All will be liable for the consequences.
Do not think that participants are always
known to each other.
 One who desisted is not criminally liable.
As pointed out earlier, desistance is true
only in the attempted stage. Before this
stage, there is only a preparatory stage.
Conspiracy is only in the preparatory stage.
Illustration:
A thought of having her husband killed because the
latter was maltreating her. She hired some persons to
kill him. The goons got hold of her husband and
started mauling him. The wife took pity and shouted
for them to stop but the goons continued. The wife
ran away. The wife was prosecuted for parricide. But
the Supreme Court said that there was desistance
so she is not criminally liable.
 Do not search for an agreement among
participants. If they acted simultaneously to
bring about their common intention,
conspiracy exists. And when conspiracy
exists, do not consider the degree of
participation of each conspiracy because the
act of one is the act of all. As a general rule,
they have equal responsibility.
Illustration:
1) A, B and C have been courting the same lady for
several years. On several occasions, they even
visited the lady on intervening hours. Because of
this, A, B and C became hostile with one another.
2) One day, D invited the young lady to go out with
him and she accepted the invitation.
3) Eventually, the young lady agreed to marry D.
4) When A, B and C learned about this, they all
stood up to leave the house of the young lady
feeling disappointed.
5) When A looked back at the young lady with D, he
saw D laughing menacingly.
6) At that instance, A stabbed D. C and B followed.
7) In this case, it was held that conspiracy was
present.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Chapter III. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES of CRIMINAL LIABILITY

People v. Nierra, (1980): 3) The taxi driver brought the conspirators where
1) If a co-conspirator merely cooperated in the the robbery would be committed. After the
commission of the crime with insignificant or robbery was finished, he took the conspirators 30
minimal acts, such co-conspirator should be back to his taxi and brought them away.

punished as an accomplice only.
2) The common notion is that when there is
conspiracy involved, the participants are
punished as principals.
3) This notion is no longer absolute.
4) The reason given is that penal laws always favor
a milder form of responsibility upon and offender.
CRIMINAL LAW 1
4) It was held that the taxi driver was liable only
as an accomplice. His cooperation was not
really indispensable.
5) The robbers could have engaged another taxi.
The taxi driver did not really stay during the
commission of the robbery. At most, what he only
extended was his cooperation.

Illustration: Siton v. CA, (1991):

1) There was a planned robbery, and the taxi driver The idea of a conspiracy is incompatible with the
was present during the planning. idea of a free-for-all.
2) The taxi driver agreed for the use of his cab but
There is no definite opponent or definite intent as
said, “I will bring you there, and after committing
when a basketball crowd beats a referee to death.
the robbery I will return later.”
2 CONCEPTS STAGE HOW LEGAL
OF INCURRED REQUIREMENTS
CONSPIRACY
AS A FELONY PREPARATORY Mere  The RPC must specifically
IN ITSELF ACTS agreement punish the act of conspiring (and
proposing)
 TREASON, REBELLION,
SEDITION and COUP D’ ETAT
are the only crimes where the
conspiracy and proposal to
commit them are punishable
 The act MUST NOT BE
ACCOMPLISHED, else the
conspiracy is obliterated and the
ACT ITSELF IS PUNISHED.
 QUANTUM OF PROOF:
Conspiracy as a crime must be
established beyond reasonable
doubt
AS A EXECUTORY Commission  The participants acted in concert
BASIS FOR ACTS of overt act or simultaneously or IN ANY
LIABILITY WAY which is indicative of a
meeting of the minds towards a
common criminal goal or criminal
objective.
 The act of meeting together is
not necessary as long as a
common objective can be
discerned from the overt acts.
 THE ACT MUST BE
ACCOMPLISHED, if there is only
conspiracy or proposal, THERE
IS NO CRIME TO BE
PUNISHED.
 QUANTUM OF PROOF:
Reasonably inferred from the
acts of the offenders when such
acts disclose or show a common
pursuit of the criminal objective.
This was the ruling in People v.
Pinto.
ILLUSTRATION
A, B, C and D came to an
agreement to commit
rebellion.
Their agreement was to
ring about the rebellion on a
certain date.
Even if none of them
has performed the act of
rebellion, there is already
criminal liability arising from
the conspiracy to commit the
rebellion.
But if anyone of them
has committed the overt act
of rebellion, the crime of all
is no longer conspiracy but
rebellion itself.
This subsists even
though the other co-
conspirator does not know
that one of them had already
done the act of rebellion.
 Three persons plan to rob
a bank.
 For as long as the
conspirators merely
entered the bank there is
no crime yet.
 But when one of them
draws a gun and
disarms the security
guard, all of them shall be
held liable, unless a
 co-conspirator was
absent from the scene of
the crime or
 he showed up, but he
tried to prevent the
commission of the
crime.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
VI. Plural Crimes
A. Complex Crimes
(ASKED 15 TIMES IN BAR EXAMS)
B. Special Complex Crimes
C. Continued and Continuing Crimes
Plurality of Crimes
 Consists in the successive execution
 by the same individual
 of different criminal acts
 for any of which no conviction has yet
been declared.
 Philosophy behind plural crimes:
 The treatment of plural crimes as one is
to be lenient to the offender, who,
 instead of being made to suffer
distinct penalties for every resulting
crime
 is made to suffer one penalty only,
although
o it is the penalty for the most
serious one and
o is in the maximum period.
 If by complexing the crime, the penalty
would turn out to be higher, do not
complex anymore.
PLURALITY OF RECIDIVISM
CRIMES
There is no conviction There must be conviction
of any of the crimes by final judgment of the first
committed. or prior offense.
 Complex-crime is not just a matter of
penalty, but of substance under the Revised
Penal Code.
Kinds of Plurality of crimes
a. Real or Material Plurality
 There are different crimes in law as well
as in the conscience of the offender.
 In such cases, the offender shall be
punished for each and every offense
that he committed.
Illustration:
A stabbed B. Then, A also stabbed C. There are
two crimes committed.
b. Formal or Ideal Plurality
 There is but one criminal liability in
this kind of plurality.
Chapter III. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES of CRIMINAL LIABILITY
 Divided into 3 groups:
1. Complex Crimes - When the
offender commits either of the 31
complex crimes defined in Art. 48 of
CRIMINAL LAW 1
the Code.
2. Special Complex Crimes - When
the law specifically fixes a single
penalty for 2 or more offenses
committed.
3. Continuing and Continued Crimes
- When the offender commits
continued crimes.
A. Complex Crimes
(ASKED 5 TIMES IN BAR EXAMS)
Art. 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.
 Art. 48 requires the commission of at least 2
crimes.
 But the two or more GRAVE or LESS
GRAVE felonies must be
a. the result of a single act, or
b. an offense must be a necessary means
for committing the other.
Nature of complex crimes:
 although two or more crimes are actually
committed,
 they constitute only one crime
 in the eyes of the law; and
 in the conscience of the offender.
 Even in the case where an offense is a
necessary means for committing the other,
the evil intent of the offender is only one.
Monteverde vs. People (2002): No complex crime
when:
1. two or more crimes are committed, but not by a
single act;
2. committing one crime is not a necessary means for
committing the other (or others)
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Two kinds of complex crimes:
(ASKED 4 TIMES IN BAR EXAMS)
a) Compound Crime
b) Complex Crime Proper
a) Compound Crime
 A single act results in two or more grave
or less grave felonies
 Requisites:
7) That only a single act is performed
by the offender
Single Act Several Acts
Throwing a Submachine gun
hand grenade because of the number of
bullets released
A single bullet Firing of the revolver twice
killing two in succession
person
8) That the single acts produces:
i. 2 or more grave felonies, or
ii. 1 or more grave and 1 or more
less grave felonies, or
iii. 2 or more less grave felonies
Light felonies produced by the same act should
be treated and punished as separate offenses or
may be absorbed by the grave felony.
Illustration:
When the crime is committed by force or
violence, slight physical injuries are absorbed.
 So that when an offender performed
more than one act, although similar, if
they result in separate crimes,
a. there is no complex crime at all,
b. instead, the offender shall be
prosecuted for as many crimes as
are committed under separate
information.
Example of a compound crime:
The victim was killed while discharging his duty
as barangay captain to protect life and property
and enforce law and order in his barrio.
The crime is a complex crime of homicide with
assault upon a person in authority.
When in obedience to an order several accused
simultaneously shot many persons, without
evidence how many each killed, there is only a
single offense, there being a single criminal
impulse.
Chapter III. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES of CRIMINAL LIABILITY
b) Complex Crime Proper
 An offense is a necessary means for 32
committing the other.
CRIMINAL LAW 1
 The basis for complexing is not the
singleness of the act but the singleness
of the impulse that is considered.
 In complex crime, when the offender
executes various acts, he must have a
single purpose.
 But: When there are several acts
performed, the assumption is that
each act is impelled by a distinct
criminal impulse, hence each will
have a separate penalty.
–
Requisites:
1) That at least two offenses are committed
2) That one or some of the offenses must be
necessary to commit the other
3) That both or all the offenses must be
punished under the same statute.
Note: The phrase “necessary means” does not
mean “indispensable means”
People vs. Comadre (2004):
The single act by appellant of detonating a hand
grenade may quantitatively constitute a cluster of
several separate and distinct offenses, yet these
component criminal offenses should be
considered only as a single crime in law on which
a single penalty is imposed because the offender
was impelled by a “single criminal impulse” which
shows his lesser degree of perversity.
No complex crime proper:
1) Subsequent acts of intercourse, after
forcible abduction with rape, are separate
acts of rape.
2) Not complex crime when trespass to
dwelling is a direct means to commit a grave
offense.
3) No complex crime, when one offense is
committed to conceal the other.
4) When the offender already had in his
possession the funds which he
misappropriated, the subsequent falsification
of a public or official document involving said
offense is a separate offense.
5) No complex crime where one of the offenses
is penalized by a special law.
6) There is no complex crime of rebellion with
murder, arson, robbery, or other common
crimes (People v. Hernandez; Enrile v.
Salazar) re: rebellion, Ortega thinks
otherwise).
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
General rules in complexing crimes:
1) When two crimes produced by a single act
are respectively within the exclusive
jurisdiction of two courts of different
jurisdiction, the court of higher jurisdiction
shall try the complex crime.
2) The penalty for complex crime is the penalty
for the most serious crime, the same to be
applied in its maximum period.
3) When two felonies constituting a complex
crime are punishable by imprisonment and
fine, respectively, only the penalty of
imprisonment should be imposed.
4) Art. 48 applies only to cases where the Code
does not provide a definite specific penalty
for a complex crime.
5) One information should be filed when a
complex crime is committed.
6) When a complex crime is charged and one
offense is not proven, the accused can be
convicted of the other.
7) Article 48 also applies in cases when out of a
single act of negligence or imprudence, two
or more grave or less grave felonies
resulted, but only the first part is applicable,
i.e. compound crime. The second part of
Article 48 does not apply, referring to the
complex crime proper because this applies
or refers only to a deliberate commission of
one offense to commit another offense.
B. Special Complex/Composite crimes
 The substance is made up of more than one
crime but which in the eyes of the law is only
 a single indivisible offense.
 all those acts done in pursuance of the
crime agreed upon are acts which
constitute a single crime.
 Special Complex Crimes
 Robbery with Homicide (Art. 294 (1))
 Robbery with Rape (Art. 294 (2))
 Kidnapping with serious physical injuries
(Art. 267 (3))
 Rape with Homicide (Art. 335)
C. Continued and Continuing Crimes
Continued Crime - A continuous, unlawful act
or series of acts set on foot by a single impulse
and operated by an unintermittent force,
however long a time it may occupy.
Although there is a series of actsm there is only
one crime committed. Hence, only one
penalty shall be imposed.
Chapter III. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES of CRIMINAL LIABILITY
In People v. De Leon (49 Phil. 437), a thief who
took from a yard of a house two game roosters
belonging to two different persons was ruled to 33
have committed only one crime because there is
CRIMINAL LAW 1
a unity of thought in the criminal purpose of the
offender. The accused ws animated by a single
criminal impulse.
Note: A continuing crime is not a complex
crime.
 A continued crime is different from a
transitory crime which is also called a
moving/continuing crime.
Continuing Crime - term is used in criminal
procedure when any of the material ingredients
of the crime was committed in different
places.
People v. de Leon (1926):
1) The accused took five roosters from one and the
same chicken coop, the roosters were owned by
different persons.
2) It was held that there is only one crime of theft
committed because the accused acted out of
a single criminal impulse only.
Illustration:
1) A band of robbers came across a compound
where a sugar mill is located.
2) The workers of said mill have their quarters within
the compound. The band of robbers ransacked
the different quarters therein.
3) It was held that there is only one crime
committed – multiple robbery, not because of
Article 48 but because this is a continued
crime.
4) When the robbers entered the compound, they
were moved by a single criminal intent which
is why it does not matter that there were several
quarters robbed.
5) This was a complex crime.
Note: This does not fall squarely within Article
48 because the accused PERFORMED MORE
THAN ONE ACT.
 The confusion lies in this:
(ASKED TWICE IN BAR EXAMS)
 While Article 48 speaks of a complex
crime where a single act constitutes
two or more grave or less grave
offenses,
 those cases involving a series of acts
resulting to two or more grave and less
grave felonies,
 were considered by the Supreme
Court as a complex crime
 when it is shown that the act is the
product of one single criminal
impulse.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
 TIP: If confronted with a problem, the Supreme
Court has extended this class of complex crime
to those cases when the offender performed not
a single act but a series of acts as long as it is
the product of a single criminal impulse
People v. Garcia (1980):
1) The accused were convicts who were members
of a certain gang and they conspired to kill the
other gang.
2) Some of the accused killed their victims in one
place within the same penitentiary, some killed
the others in another place within the same
penitentiary.
3) The Supreme Court ruled that all accused should
be punished under one information because
they acted in conspiracy.
4) The act of one is the act of all.
5) Because there were several victims killed and
some were mortally wounded, the accused
should be held for the complex crime of
multiple homicide with multiple frustrated
homicide.
6) There is a complex crime not only when there is a
single act but a series of acts.
7) It is correct that when the offender acted in
conspiracy, this crime is considered as one and
prosecuted under one information.
8) Although in this case, the offenders did not
only kill one person but killed different
persons, the Supreme Court considered this
as complex.
 Whenever the Supreme Court concludes
that the criminals should be punished only
once, because they acted in conspiracy or
under the same criminal impulse:
 it is necessary to embody these crimes
under one single information.
 It is necessary to consider them as
complex crimes even if the essence of
the crime does not fit the definition of Art
48, because there is no other provision
in the RPC.
POLAR VIEWS
People v. Jose, (1971):
1) There were four participants here.
2) They abducted the woman, after which, the four
took turns in abusing her.
3) It was held that each one of the four became
liable not only for his own rape but also for those
committed by the others.
4) One of the four rapes committed by one of them
was complexed with the crime of abduction.
5) Each of the four offenders was convicted of four
rapes.
6) The consecutive abuse cannot be considered as
continued crimes because there is a different
intent for each act of rape.
Chapter III. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES of CRIMINAL LIABILITY
7) Hence, there was no single purpose for the
rapes. Each must be considered as a separate
act. 34
CRIMINAL LAW 1
People v. Bulaong, (1981):
1) The Supreme Court adopted the dissenting
opinion of Justice Aquino in People v. Pabasa,
that when several persons abducted a woman
and abused her, regardless of the number of
rapes committed, there should only be one
complex crime of forcible abduction with rape.
2) The rapes committed were in the nature of a
continued crime characterized by the same lewd
design which is an essential element in the crime
of forcible abduction.
3) The abuse amounting to rape is complexed with
forcible abduction because the abduction was
already consummated when the victim was
raped.
4) The forcible abduction must be complexed
therewith.
5) But the multiple rapes should be considered only
as one because they are in the nature of a
continued crime.
NOTE: This is a dangerous view because the
abductors will commit as much rape as they can, after
all, only one complex crime of rape would arise.
 Applying the concept of the “continued
crime”, the following cases have been
treated as constituting one crime only:
1) People v. Tumlos, (1939): The theft of
13 cows belonging to two different
persons committed by the accused at
the same place and period of time;
2) People v. Jaranilla, (1974): The theft of
six roosters belonging to two different
owners from the same coop and at the
same period of time;
3) People v. Sabbun, (1964): The illegal
charging of fees for service rendered by
a lawyer every time he collected
veteran’s benefits on behalf of a client
who agreed that attorney’s fees shall be
paid out of such benefits. The
collections of legal fees were impelled
by the same motive, that of collecting
fees for services rendered, and all acts
of collection were made under the same
criminal impulse.
 The Supreme Court declined to apply the
concept in the following cases:
1) People v. Dichupa, (1961): Two Estafa
cases, one which was committed during
the period from January 19 to
December, 1955 and the other from
January 1956 to July 1956. Said acts
were committed on two different
occasions;
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Chapter III. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES of CRIMINAL LIABILITY

2) People v. CIV: Several malversations

committed in May, June and July 1936
and falsifications to conceal said 35
offenses committed in August and

CRIMINAL LAW 1
October, 1936. The malversations and
falsifications were not the result of one
resolution to embezzle and falsity;
3) Seventy-five estafa cases committed by
the conversion by the agents of
collections from the customers of the
employers made on different dates.
 In the THEFT cases:
 The trend is to follow the single
larceny doctrine:
a) that is taking of several things,
b) whether belonging to the same or
different owners,
c) at the same time and place,
 constitutes one larceny only.
 Abandoned is the doctrine that the
government has the discretion to
prosecute the accused
 for one offense or
 for as many distinct offenses as
there are victims.
Santiago v. Justice Garchitorena, (1993):
1) Here, the accused was charged with performing
a single act – that of approving the legalization
of aliens not qualified under the law.
2) The prosecution manifested that they would only
file one information. Subsequently, 32 amended
informations were filed.
3) The Supreme Court directed the prosecution to
consolidate the cases into one offense because:
a) they were in violation of the same law –
Executive Order No. 324;
b) caused injury to one party only – the
government; and
c) they were done in the same day.

Note: The concept of delito continuado has

been applied to crimes under special laws
since in Article 10, the Revised Penal Code shall
be supplementary to special laws, unless the
latter provides the contrary.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Chapter IV. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Chapter IV. Circumstances Affecting

Criminal Liability 36

CRIMINAL LAW 1
There are FIVE CLASSES OF CIRCUMSTANCES
affecting criminal liability:
I. Justifying circumstances; Art. 11 (6)
II. Exempting circumstances; Art. 12 (7)
III. Mitigating circumstances; Art. 13 (10)
IV. Aggravating circumstances; Art. 14 (21)
V. Alternative circumstances; Art. 15 (3)
There are OTHERS which are found elsewhere in the
provisions of the Revised Penal Code:
VI. Absolutory cause;
VII. Extenuating circumstances

JUSTIFYING EXEMPTING MITIGATING AGGRAVATING ALTERNATIVE

NO WRONG THERE IS A THERE IS A THERE IS A THERE IS A
WRONG FELONY FELONY FELONY
No criminal No criminal Decreased Increased criminal Increased or
liability liability criminal liability liability decreased liability
No civil liability With civil liability With civil liability With civil liability With civil liability

Except: Except:
 
state of necessity accident;
 insuperable
cause

a. The right to honor. Hence, a slap on the face is

considered as unlawful aggression since the face
I. Justifying Circumstances represents a person and his dignity. (Rugas vs,
(ASKED 30 TIMES IN BAR EXAMS) People)

FIVE TYPES of justifying circumstances:
1. Self defense
2. Defense of relatives
3. Defense of strangers
4. Avoidance of a greater evil
5. Fulfillment of duty
6. Obedience to an order issued for some lawful
purpose
Justifying Circumstances – those where the act of a
person is said to be in accordance with law, so that
such person is deemed not to have transgressed the
law and is free from both criminal and civil liability.
There is no civil liability except in par. 4, Art. 11,
where the civil liability is borne by the persons
benefited by the act.
 An affirmative defense, hence, the burden of
proof is on the accused who must prove the
circumstance by clear and convincing evidence.
 Basis: Lack of criminal intent
1. Self Defense
Includes not only the defense of the person or body
of the one assaulted but also that of his rights, the
enjoyment of which is protected by law. It includes:
b. The defense of property rights can be invoked if
there is an attack upon the property although it is
not coupled with an attack upon the person of the
owner of the premises. All the elements for
justification must however be present. (People v.
Narvaez)
Elements:
a. Unlawful aggression
 Equivalent to an actual physical
assault; OR threatened assault of an
immediate and imminent kind which is
offensive and positively strong, showing
the wrongful intent to cause harm.
 The aggression must constitute a
violation of the law. When the
aggression ceased to exist, there is no
longer a necessity to defend one’s self.
EXCEPT: when the aggressor retreats
to obtain a more advantageous position
to ensure the success of the initial
attack, unlawful aggression is deemed
to continue.
 Must come from the person attacked by
the accused.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Note: No unlawful aggression when there
was an agreement to fight and the challenge
to fight was accepted. BUT aggression
which is ahead of an agreed time or place is
unlawful aggression.
b. Reasonable necessity of means
employed to prevent or repel it.
Test of reasonableness
The means employed depends upon:
1. nature and quality of the weapon used
by the aggressor
2. aggressor’s physical condition,
character, size, and other circumstances
3. and those of the person defending
himself
4. the place and occasion of the assault.
c. Lack of sufficient provocation on part of
defender
 In case there was a provocation on the
part of the person attacked, the attack
should not immediately precede the
provocation for defense to be valid.
 Never confuse unlawful aggression with
provocation.
 Mere provocation is not enough. It must
be real and imminent. Unlawful
aggression is an indispensable
requisite.
 If there is unlawful aggression but one
of the other requisites is lacking, it is
considered an incomplete self-defense
which mitigates liability.
 Self-defense includes the defense of
one’s rights, that is, those rights the
enjoyment of which is protected by law.
 Retaliation is different from an act of
self-defense.
Under Republic Act 9262, or the Anti-Violence
against Women and their Children Act of 2004:
Women who are found by the courts to be suffering
from the Battered Women Syndrome do not incur any
criminal or civil liability notwithstanding the absence of
any of the elements for justifying circumstances under
the RPC. (sec. 26)
Battered Woman Syndrome
Battered Woman Syndrome is now also
accepted as a valid defense. In People Vs.
Genosa, the Court ruled that the battered
woman syndrome is characterized by a “CYCLE
OF VIOLENCE”, which is made up of three
phases.
i. First Phase: Tension Building Phase
1) Where minor battering occurs, it could
Chapter IV. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY
be a verbal or slight physical abuse or
another form of hostile behavior.
2) The woman tries to pacify the batterer 37
through a show of kind, nurturing
CRIMINAL LAW 1
behavior, or by simply staying out of the
way.
3) But this proves to be unsuccessful as it
only gives the batterer the notion that he
has the right to abuse her.
ii. Second Phase: Acute Battering Incident
1) Characterized by brutality,
destructiveness, and sometimes death.
2) The battered woman has no control;
only the batterer can stop the violence.
3) The battered woman realizes that she
cannot reason with him and resistance
would only worsen her condition.
iii. Third Phase: Tranquil Period
1) Characterized by guilt on the part of the
batterer and forgiveness on the part of
the woman.
2) The batterer may show a tender and
nurturing behavior towards his partner
and the woman also tries to convince
herself that the battery will never
happen again and that her partner will
change for the better.
Cano v. People (2003): Conrado and his deceased
brother Orlando were rivals in the Rush ID Photo
business. Condrado borrowed the permit of the
Orlando and had it photocopied without the latter’s
permission. The deceased confonted Conrado and
tried to stab him with a fan knife. The latter locked
himself in the dark room of his booth to protect
himself but was followed by the deceased and they
ended up attacking each other. The scuffle resulted in
the death of the Orlando.
Held: Conrado’s act of killilng his brother was
attended by a justifying circumstance of self-defense.
It was the deceased who purposely sought and
initially attacked Orlando with a knife. The act of a
person armed with a bladed weapon pursuing another
constitutes unlawful aggression because it signifies
the pursuer’s intent to commit an assault with his
weapon. There was also lack of sufficient provocation
on the part of Condrado. His act of photocopying the
permit of his brother without the latter’s permission
can hardly be considered as provocation to merit so
deadly an assault with a bladed weapon.
People vs. Dijan (2002): Unlawful aggression must
also be a continuing circumstance or must have been
existing at the time the defense is made. Once the
unlawful aggression is found to have ceased, the one
making the defense of a stranger would likewise
cease to have any justification for killing, or even just
wounding, the former aggressor.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Toledo v. People (2004): Toledo saw his nephew,
Ricky, and the latter's friends about 5 m away from his
house, having a drinking spree. He ordered them not
to make loud noises, and they obliged. He then went
home to sleep. Ricky and his friends also went to
sleep after some time. They had not laid down for
long when he heard stones being hurled at the roof of
the house. Ricky saw Toledo stoning their house and
asked him why he was doing the same. Toledo did
not answer but met Ricky at the doorstep of his house
and without warning stabbed Ricky on the abdomen
with a bolo which resulted to his death. Toledo
defended himself by alleging that his bolo accidentally
hit the stomach of the victim and that he was able to
prove all the essential elements of self defense.
Held: The Court ruled that it is an aberration for
Toledo to invoke the two defenses at the same time
because the said defenses are intrinsically
antithetical. There is no such defense as accidental
self-defense in the realm of criminal law. The court
ruled that Toledo was not justified in stabbing Ricky.
There was no imminent threat in his life necessitating
his assault. Records reveal that there is no unlawful
aggression, a condition sine qua non for the justifying
circumstance of self defense, on the part of Ricky.
Ricky arrived at Toledo’s house unarmed. With no
weapon to attack Toledo or defend himself, no sign of
hostility may be deduced from him.
Marzonia v. People (2006): Held: As the Court
previously held, mortally wounding an assailant with a
penknife is not a reasonably necessary means to
repel fist blows.
a. Defense of Honor:
People v. Dela Cruz (1935): Accused was found
guilty of homicide for stabbing and killing Rivera.
Prosecution claimed that Dela Cruz and Rivera had a
relationship and that the accused was madly in love
with the deceased and was extremely jealous of
another woman with whom Rivera also had a
relationship. Dela Cruz claimed, on the other hand,
that on her way home one evening, Rivera followed
her, embraced and kissed her and touched her
private parts. She didn’t know that it was Rivera and
that she was unable to resist the strength of Rivera so
she got a knife from her pocket and stabbed him in
defense of her honor.
Held: She is justified in using the pocketknife in
repelling what she believed to be an attack upon her
honor. It was a dark night and she could not have
identified Rivera. There being no other means of self-
defense.
People v. Juarigue (1946): Amado (deceased) has
been courting the accused Avelina in vain. On the day
of the crime, Avelina and Amado were in Church.
Amado sat beside Avelina and placed his hand on her
thigh. Thereafter, Avelina took out her knife and
stabbed Amado in the neck, causing the death of
Amado.
Chapter IV. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Held: Although the defense of one’s honor exempts
one from criminal liability, it must be proved that there
is actual danger of being raped. In this case, 1) the 38
church was well-lit, 2) there were several people in
CRIMINAL LAW 1
the church, including the father of the accused and
other town officials. In light of these circumstances,
accused could not have possibly been raped. The
means employed in defense of her honor was
evidently excessive.
US v. Bumaglang (1909): Bumanglang was missing
40 bundles of palay. Later, accompanied by his co-
defendants, he awaited the culprit and caught Ribis
so they confronted him assaulted him with sticks and
other cutting and stabbing weapons. As a result, Ribis
died. Defendants declared that during the fight they
only beat the deceased with sticks and Ribis
unsheathed his bolo. Bumanglang et al were
convicted of homicide.
Held: The bolo of the deceased was sheathed when
the body was discovered. There was no unlawful
aggression on the part of Ribis. Thus, there can be no
claim of self-defense.
Separate Opinion: A man who ambushed one he
suspects to be a thief can claim defense of property.
Not only was there unlawful aggression against
Bumanglag, there was also a wrongful invasion of his
habitat and attempt to commit a felony against his
property. With the imminence of danger to his life, he
realized that he had to ask assistance from his
friends, considering Ribis’ criminal record, character
and unusual strength.
b. Defense of Property:
 People vs. Apolinar: This can only be
invoked as justifying circumstance if
 Life and limb of the person making the
defense is also the subject of unlawful
aggression Commented [i2]: In which case it would be self-
 Life cannot be equal to property. defense? You cannot kill to defend property (the
Narvaez case), but you may be allowed to injure – the
People v. Narvaez (1983): Narvaez was taking his key is the “reasonableness of the means.”
rest inside his house when he heard that the wall of
his house was being chiseled. He saw that Fleischer
and Rubia, were fencing the land of the father of the
deceased Fleischer.He asked the group to stop but
they refused. The accused got mad so he got his
shotgun and shot Fleischer. Rubia ran towards the
jeep and knowing there is a gun on the jeep, the
accused fired at Rubia as well. Narvaez claimed he
acted in defense of his person and rights.
Held: There was aggression by the deceased not on
the person of the accused but on his property rights
when Fleischer angrily ordered the continuance of the
fencing. The third element of self-defense is also
present because there was no sufficient provocation
on the part of Narvaez since he was sleeping when
the deceased where fencing.
However, the second element was lacking. Shooting
the victims from the window of his house is
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
disproportionate to the physical aggression by the
victims. Thus, there is incomplete self-defense.
Dissent: Defense of property is not of such
importance as the right to life and defense of property
can only be invoked when it is coupled with some
form of attack on the person of one entrusted with
said property. In this case before us, there is no
evidence that an attack was attempted. The
utterance, “no, gaddemit, proceed, go ahead” is not
unlawful aggression which entitles him neither to a
plea of self-defense nor to a mitigating circumstance
of incomplete self-defense.
2. Defense Of Relatives
Elements:
a. Unlawful aggression
 Unlawful aggression may not exist as a
matter of fact, it can be made to depend
upon the honest belief of the one
making the defense. Reason: The law
acknowledges the possibility that a
relative, by virtue of blood, will
instinctively come to the aid of their
relatives.
b. Reasonable necessity of means
employed to prevent or repel it
c. In case person attacked provoked
attacker defender must have no part
therein
 Reason: Although the provocation
prejudices the person who gave it, its
effects do not reach the defender who
took no part therein, because the latter
was prompted by some noble or
generous sentiment in protecting and
saving a relative
Relatives entitled to defense:
i. Spouse
ii. Ascendants
iii. Descendants
iv. legitimate, natural or adopted
Brothers/Sisters
v. Relatives by affinity in the same degree
vi. Relatives by consanguinity w/in the 4th
civil degree
Illustration:
The sons of A honestly believe that their father
was the victim of an unlawful aggression when
in fact it was their father who attacked B. If they
killed B under such circumstances, they are
justified.
Balunueco v. CA (2003): Amelia was coddling her
child in front of her house, when she saw accused
Chapter IV. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Reynaldo, his father Juanito and brothers Ricardo and
Ramon, all surnamed Balunueco, and one Flores
chasing her brother-in-law Servando. With the 5 39
individuals in hot pursuit, Servando scampered into
CRIMINAL LAW 1
the safety of Amelia's house. Meanwhile, Senando
went out of the house unaware of the commotion
going on outside. Upon seeing Senando, Reynaldo
turned his attention on him and gave chase. Senando
instinctively fled but he was met by Armando who hit
him with a stone, causing Senando to feel dizzy.
Reynaldo, Ricardo, and Armando cornered their
quarry near a canal and ganged up on him. Armando
placed a can on top of Senando's head and Ricardo
repeatedly struck Senando with an ax on the head,
shoulder, and hand. At one point, Ricardo lost his
hold on the ax, but somebody tossed him a bolo and
then he continued hacking the victim who fell on his
knees. To shield him from further violence, Amelia put
her arms around her husband but it was not enough
to detract Ricardo from his murderous frenzy. Amelia
was also hit on the leg. The RTC and CA convicted
Ricardo of Homicide. He now imputes errors to the
CA in not taking into consideration the fact that if
indeed he participated, he had acted in defense of his
relatives.
Held: Of the three (3) requisites of defense of
relatives, unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua
non, for without it any defense is not possible or
justified. In order to consider that an unlawful
aggression was actually committed, it is necessary
that an attack or material aggression, an offensive act
positively determining the intent of the aggressor to
cause an injury shall have been made; a mere
threatening or intimidating attitude is not sufficient to
justify the commission of an act which is punishable
per se, and allow a claim of exemption from liability on
the ground that it was committed in self-defense or
defense of a relative. In the case at bar, petitioner
Ricardo utterly failed to adduce sufficient proof of the
existence of a positively strong act of real aggression
on the part of the deceased Senando.. It was he and
his kin who had inititated the unlawful agression and
not Senando. Further, the natural impulse of any
person who has killed someone in defense of his
person or relative is to bring himself to the authorities
and try to dispel any suspicion of guilt that the
authorities might have against him. Ricardo failed to
do the same. With the exception of his self-serving
allegations, there is nothing on record that would
justify his killing of Senando.
3. Defense Of Strangers
Elements:
a. Unlawful aggression;
b. Reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel it;
c. The person defending be not induced by
revenge, resentment or other evil motive.
Note: If the person being defended is a second
cousin, it will be defense of stranger.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Basis: What one may do in his defense, another
may do for him. The ordinary man would not
stand idly by and see his companion killed
without attempting to save his life
4. Avoidance of a Greater Evil
Elements:
a. Evil sought to be avoided actually exists
b. Injury feared be greater than that done to
avoid it
c. There is no other practical & less harmful
means of preventing it
 The evil or injury sought to be avoided must
not have been produced by the one invoking
the justifying circumstances.
General rule: No civil liability in justifying
circumstances because there is no crime.
Exception: There is CIVIL LIABILITY under this
paragraph. Persons benefited shall be liable in
proportion to the benefit which they have
received.
Illustrations:
1. A drove his car beyond the speed limit so
much so that when he reached the curve,
his vehicle skidded towards a ravine. He
swerved his car towards a house, destroying
it and killing the occupant therein. A cannot
be justified because the state of necessity
was brought about by his own felonious act.
2. A and B are owners of adjoining lands. A
owns the land for planting certain crops. B
owns the land for raising certain goats. C
used another land for a vegetable garden.
There was heavy rain and floods. Dam was
opened. C drove all the goats of B to the
land of A. The goats rushed to the land to be
saved, but the land of A was destroyed. The
author of the act is C, but C is not civilly
liable because he did not receive benefits. It
was B who was benefited, although he was
not the actor. He cannot claim that it was a
fortuitous event. B will answer only to the
extent of the benefit derived by him. If C who
drove all of the goats is accused of
malicious mischief, his defense would be
that he acted out of a state of necessity. He
will not be civilly liable.
Ty v. People (2004): Ty's mother and sister were
confined at the Manila Doctors' Hospital. Ty signed
the "Acknowledgment of Responsibility for Payment"
in the Contract of Admission. The total hospital bills of
the two patients amounted to P1,075,592.95. Ty
executed a promissory note wherein she assumed
Chapter IV. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY
payment of the obligation in installments. To assure
payment of the obligation, she drew 7 postdated
checks against Metrobank payable to the hospital 40
which were all dishonored by the drawee bank due to
CRIMINAL LAW 1
insufficiency of funds. As defense, Ty claimed that
she issued the checks because of “an uncontrollable
fear of a greater injury.” She averred that she was
forced to issue the checks to obtain release for her
mother who was being inhumanely treated by the
hospital. She alleged that her mother has
contemplated suicide if she would not be discharged
from the hospital. Ty was found guilty by the lower
courts of 7 counts of violation of BP22.
Held: The court sustained the findings of the lower
courts. The evil sought to be avoided is merely
expected or anticipated. So the defense of an
uncontrollable fear of a greater injury” is not
applicable. Ty could have taken advantage of an
available option to avoid committing a crime. By her
own admission, she had the choice to give jewelry or
other forms of security instead of postdated checks to
secure her obligation.
Moreover, for the defense of state of necessity to be
availing, the greater injury feared should not have
been brought about by the negligence or imprudence,
more so, the willful inaction of the actor. In this case,
the issuance of the bounced checks was brought
about by Ty's own failure to pay her mother's hospital
bills.
People v. Ricohermoso (1974): The land
Ricohermoso cultivated belonged to Geminiano.
When the latter went to the house of the former, as if
by prearrangement, Ricohermoso unsheathed his
bolo and approached Geminiano from the left while
Severo (Rico’s father-in-law) got an axe and
approached from the right. Rico stabbed Geminiano
first and while in a helpless position, the latter was
hacked on the back by Severo. At that same place
and time while the killing of Geminiano was taking
place, Juan (son of Severo) suddenly embraced
Marianito (son of Geminiano), who had a gun slung
on his shoulder, from behind. They grappled and
rolled downhill towards the camote patch. Marianito
passed out and when he regained consciousness, his
rifle was gone. He walked uphill and saw his father.
Geminiano died later. Juan invoked the justifying
circumstance of greater necessity in explaining his act
of preventing Marianito from shooting Rico and
Severo.
Held: The act of Juan was designed to insure the
killing of Geminiano without any risk to his assailants.
Juan was not avoiding any evil but his malicious
intention was to forestall any interference in the
felonious assault. He acted in conspiracy with Rico
and Severo.
5. Fulfillment of Duty or Lawful Exercise
of Right or office
Elements:
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
a. Offender acted in performance of duty or
lawful exercise of a right/office
b. The resulting felony is the unavoidable
consequence of the due fulfillment of the
duty or the lawful exercise of the right or
office.
Note: If first condition is present, but the second
is not because the offender acted with culpa,
 the offender will be entitled to a privileged
mitigating circumstance.
 the penalty would be reduced by one or two
degrees.
People v. Ulep (2000): Accused-appellant and the
other police officers involved originally set out to
restore peace and order at Mundog Subdivision
where the victim was then running amuck. The victim
threatened the safety of the police officers despite
accused-appellant's previous warning shot and verbal
admonition to the victim to lay down his weapon.
Held: As a police officer, it is to be expected that
accused-appellant would stand his ground. Up to that
point, his decision to respond with a barrage of
gunfire to halt the victim's further advance was
justified under the circumstances. A police officer is
not required to afford the victim the opportunity to fight
back. Neither is he expected – when hard pressed
and in the heat of such an encounter at close quarters
– to pause for a long moment and reflect coolly at his
peril, or to wait after each blow to determine the
effects thereof. But he cannot be exonerated from
overdoing his duty when he fatally shot the victim in
the head, even after the latter slumped to the ground
due to multiple gunshot wounds sustained while
charging at the police officers. Sound discretion and
restraint dictated that a veteran policeman should
have ceased firing at the victim the moment he saw
the latter fall to the ground. The victim at that point no
longer posed a threat. Shooting him in the head was
obviously unnecessary.
The law does not clothe police officers with authority
to arbitrarily judge the necessity to kill- it must be
stressed that their judgment and discretion as police
officers in the performance of their duties must be
exercised neither capriciously nor oppressively, but
within reasonable limits.
Pomoy v. People (2004): Police Srgt Pomoy, went
near the door of the jail where Balboa was detained
for robbery and directed the latter to come out,
purportedly for tactical interrogation at the
investigation room. At that time, petitioner had a gun,
a .45 caliber pistol, tucked in a holster which was
hanging by the side of his belt. Balboa tried to remove
Pomoy’s gun and the two grappled for possession of
the gun. Thereafter, 2 gunshots were heard. When
the source of the shots was verified, petitioner was
seen still holding a .45 caliber pistol, facing Balboa,
who was lying in a pool of blood. Pomoy invoked the
defense of accident for his defense.
Chapter IV. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Held: Pomoy is acquitted. At the time of the incident,
petitioner was a member of the (PNP) stationed at the 41
Iloilo Provincial Mobile Force Company. Thus, it was
CRIMINAL LAW 1
in the lawful performance of his duties as investigating
officer that, under the instructions of his superior, he
fetched the victim from the latter's cell for a routine
interrogation. The participation of petitioner, if any, in
the victim's death was limited only to acts committed
in the course of the lawful performance of his duties
as an enforcer of the law. The removal of the gun
from its holster, the release of the safety lock, and the
firing of the two successive shots — all of which led to
the death of the victim — were sufficiently
demonstrated to have been consequences of
circumstances beyond the control of petitioner.
Mamagun vs. People (2007): A policeman in pursuit
of a snatcher accidentally shot one of the bystanders
who was actually helping him chase the snatcher.
Held: To be sure, acts in the fulfillment of a duty,
without more, do not completely justify the petitioner’s
firing the fetal gunshot at the victim. True, petitioner,
as one of the policemen responding to a reported
robbery then in progress, was performing his duty as
a police officer as well as when he was trying to effect
the arrest of the suspected robber and in the process,
fatally shoot said suspect, albeit the wrong man.
However, in the absence of the equally necessary
justifying circumstance that the injury of offense
committed be the necessary consequence if the due
performance of such duty, there can only be
incomplete justification, a privilege mitigating
circumstance under Art. 13 and 69 of the RPC. There
can be no quibbling that there was no rational
necessity for the killing of Contreras. Petitioner could
have first fired a warning shot before pulling the
trigger against Contreras who was one of the
residents chasing the suspected robber.
People v. Delima (1922): Napilon escaped from the
jail where he was serving sentence. Some days
afterwards the policeman, Delima, who was looking
for him found him in the house of Alegria, armed with
a pointed piece of bamboo in the shape of a lance.
Delima demanded the surrender of the weapon but
Napilon refused. Delima fired his revolver to impose
his authority but the bullet did not hit him. The criminal
ran away and Delima went after him and fired again
his revolver this time hitting and killing him.
Held: The killing was done in the performance of a
duty. The deceased was under the obligation to
surrender and had no right, after evading service of
his sentence, to commit assault and disobedience
with a weapon in his hand, which compelled the
policeman to resort to such extreme means, which,
although it proved to be fatal, was justified by the
circumstance.
6. Obedience to an order issued for some
lawful purpose
Elements:
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Chapter IV. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY

a. Order must have been issued by a delivered to the private secretary of Marcos also in 3
superior separate days. According to the accused, the
b. The order is for some lawful purpose disbursement was not in the normal procedure since 42
c. The means used to carry it out must be there were no vouchers supporting it and no receipt

CRIMINAL LAW 1
from PNCC. Tabuena and Peralta were convicted by
lawful
the Sandiganbayan of malversation.

Note: A subordinate is not liable for carrying out Held: The accused were acquitted. They’re entitled to
an illegal order of his superior the justifying circumstance of obedience to an order
 if he is not aware of the illegality of the order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose.
and Sandiganbayan claimed that Marcos’ memo was
 he is not negligent. unlawful because it orders disbursement of P55M
when the Ongpin memo reveals that the liability is
only 34.5M. Granting this to be true, it will not affect
People v. Oanis (1943): Although an officer in Tabuena’s good faith as to make him criminally liable.
making a lawful arrest is justified in using such force Thus, even if the order is illegal if it is patently legal
as is reasonably necessary to secure and detain the and subordinate is not aware of its illegality, the
offender, overcome his resistance, prevent his subordinate is not liable, for then there would only be
escape, recapture him if he escapes, and protect a mistake of fact committed in good faith.
himself from bodily harm, yet he is never justified in
using unnecessary force or in treating him with
wanton violence or in resorting to dangerous means Justifying vs. Exempting Circumstance
when the arrest could be effected otherwise. JUSTIFYING EXEMPTING
CIRCUMSTANCE CIRCUMSTANCE
People v. Beronilla (1955): Borjal was the elected It affects the act, not It affects the actor, not
mayor of La Paz, Abra at the outbreak of war and the actor. the act.
continued to serve as Mayor during Japanese The act is considered The act complained of
occupation. Beronilla was appointed later as Military to have been done is actually wrongful,
Mayor. Later, while the operations for the liberation of within the bounds of but the actor is not
Abra was in progress, Beronilla, pursuant to his law; hence, legitimate liable.
instructions, placed Borjal in his custody and asked
and lawful in the eyes
the residents to file charges of espionage, aiding the
enemy, and abuse of authority against him. After trial, of the law.
Borjal’s execution took place. Later, Beronilla, Since the act is Since the act
together with a priest, executioner, graver digger, etc. considered lawful, complained of is
were indicted for murder. The prosecution claimed there is no liability. actually wrong, there is
that Col. Volkmann transmitted a radiogram message a crime but since the
stating that the jury system organized by the actor acted without
municipality is illegal and cannot order execution of voluntariness, there is
Borjal. no dolo or culpa.
Held: There is no proof that Beronilla was able to There is no criminal or There is a crime,
receive the radiogram message. The records are civil liability. although there is no
ample to sustain the claim of the accused that the criminal, so there is
arrest, prosecution and trial were done pursuant to civil liability (Except:
express orders of the 15th Infantry HQ. Where the Art. 12, par. 4 and 7
accused acted upon orders of superior officers that where there is no civil
the, as military subordinates, could not question, and liability.
obeyed in good faith, without being aware of their
illegality, without any fault or negligence on their part,
the act is not accompanied by criminal intent. A crime
is not committed if the mind of the person performing
the ac be innocent.

Tabuena v. Sandiganbayan (1997): Pres. Marcos

instructed Tabuena over the phone to pay directly to
the Office of the President in cash what MIAA owes
PNCC which later was reiterated in writing. The
Marcos’ memo indicated the amount of P55m for
partial payment of the obligation to PNCC. In
obedience to Marcos’ instruction, the accused
withdrew the amount by means of 3 separate
issuances of manager’s check and encashment in 3
separate dates as well. The money withdrawn were
placed in peerless boxes and duffle bags and
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
II. Exempting Circumstances
(ASKED 14 TIMES IN BAR EXAMS)
SIX TYPES of exempting circumstances:
1. Imbecility/Insanity
2. Minority
3. Accident
4. Compulsion of irresistible force
5. Impulse of uncontrollable fear
6. Insuperable or lawful cause
IMPORTANT POINTS:
 The reason for the exemption lies in the
involuntariness or lack of knowledge of
the act:
 one or some of the ingredients of
criminal liability such as criminal
intent, intelligence, or freedom of action
on the part of the offender is missing
 In case it is a culpable felony, there is
absence of freedom of action or
intelligence, or absence of negligence,
imprudence, lack of foresight or lack of
skill.
1. Insanity and Imbecility
Imbecile - One who, while advanced in age,
has a mental development comparable to
that of a child between 2 and 7 years of age.
Exempt in all cases from criminal liability
Insane - There is a complete deprivation of
intelligence in committing the act but
capable of having lucid intervals. During a
lucid interval, the insane acts with
intelligence and thus, is not exempt from
criminal liability
 Insanity is a defense in the nature of
confession and avoidance and must be
proved beyond reasonable doubt
 Evidence of insanity must refer to
 the time preceding the act under
prosecution or
 at the very moment of its execution.
 Insanity subsequent to commission of crime
is not exempting
 Feeblemindedness is not imbecility (People
vs. Formigones)
 Cases covered under this article:
 Dementia praecox
Chapter IV. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY
 Kleptomania: if found by a competent
psychiatrist as irresistible
43
 Epilepsy
 Somnambulism: sleep-walking (Pp vs.
CRIMINAL LAW 1
Taneo)
 Malignant malaria: which affects the
nervous system
People vs. Dungo: The insanity that is exempting is
limited only to mental aberration or disease of the
mind and must completely impair the intelligence of
the accused.
People vs. Rafanan: The following are the two tests
for exemption on the grounds of insanity:
 The test of cognition, or whether the accused
acted with complete deprivation of intelligence in
committing the said crime;
 The test of volition, or whether the accused acted
in total deprivation of freedom of will.
 Schizophrenia (dementia praecox) can only be
considered a mitigating circumstance because it
does not completely deprive the offender of
consciousness of his acts.
People v. Madarang (2000): Fernando and his wife
quarreled. In the heat of the fight, the accused
stabbed his wife causing her death. The accused
declared that he had no recollection of the stabbing
incident. Court ordered the accused’s confinement in
a mental institution where it was found that he was
inflicted with schizophrenia. He was submitted to
treatment for 2 years, after which, he faced the
charges against him.
Held: The accused failed to prove that he was
completely deprived of intelligence in committing the
act. He did not show any signs of insanity prior to and
immediately after the act. He was only diagnosed of
schizophrenia months after the incident. Also, schizos
have lucid intervals.
2. Minority
RA 9344 Juvenile Justice & Welfare Act of Commented [i3]: There is another school of
2006: thought that believes that insanity, as with other such
1. 15 yrs old or below at the time of defenses, need only be proved to a degree sufficient to
commission of offense: absolutely exempt raise a reasonable doubt of guilt.
from criminal liability but subject to
intervention program
2. Over 15 yrs old but below 18: exempt from
criminal liability & subject to intervention
program
 If acted w/ discernment subject to
diversion program
3. Below 18 yrs are exempt from:
 Status offense
 Vagrancy and Prostitution
 Mendicancy (PD1563)
Commented [i4]: Cited in OLD cases, but is a
 Sniffing of Rugby (PD 1619)
term no longer used by mental health practitioners
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Jose v. People (2005): Jose, 13 yrs old was in a car
with his cousin Zarraga, when the latter inquired from
the poseur buyer SPO1 Guevarra if he could afford to
buy shabu. When Guevarra replied in the affirmative
Zarraga told Jose to hand over the shabu. Jose gave
the plastic containing the shabu to Zarraga who
handed it to Guevarra. The trial court convicted both
Jose and Zarraga.
Held: Jose is acquitted. The prosecution failed to
prove beyond reasonable doubt that he acted with
discernment relative to the sale of shabu. Aside from
bringing out and handing over the plastic bag to
Zarraga, Jose merely sat in the car and had no other
participation in the transaction between his cousin
and the poseur buyer. There is no evidence that Jose
knew what was inside the plastic and soft white paper
before and at the time he handed the same to
Zarraga.
3. Accident
(Damnum Absque Injuria)
Elements:
a. A person performing a lawful act;
b. With due care;
c. He causes an injury to another by mere
accident;
d. Without fault or intention of causing it.
Accident - something that happens outside the
sway of our will and, although coming about
through some act of our will, lies beyond the
bounds of humanly foreseeable consequences.
Under Article 12, paragraph 4, the offender is
exempt not only from criminal but also from
civil liability A person who is driving his car
within the speed limit, while considering the
condition of the traffic and the pedestrians at
that time, tripped on a stone with one of his car
tires. The stone flew hitting a pedestrian on the
head. The pedestrian suffered profuse bleeding.
There is no civil liability under paragraph 4 of
Article 12. Although this is just an exempting
circumstance, where generally there is civil
liability, yet, in paragraph 4 of Article 12, there is
no civil liability as well as criminal liability. The
driver is not under obligation to defray the
medical expenses.
People v. Concepcion (2002):
There was no accident. By Concepcion’s own
testimony, the victim was unarmed. In contrast, he
had an armalite and a handgun. It is highly
inconceivable that an unarmed man could pose bodily
harm to another who is heavily armed. Concepcion’s
gun discharged several shots that hit vital parts of the
victim's body. As observed by the trial court,
recklessly appellant had put his finger on the trigger of
Chapter IV. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY
his cocked and loaded rifle. In that state, with the
slightest movement of his finger, the rifle would fire
readily. And it did not just once but several fires. 44
Concepcion is guilty of homicide.
CRIMINAL LAW 1
4. Irresistible Force
Elements:
a. That the compulsion is by means of
physical force.
b. That the physical force must be
irresistible.
c. That the physical force must come from a
third person
People v. Lising (1998): Manalili asked Garcia to find
someone who could arrest of Herrera the suspect of
the killing of his brother. Garcia introduced Lising and
they had an agreement. Lising’s surveillance group
was at the Castanos’ residence in the hope of
spotting Herrera. The group saw a man and a woman
(the victims) leave the residence and followed them
and were accosted. Later, the bodies of the 2 were
found. Lower court found that since there was an
agreement among Manalili, Garcia and Lising, they
were all co-conspirators. Garcia claimed that he acted
under compulsion of irresistible force.
Held: To be exempt from criminal liability, a person
invoking irresistible force must show that the force
exerted was such that it reduced him to a mere
instrument who acted not only without will but against
his will. Garcia’s participation from when the
abduction was hatched to the killing of the victims is
undisputed.
5. Uncontrollable Fear
Elements:
a. That the threat which causes the fear is
of an evil greater than or at least equal to,
that which he is forced to commit;
b. That it promises an evil of such gravity
and imminence that the ordinary man
would have succumbed to it.
 A threat of future injury is not enough.
 The compulsion must be of such a character
as to leave no opportunity to the accused
for escape or self-defense in equal
combat.
Illustration:
A is forced at gun point to forge the signature of
B.
US v. Exaltation (1905): Exaltation and Tanchico
were convicted w/ rebellion based on documents
found in the house of Contreras, a so-called general
of bandits, containing signatures of defendants
swearing allegiance to the Katipunan. Defendants
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Chapter IV. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY

aver that these documents were signed under duress  but serve only to reduce the penalty.
and fear of death. They allege further that they were
abducted by thieves and that these men forced the  They are based on the diminution of either 45
defendants to sign the documents freedom of action, intelligence or intent or on

CRIMINAL LAW 1
the lesser perversity of the offender.
Held: The duress under which the defendants acted EXCEPTIONS: voluntary surrender and plea
relieved them from criminal liability. Prosecution was
of guilt which, being circumstances that
unable to prove the guilt of the accused and
testimonies of witnesses for the accused further occur AFTER the commission of the
corroborated their defense. offense, show the accused’s respect for the
law (voluntary surrender) and remorse and
acceptance of punishment (plea of guilt),
6. Insuperable or Lawful Causes thereby necessitating a lesser penalty to
effect his rehabilitation (based on the
Elements: Positivist School)
a. That an act is required by law to be done;
b. That a person fails to perform such act;  The circumstances under Article 13 are
c. That his failure to perform such act was generally ordinary mitigating,
due to some lawful or insuperable cause  except in paragraph 1, where it is
privileged, Article 69 would apply.
Illustration:
Person was arrested for direct assault at 5:00  When the crime committed is
pm after government offices close. Art 125 RPC  punishable by a divisible penalty,
requires that a person arrested be delivered to  two or more of this ordinary mitigating
judicial authorities within prescribed number of circumstances
hours according to the gravity of offense. But  if there is no aggravating circumstance
complaint may only be filed the next day when at all
offices open. The circumstance of time of arrest  shall have the effect of a
may be considered as an insuperable cause. privileged mitigating
circumstance
People v. Bandian (1936): A woman cannot be held  Correlate Article 13 with Articles 63 and 64.
liable for infanticide when she left her newborn child in
Article 13 is meaningless without
the bushes without being aware that she had given
birth at all. Severe dizziness and extreme debility knowing the rules of imposing the
made it physically impossible for Bandian to take penalties under Articles 63 and 64.
home the child plus the assertion that she didn’t know
that she had given birth. TIP: In bar problems, when you are given
indeterminate sentences, these articles are very
important.
III. Mitigating Circumstances
 Distinctions
(ASKED 19 TIMES IN BAR EXAMS)
Ordinary MC Privileged MC
TWELVE TYPES of mitigating circumstances: Can be offset by any Cannot be offset by
aggravating circumstance aggravating
1. Incomplete Justification and Exemption circumstance
2. Under 18 or Over 70 years of age
If not offset by aggravating The effect of imposing
3. No intention to commit so grave a wrong
circumstance, produces upon the offender the
4. Sufficient Provocation or Threat
the effect of applying the penalty lower by one or
5. Immediate vindication of a grave offense
penalty provided by law for two degrees than that
6. Passion or obfuscation
the crime in its min period provided by law for the
7. Voluntary surrender
in case of divisible penalty crime.
8. Voluntary plea of guilt
9. Plea to a lower offense
10. Physical defect
11. Illness
12. Analogous Circumstances

 Mitigating circumstances are those which, if

present in the commission of the crime,
 do not entirely free the actor from
criminal liability,
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
1. Incomplete Justification and
Exemption
Incomplete justifying circumstances:
a. Incomplete self-defense, defense of
relatives, defense of stranger
 In these 3 classes of defense,
UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION must
always be present. It is an
indispensable requisite.
 Par. 1 of Art. 13 is applicable only when
 unlawful aggression is present
 but one or both of the other 2
requisites are not present in any of
the cases referred to in
circumstances number 1, 2 and 3 or
Art. 11.
Example: When the one making
defense against unlawful aggression
used unreasonable means to prevent or
repel it, he is entitled to a privileged
mitigating circumstance.
b. Incomplete justifying circumstance of
avoidance of greater evil or injury
 Requisites under par. 4 of Art. 11:
 That the evil sought to be avoided
actually exists;
 That the injury feared be greater
than that done to avoid it;
 That there be no other practical and
less harmful means of preventing it.
 Avoidance of greater evil or injury is a
justifying circumstance if all the three
requisites mentioned in par. 4 of Art. 11
are present.
 But if any of the last two requisites is
lacking, there is only a mitigating
circumstance.
c. Incomplete justifying circumstance of
performance of duty
 That the accused acted in the
performance of a duty or in the lawful
exercise of a right or office; and
 That the injury caused or offense
committed be the necessary
consequence of the due performance of
such duty or the lawful exercise of such
right or office.
Incomplete exempting circumstances:
a. Incomplete exempting circumstance of
accident
 Requisites under par. 4 of Art. 12:
 A person is performing a lawful act
 With due care
Chapter IV. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY
 He causes an injury to another by
mere accident
 Without fault or intention of causing 46
it
CRIMINAL LAW 1
There is NO SUCH MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCE because:
 If the 2nd requisite and 1st part of the 4th
requisite are absent,
 the case will fall under Art. 365
which punishes reckless
imprudence.
 If the 1st requisite and 2nd part of the 4th
requisite are absent,
 it will be an intentional felony (Art. 4,
par. 1).
b. Incomplete exempting circumstance of
uncontrollable fear.
 Requisites under par. 6 of Art. 12:
 That the threat which caused the
fear was of an evil greater than, or
at least equal to, that which he was
required to commit;
 That it promised an evil of such
gravity and imminence that an
ordinary person would have
succumbed to it.
 If only one of these requisites is present,
there is only a mitigating circumstance.
People v. Oanis (1943): The SC considered one of
the 2 requisites as constituting the majority. It seems
that there is no ordinary mitigating circumstance
under Art. 13 par. 1 when the justifying or exempting
circumstance has 2 requisites only.
2. Under 18 Or Over 70 Years Of Age
 In lowering the penalty:
 Based on age of the offender at the
time of the commission of the crime
not the age when sentence is imposed
 In suspension of the sentence:
Commented [i5]: This is not a mitigating
 Based on age of the offender (under circumstance) – SIR’s OPINION DIFFERS FROM
18) at the time the sentence is to be
REYES’S, I FOLLOWED SIR AND DELETED
promulgated (See Art. 80, RPC)
 Par. 2 contemplates the ff:
Commented [i6]: Superseded by RA 9344. The
1. An offender over 9 but under 15 of age question is whether having acted with discernment, a
who acted with discernment.
child over 15 and under 18 is now entitled to a
2. An offender fifteen or over but under 18 mitigating circumstance?
years of age.
3. An offender over 70 years old
Legal effects of various ages of offenders:
1. Under 9 years of age, an exempting
circumstance. (Art. 12, par. 2)
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
2. Over 9 and under 15 years of age, also an
exempting circumstance, unless he acted
with discernment (Art. 12, par. 3)
3. Minor delinquent under 18 years of age, the
sentence may be suspended. (Art. 192, PD
No. 603 as amended by PD 1179)
4. Under 18 years of age, privileged mitigating
circumstance (Art. 68) (ASKED 7 TIMES IN
BAR EXAMS)
5. 18 years or over, full criminal responsibility.
3. No Intention To Commit So Grave A
Wrong
 There must be a notable disproportion
between the means employed by the
offender and the resulting harm.
 The intention, as an internal act, is
judged
 not only by the proportion of the means
employed by him to the evil produced by
his act,
 but also by the fact that the blow was or
was not aimed at a vital part of the body;
 this includes: the weapon used, the
injury inflicted and his attitude of the
mind when the accused attacked the
deceased.
 The lack of intention to commit so grave a
wrong can also be inferred from the
subsequent acts of the accused immediately
after committing the offense, such as when
the accused helped his victim to secure
medical treatment.
 This circumstance does not apply when the
crime results from criminal negligence or
culpa.
 Only applicable to offense resulting in death,
physical injuries, or material harm (including
property damage). It is not applicable to
defamation or slander.
 This mitigating circumstance is not
applicable when the offender employed
brute force.
 Lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong is
not appreciated where the offense
committed is characterized by treachery.
 In crimes against persons who do not die as
a result of the assault, the absence of the
intent to kill reduces the felony to mere
physical injuries, but it does not constitute a
mitigating circumstance under Art. 13(3).
People v. Calleto (2002): Alfredo, Lecpoy and
Eduardo were watching a game. Out of nowhere,
Calleto appeared behind Alfredo and stabbed the
latter on the left shoulder near the base of the neck
with a 9-inch hunting knife. Instinctively, Alfredo stood
up and managed to walk a few meters. When he fell
Chapter IV. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY
on the ground, Lecpoy and Eduardo rushed to help
him but Alfredo died shortly. Calleto voluntary
surrendered. He claims that his liability should be 47
mitigated by the fact that he had no intention to Commented [i7]: See RA 9344
CRIMINAL LAW 1
commit so grave a wrong.
Held: The lack of "intent" to commit a wrong so grave
is an internal state. It is weighed based on the
weapon used, the part of the body injured, the injury
inflicted and the manner it is inflicted. The fact that the
accused used a 9-inch hunting knife in attacking the
victim from behind, without giving him an opportunity
to defend himself, clearly shows that he intended to
do what he actually did, and he must be held
responsible therefor, without the benefit of this
mitigating circumstance.
People v. Ural (1974): Ural was a policeman while
the deceased was a detention prisoner. Ural boxed
the deceased and as a consequence of the fistic
blows, the deceased collapsed on the floor. Ural then
stepped on the prostate body and left. After a while,
Ural returned with a bottle of gasoline, poured its
contents on the recumbent body, ignited it with a
match, and left the cell again. The deceased later on
died of the burns. The crime committed by Ural was
murder by means of fire (incendio) (Art 248(3), RPC).
He claims however that he is entitled to the mitigating
circumstance of no intention to commit so grave a
wrong.
Held: The intention, as an internal act, is judged not
only by the proportion of the means employed by him
to the evil produced by his act, but also by the fact
that the blow was or was not aimed at a vital part
of the body. Thus, it may be deduced from the
proven facts that the accused had no intent to kill the
victim, his design being only to maltreat him, such that
when he realized the fearful consequences of his felo-
nious act, he allowed the victim to secure medical
treatment at the municipal dispensary.
4. Sufficient Provocation or Threat
Elements:
a. That the provocation must be sufficient
b. That it must originate from the offended
party
c. That the provocation must be immediate
to the act, i.e., to the commission of the
crime by the person who is provoked
 Any unjust or improper conduct or act of the
offended party
 Capable of exciting, inciting, or irritating
anyone
 TIP: The common set-up given in a bar
problem is that of provocation given by
somebody against whom the person
provoked cannot retaliate; thus the person
provoked retaliated on a younger brother or
on the father. Although in fact, there is
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
sufficient provocation, it is not mitigating
because the one who gave the provocation
is not the one against whom the crime was
committed.
 You have to look at two criteria:
1. If from the element of time,
a. there is a material lapse of time
stated in the problem and
b. there is nothing stated in the
problem that the effect of the threat
of provocation had prolonged and
affected the offender at the time he
committed the crime
c. then you use the criterion based on
the time element.
2. If there is that time element and at the
same time,
a. facts are given indicating that at the
time the offender committed the
crime, he is still suffering from
outrage of the threat or provocation
done to him
b. then he will still get the benefit of
this mitigating circumstance.
Romera v. People (2004): Romera heard the victim
Roy call him and his wife, asking if they had beer and
a fighter for sale. He did not answer Roy because he
knew that Roy was already drunk. As Roy was
persistent, Romera went down the house but as he
opened the door Roy thrust his bolo at him w/c he
parried. Roy said he would kill Romera. Romera tried
to prevent Roy from entering as Roy kept hacking at
the wall. Romera tried to ward off Roy’s assault as he
grappled for the bolo and stabbed Roy in the
stomach. Wounded, Roy begged for forgiveness.
Romera desisted for fear he might kill Roy.
Held: There was sufficient provocation and the
circumstance of passion or obfuscation attended the
commission of the offense. Thrusting his bolo at
Romera, threatening to kill him, and hacking the
bamboo walls of his house are sufficient provocation
to enrage any man, and obfuscate his thinking, more
so when his family are in danger. Romera stabbed
Roy as a result of the provocations, and while he was
in a fit of rage.
The court however stressed that provocation and
passion or obfuscation are not 2 separate
mitigating circumstances. It is well-settled that if
these 2 circumstances are based on the same facts,
they should be treated together as one mitigating
circumstance. It is clear that both circumstances
arose from the same set of facts. Hence, they should
not be treated as two separate mitigating
circumstances.
People v. Leonor (1999): The deceased was a
dentist and Leonor entered her clinic allegedly for a
tooth extraction. When inside the clinic, Leonor took
the watch and money of the deceased and stabbed
Chapter IV. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY
her. Leonor was convicted for Robbery with Homicide.
He claims the mitigating circumstance of sufficient
provocation. According to him, the deceased 48
provoked him by cursing and pushing him for asking
CRIMINAL LAW 1
for an extraction without having the money to pay for
it.
Held: The pushing and cursing of the accused by the
deceased, even if true, does not justify the accused’s
act of stabbing her with a knife. For sufficient
provocation to be appreciated, the retaliation must be
a proportionate reaction to the provocation given by
the victim.
5. Immediate Vindication of A Grave
Offense
Elements:
a. That there be a grave offense done to the
one committing the felony, his spouse,
ascendants, descendants, legitimate,
natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or
relatives by affinity within the same
degree.
b. That the felony is committed in
vindication of such grave offense. A
lapse of time is allowed between the
vindication and the doing of the grave
offense.
c. The vindication need not be done by the
person upon whom the grave offense
was committed
 Basis to determine the gravity of offense
in vindication
 The question whether or not a certain
personal offense is grave must be
decided by the court, having in mind
 the social standing of the person,
 the place and
 the time when the insult was made.
 Vindication of a grave offense and passion
or obfuscation cannot be counted separately
and independently.
People v. Torpio (2004): During a drinking spree in a
cottage, Anthony tried to let Dennis Torpio drink gin
and as the latter refused, Anthony bathed Dennis with
gin and mauled him several times. Dennis crawled
beneath the table and Anthony tried to stab him with a
22 fan knife but did not hit him. Dennis got up and ran
towards their home. Upon reaching home, he got a
knife. He went back to the cottage. Upon seeing
Dennis, Anthony ran towards the creek but Dennis
blocked him and stabbed him. When he was hit,
Anthony ran but got entangled with a fishing net and
fell on his back. Dennis then mounted on him and
continued stabbing him resulting to the latter’s death.
Then Dennis left and slept at a grassy meadow near a
Camp. In the morning, he went to Estrera, a police
officer to whom he voluntarily surrendered.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Held: The mitigating circumstance of having acted in
the immediate vindication of a grave offense is
properly appreciated. Dennis was humiliated, mauled
and almost stabbed by the Anthony. Although the
unlawful aggression had ceased when Dennis
stabbed Anthony, it was nonetheless a grave offense
for which the Dennis may be given the benefit of a
mitigating circumstance.
However, the mitigating circumstance of sufficient
provocation cannot be considered apart from the
circumstance of vindication of a grave offense. These
two circumstances arose from one and the same
incident, i.e., the attack on the appellant by Anthony,
so that they should be considered as only one
mitigating circumstance.
People v. Ampar (1917): Ampar was an old man 70
years of age. During a fiesta, he asked the deceased
for some roast pig. In the presence of many guests,
the deceased insulted the old man, saying: "There is
no more. Come here and I will make roast pig of you."
A little later, while the deceased was squatting down,
Ampar came up behind him and struck him on the
head with an ax. Ampar claims the mitigating
circumstance of immediate vindication of a grave
offense.
Held: While it may be mere trifle to an average
person, it evidently was a serious matter to an old
man to be made the butt of a joke in the presence of
so many guests. The accused was given the benefit
of the mitigating circumstance of vindication of a
grave offense. In this case, the age of the accused
and the place were considered in determining the
gravity of the offense.
People v. Pajares (1992): Pajares and the deceased
belonged to rival gangs. The brother of Pajares was
mauled by a member of the gang to which the
deceased belonged. In retaliation, Pajares mauled the
deceased which led to the latter’s death. Pajares was
found guilty of murder but he claims that he should be
granted the mitigating circumstance of vindication of a
grave offense.
Held: Vindication of a grave offense cannot be
appreciated as the lapse of ten days between the
mauling of the brother of the accused and his of act of
retaliation was sufficient enough for the accused t
regain his serenity.
6. Passion or obfuscation
Elements:
a. The accused acted upon an impulse
b. The impulse must be so powerful that it
naturally produce passion or obfuscation
in him.
Chapter IV. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY
 Passion or obfuscation not applicable
when:
 The act committed in a spirit of 49
LAWLESSNESS.
CRIMINAL LAW 1
 The act is committed in a spirit of
REVENGE.
 The mitigating circumstance of obfuscation
arising from jealousy cannot be invoked in
favor of the accused whose relationship
with the woman was illegitimate.
 Passion and obfuscation may lawfully arise
from causes existing only in the honest
belief of the offender.
Illustrations:
 A is courting B, a receptionist in a
beerhouse. C danced with B. A saw this and
stabbed C. It was held that jealousy is an
acknowledged basis of passion.
 A, a male classmate is escorting B, a female
classmate. On the way out, some men
whistled lustfully. The male classmate
stabbed said men. This was held to be
obfuscation.
 When a man saw a woman bathing, almost
naked, for which reason he raped her, such
man cannot claim passion as a mitigating
circumstance.
People v. Bates (2003): While Edgar, Simon, and
Jose are along a trail leading to the house of Carlito
Bates, the latter suddenly emerged from the thick
banana plantation surrounding the trail, aiming his
firearm at Jose who was then walking ahead of his
companions. Jose tried to wrest possession of the
firearm. While the 2 were grappling for possession,
the gun fired, hitting Carlito. At that instant, Marcelo
Bates and his son Marcelo Bates, Jr., brother and
nephew of Carlito, respectively, emerged from the
banana plantation and attacked Jose hacking him
several times. Jose fell to the ground and rolled but
Marcelo and his son kept on hacking him.
Held: Passion and obfuscation may not be properly
appreciated in favor of the appellant. To be
considered as a mitigating circumstance, passion or
obfuscation must arise from lawful sentiments and not
from a spirit of lawlessness or revenge or from anger
and resentment. In the present case, clearly, Marcelo
was infuriated upon seeing his brother, Carlito, shot
by Jose.
However, a distinction must be made between the
first time that Marcelo hacked Jose and the second
time that the former hacked the latter. When Marcelo
hacked Jose right after seeing the latter shoot at
Carlito, and if appellant refrained from doing anything
else after that, he could have validly invoked the
mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation.
But when, upon seeing his brother Carlito dead,
Marcelo went back to Jose, who by then was already
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
prostrate on the ground and hardly moving, hacking
Jose again was a clear case of someone acting out of
anger in the spirit of revenge.
U.S. v. Hicks (1909): Hicks and the deceased lived
together as husband and wife without the benefit of
marriage for about five years. The deceased left Hicks
and had illicit relations with another man a few days
later. Hicks begged the deceased to return to him but
the latter refused. Enraged, Hicks killed the deceased
but claims the mitigating circumstance of passion or
obfuscation.
Held: Even if it is true that the accused acted with
obfuscation because of jealousy, the mitigating
circumstance cannot be considered in his favor
because the causes which mitigate criminal
responsibility for the loss of self-control are such
which originate from legitimate feelings and not
those which arise from vicious, unworthy and immoral
passions. The cause of the passion of the accused
was his vexation engendered by the refusal of the
woman to continue to live in illicit relations with him,
which she had a perfect right to do.
SIR BARRY: The result will be different if the
accused caught the deceased having sexual
intercourse with another man while the
deceased was in a relationship with him. By
then, the accused can be granted the mitigating
circumstance of passion or obfuscation even if
he is not married to the deceased because it is
legitimate for him to expect fidelity from the latter
as they are in an exclusive relationship although
they are not married.
US v. De la Cruz (1912): De la Cruz, in the heat of
passion, killed the deceased who was his querida
(lover) upon discovering her in the act of carnal
communication with a mutual acquaintance. He
claims that he is entitled to the mitigating
circumstance of passion or obfuscation and that the
doctrine in Hicks is inapplicable.
Held: US v. Hicks is not applicable to the case. In
Hicks, the cause of the alleged passion and
obfuscation of the aggressor was the convict's
vexation, disappointment and deliberate anger
engendered by the refusal of the woman to continue
to live in illicit relations with him, which she had a
perfect reason to do. In this case, the impulse upon
which the defendant acted was the sudden revelation
that his paramour was untrue to him and his discovery
of her in flagrante in the arms of another. This was a
sufficient impulse in the ordinary and natural
course of things to produce the passion and
obfuscation which the law declares to be one of the
mitigating circumstances to be taken into the
consideration of the court.
Chapter IV. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY
7. Voluntary Surrender
Elements: 50
a. That the offender had not been actually
CRIMINAL LAW 1
arrested
b. That the offender surrendered himself to
a person in authority or to the latter’s
agent
c. That the surrender was voluntary.
 Two Mitigating Circumstances Under
This Paragraph:
 Voluntary Surrender To A Person In
Authority Or His Agents;
 Voluntary Confession of Guilt Before
The Court Prior To The Presentation Of
Evidence For The Prosecution.
 Whether or not a warrant of arrest had been
issued immaterial and irrelevant.
 Criterion is whether or not
 the offender had gone into hiding
 and the law enforcers do not know of his
whereabouts.
Andrada v. People (2005): In a restaurant, Andrada
scolded Cpl. Ugerio while the latter was talking to a
woman who passed by their table. Sgt. Sumabong,
identifying himself as a PC non-commissioned officer,
advised Andrada to pay his bill and go home as he
was apparently drunk. Andrada left the restaurant.
While Sgt. Sumabong was paying his bill, he heard
Cpl. Ugerio, seated about a meter away, moaning in
pain. Sgt. Sumabong then saw Andrada hacking Cpl.
Ugerio on the head with a bolo. As Sgt. Sumabong
approached them Andrada ran away. He was
eventually arrested at a waiting shed. Andrada
invoked the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender.
Held: Andrada, after attacking the victim, ran away.
He was apprehended by responding officers at a
waiting shed. For voluntary surrender to be
appreciated, the surrender must be spontaneous,
made in such a manner that it shows the interest
of the accused to surrender unconditionally to the
authorities, either because he acknowledges his guilt
or wishes to save them the trouble and expenses that
would be necessarily incurred in his search and
capture. Here, the surrender was not spontaneous.
8. Plea Of Guilt
Elements:
a. That the offender spontaneously
confessed his guilt
b. That the confession of guilty was made
in open court, that is, before the
competent court that is to try the case
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
 The extrajudicial confession made by
the accused is not voluntary confession
because it was made outside the court.
c. That the confession of guilt was made
prior to the presentation of evidence for
the prosecution
 The change of plea should be made at
the first opportunity when his
arraignment was first set
 A conditional plea of guilty is not
mitigating
 Plea of guilt on appeal is not mitigating.
People v. Montinola (2001): Montinola entered a
plea of not guilty but withdrew the same after the
prosecution presented 3 witnesses. When
rearraigned, he pleaded "guilty" to 2 charges.
Held: The mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty
cannot be credited in favor of Montinola since the
change of his plea from "not guilty" to "guilty"
was made only after the presentation of some
evidence for the prosecution. To be entitled to such
mitigating circumstance, the accused must have
voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to
the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution.
9. Plea to A Lesser Offense
 Rule 116, sec. 2, ROC:
At arraignment, the accused, with the
consent of the offended party and
prosecutor, may be allowed by the trial court
to plead guilty to a lesser offense which is
necessarily included in the offense charged.
After arraignment but before trial, the
accused may still be allowed to plead guilty
to said lesser offense after withdrawing his
plea of not guilty. No amendment of the
complaint or information is necessary.
People v. Dawaton (2002): Information for murder
was filed against Dawaton. When first arraigned he
pleaded not guilty, but during the pre-trial he offered
to plead guilty to the lesser offense of homicide but
was rejected by the prosecution. The trial court
sentenced him to death. He avers that he is entitled to
the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty.
Held: While the accused offered to plead guilty to the
lesser offense of homicide, he was charged with
murder for which he had already entered a plea of not
guilty. We have ruled that an offer to enter a plea of
guilty to a lesser offense cannot be considered as an
attenuating circumstance under the provisions of Art.
13 of RPC because to be voluntary the plea of guilty
must be to the offense charged.
Also, Sec. 2, Rule 116, of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure requires the consent of the
offended party and the prosecutor before an accused
Chapter IV. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY
may be allowed to plead guilty to a lesser offense
necessarily included in the offense charged. The
prosecution rejected the offer of the accused. 51
CRIMINAL LAW 1
10. Physical Defects
 This paragraph does not distinguish
between educated and uneducated deaf-
mute or blind persons.
 Physical defect referred to in this paragraph
is such as being armless, cripple, or a
stutterer, whereby his means to act, defend
himself or communicate with his fellow
beings are limited.
 The physical defect that a person may have
must have a relation to the commission of
the crime.
 Where the offender is deaf and dumb,
personal property was entrusted to him and
he misappropriated the same. The crime
committed was estafa. The fact that he was
deaf and dumb is not mitigating since that
does not bear any relation to the crime
committed.
 If a person is deaf and dumb and he has
been slandered, he cannot talk so what he
did was he got a piece of wood and struck
the fellow on the head. The crime committed
was physical injuries. The Supreme Court
held that being a deaf and dumb is
mitigating because the only way is to use his
force because he cannot strike back in any
other way.
11. Illness
Elements:
a. That the illness of the offender must
diminish the exercise of his will-power
b. That such illness should not deprive the
offender of consciousness of his acts.
 When the offender completely lost the
exercise of will-power, it may be an
exempting circumstance.
 It is said that this paragraph refers only to
diseases of pathological state that trouble
the conscience or will.
 A mother who, under the influence of a
puerperal fever, killed her child the day
following her delivery.
People v. Javier (1999): Javier was married to the
deceased for 41 years. He killed the deceased and
then stabbed himself in the abdomen. Javier was
found guilty of parricide. In his appeal, he claims that
he killed his wife because he was suffering from
insomnia for a month and at the time of the killing, his
mind went totally blank and he did not know what he
was doing. He also claims that he was insane then.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Chapter IV. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY

16. Treachery
Held: No sufficient evidence or medical finding was 17. Ignominy
offered to support his claim. The court also took 18. Unlawful Entry 52
note of the fact that the defense, during the trial, 19. Breaking Wall, Floor, Roof

CRIMINAL LAW 1
never alleged the mitigating circumstance of 20. With Aid Of Persons Under 15 By Motor
illness. The alleged mitigating circumstance was a Vehicle
mere afterthought to lessen the criminal liability 21. Cruelty
of the accused.
The following are other aggravating circumstances:

12. Analogous Mitigating Circumstances 1. Organized Or Syndicated Crime Group

2. Use Of Drugs
 The act of the offender of leading the law
enforcers to the place where he buried the  Those circumstances which raise the
instrument of the crime has been considered penalty for a crime in its maximum period
as equivalent to voluntary surrender. provided by law applicable to that crime or
 Stealing by a person who is driven to do so change the nature of the crime.
out of extreme poverty is considered as
analogous to incomplete state of necessity. Note: The list in this Article is EXCLUSIVE –
there are no analogous aggravating
Canta v. People: Canta stole a cow but alleges that circumstances.
he mistook the cow for his missing cow. He made a
calf suckle the cow he found and when it did, Canta
thought that the cow he found was really his.  The aggravating circumstances must be
However, he falsified a document describing the said established with moral certainty, with the
cow’s cowlicks and markings. After getting caught, he same degree of proof required to establish
surrendered the cow to the custody of the authorities the crime itself.
in the municipal hall.  According to the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure, BOTH generic and qualifying
Held: Canta’s act of voluntarily taking the cow to the aggravating circumstances must be
municipal hall to place it in the custody of authorities alleged in the Information in order to be
(to save them the time and effort of having to recover
considered by the Court in imposing the
the cow) was an analogous circumstance to voluntary
surrender. sentence.
 Basis:
 the motivating power behind the act
IV. Aggravating Circumstances  the place where the act was committed
 the means and ways used
(ASKED 24 TIMES IN BAR EXAMS)  the time
 the personal circumstance of the
TWENTY-ONE aggravating circumstances under Art.
offender and/or of the victim
14:
 Kinds:
1. Taking Advantage of Public Office  GENERIC – Those that can generally
2. In Contempt Of Or With Insult To Public apply to all crimes. Nos. 1, 2, 3
Authorities (dwelling), 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 14, 18, 19, and
3. With Insult Or Lack Of Regard Due To 20 except “by means of motor vehicles”.
Offended Party By Reason Of Rank, Age Or  SPECIFIC – Those that apply only to
Sex particular crimes. Nos. 3 (except
4. Abuse Of Confidence And Obvious
dwelling), 15, 16, 17 and 21.
Ungratefulness
5. Crime In Palace Or In Presence Of The Chief  QUALIFYING –Those that change the
Executive nature of the crime. Art. 248 enumerates
6. Nighttime; Uninhabited Place; With A Band the qualifying AC which qualify the
7. On Occasion Of A Calamity killing of person to murder. (ASKED
8. Aid Of Armed Men Or Means To Ensure TWICE BAR EXAMS)
Impunity  INHERENT – Those that must
9. Recidivism accompany the commission of the crime
10. Reiteration or Habituality
and is therefore not considered in
11. Price, Reward Or Promise
12. Inundation, Fire, Poison increasing the penalty to be imposed
13. Evident Premeditation such as evident premeditation in theft,
14. Craft, Fraud Or Disguise robbery, estafa, adultery and
15. Superior Strength Or Means To Weaken concubinage.
Defense
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Chapter IV. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY

 SPECIAL – Those which arise under  this circumstance would warrant the
special conditions to increase the aggravation of his penalty.
penalty of the offense and cannot be  The circumstance cannot be taken into 53
offset by mitigating circumstances such consideration in offenses where

CRIMINAL LAW 1
as:  taking advantage of official position is
 quasi-recidivism (Art. 160) made by law an integral element of
 complex crimes (Art. 48) the crime
 error in personae (Art. 49)  such as in malversation (Art. 217) or
 taking advantage of public position falsification of public documents under
and membership in an Art. 171.
organized/syndicated crime group  Taking advantage of public position is also
(Art. 62) inherent in the case of
 When there are several applicable qualifying  accessories under Art. 19, par. 3
aggravating circumstances, only one will be (harboring, concealing or assisting in the
deemed as such and the others will be escape of the principal of the crime) and
deemed as generic.  in Title VII of Book Two of the RPC
(Crimes committed by public officers).
Generic aggravating Qualifying aggravating
circumstances circumstances
People v. Villamor (2002): Brothers Jerry and Jelord
The effect of a generic The effect of a qualifying Velez were on their way home on board a motorcycle.
AC, not offset by any AC is not only to give the Jerry was driving. As they neared a junction, they
mitigating circumstance, crime its proper and heard a speeding motorcycle fast approaching from
is to increase the exclusive name but also to behind. The brothers ignored the other motorcycle,
penalty which should be place the author thereof in which caught up with them. As they were about to
imposed upon the such a situation as to cross the bridge leading to their home, gunshots rang
accused to the deserve no other penalty out from behind them. They abruptly turned the
MAXIMUM PERIOD. than that specially motorcycle around towards the direction of the
prescribed by law for said gunfire. The light of their motorcycle's headlamp fell
crime. on their attackers aboard the second motorcycle. The
It is not an ingredient of The circumstance affects assailants fired at them a second time and fled. Jerry
the crime. It only affects the nature of the crime saw PO3 Villamor and Maghilom on board the
the penalty to be itself such that the motorcycle behind them. Maghilom was driving the
imposed but the crime offender shall be liable for motorcycle while Villamor was holding a short gun
remains the same a more serious crime. The pointed at them. Jerry sustained gunshot wounds but
circumstance is actually survived. Jelord, however, died on the spot during the
an ingredient of the crime first gunburst.
The circumstance can Being an ingredient of the
be offset by an ordinary crime, it cannot be offset Held: There was no showing that Villamor took
mitigating circumstance by any mitigating advantage of his being a policeman to shoot
circumstance Jelord Velez or that he used his "influence, prestige
or ascendancy" in killing the victim. Villamor could
have shot Velez even without being a policeman. In
1. Taking Advantage of Public Office other words, if the accused could have perpetrated
 The public officer must the crime even without occupying his position, there is
 use the influence, prestige or no abuse of public position.
ascendancy which his office gives him The mere fact that accused-appellant is a policeman
 as the means by which he realizes his and used his government issued .38 caliber revolver
purpose. to kill is not sufficient to establish that he misused his
 The essence of the matter is presented in public position in the commission of the crime.
the inquiry, “did the accused abuse his
office in order to commit the crime?”
 When a public officer 2. In Contempt of or With Insult to Public
 commits a common crime independent Authorities
of his official functions and Elements:
 does acts that are not connected with a. That the public authority is engaged in
the duties of his office, the exercise of his functions.
 he should be punished as a private b. That he who is thus engaged in the
individual without this AC. exercise of his functions is not the
 Even if defendant did not abuse his office, person against whom the crime is
 if it is proven that he has failed in his committed.
duties as such public officer,
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
c. The offender knows him to be a public
authority.
d. His presence has not prevented the
offender from committing the criminal
act.
 Public Authority / Person in Authority
 directly vested with jurisdiction, that is, a
public officer who has the power to
govern and execute the laws.
 The councilor, mayor, governor,
barangay captain, barangay chairman
etc. are persons in authority.
 A school teacher, town municipal health
officer, agent of the BIR, chief of police,
etc. are now considered a person in
authority.
 Par. 2 is not applicable if committed in
the presence of an agent only such as a
police officer.
 Agent
 A subordinate public officer charged
 with the maintenance of public order
and
 the protection and security of life and
property,
 such as barrio policemen, councilmen,
and any person who comes to the aid of
persons in authority.
 Knowledge that a public authority is
present is essential. Lack of such
knowledge indicates lack of intention to
insult public authority.
 If crime is committed
 against the public authority
 while in the performance of his duty,
 the offender commits direct
assault
 without this aggravating
circumstance.
People v. Rodil (1981): There is the aggravating
circumstance that the crime was committed in
contempt of or with insult to public authorities when
the chief of police was present when the incident
occurred. The chief of police should be considered a
public authority because he is vested with authority to
maintain peace and order over the entire municipality.
3. With Insult or Lack of Regard Due to
Offended Party by Reason of Rank,
Age or Sex
 Four circumstances are enumerated in
this paragraph,
 which can be considered singly or
together.
Chapter IV. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY
 If all the 4 circumstances are present,
they have the weight of one
aggravating circumstance only. 54
 There must be evidence that in the
CRIMINAL LAW 1
commission of the crime,
 the accused deliberately intended to
offend or insult the sex or age of the
offended party.
1) RANK OF THE OFFENDED PARTY
 Designation or title used to fix the
relative position of the offended party
in reference to others.
 There must be a difference in the
social condition of the offender and
the offended party.
2) AGE OF THE OFFENDED PARTY
 May refer to old age or tender age of
the victim.
3) SEX OF THE OFFENDED PARTY
 This refers to the female sex, not to
the male sex.
4) DWELLING
 Building or structure, primarily used for
rest and comfort.
 This is considered an AC because in
certain cases, there is an abuse of
confidence which the offended party
reposed in the offender by opening
the door to him.
 Dwelling need not be owned by the
offended party.
 It is enough that he used the place
for his peace of mind, rest, comfort
and privacy.
 Dwelling should not be understood in
the concept of a domicile:
 A person has more than one
dwelling.
 So, if a man has so many wives
and he gave them places of
their own, each one is his own
dwelling.
 If he is killed there, dwelling will
be aggravating, provided that he
also stays there once in a while.
 The crime of adultery was committed.
 Dwelling was considered
aggravating on the part of the
paramour.
 However, if the paramour was also
residing in the same dwelling, it will
not be aggravating.
 The offended party must not give
provocation.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
 It is not necessary that the accused
should have actually entered the
dwelling of the victim to commit the
offense:
 it is enough that the victim was
attacked inside his own house,
 although the assailant may have
devised means to perpetrate the
assault.
 Dwelling includes dependencies,
 the foot of the staircase
 and the enclosure under the house.
Illustration:
Husband and wife quarrelled. Husband inflicted
physical violence upon a wife. The wife left the
conjugal home and went to the house of her
sister bringing her personal belongings with her.
The sister accommodated the wife in her home.
The husband went to the house of the sister-in-
law and tried to persuade the wife to return to
the conjugal home but the wife refused since
she was more at peace in her sister’s home than
in their conjugal abode. Due to the wife’s refusal
the husband pulled out a knife and stabbed the
wife to death.
It was held that dwelling was aggravating
although it is not owned by the victim since
she is considered a member of the family
who owns the dwelling and that place is
where she enjoyed privacy, peace of mind
and comfort.
People vs. Ga: Aggravating only in crimes against
persons and honor, not against property like Robbery
with homicide.
People vs. Taoan: Teachers, professors, supervisors
of public and duly recognized private schools,
colleges and universities, as well as lawyers are
persons in authority for purposes of direct assault and
simple resistance, but not for purposes of aggravating
circumstances in paragraph 2, Article 14.
People vs. De Los Reyes (1992): Dwelling is
aggravating in robbery with homicide because the
crime can be committed without the necessarily
transgressing the sanctity of the home.
People v. Daniel (1978): Although the victim was
merely renting a bedspace in a boarding house, her
room constituted for all intents and purposes a
“dwelling”. It is not necessary that the victim owns the
place where he dwells.
People v. Taboga (2002): Taboga entered the house
of Tubon, a widowed septuagenarian, robbed,
stabbed and burned beyond recognition the latter’s
house.
Chapter IV. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Held: Anent the circumstance of age, there must be a
showing that the malefactor deliberately intended to
offend or insult the age of the victim. Neither could 55
disregard of respect due to sex be appreciated if the
CRIMINAL LAW 1
offender did not manifest any intention to offend or
disregard the sex of the victim. In other words, killing
a woman is not attended by the aggravating
circumstance if the offender did not manifest any
specific insult or disrespect towards the offended
party's sex. In the case at bar, there is absolutely no
showing that Taboga deliberately intended to offend
or insult the victim. However, even if disrespect or
disregard of age or sex were not appreciated, the four
circumstances enumerated in Article 14, paragraph 3
of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, can be
considered singly or together.
People v. De Mesa (2001): Motas, Barangay
Chairman of Barangay Sta. Cruz Putol, San Pablo
City, was shot by De Mesa while playing a card game
with some townmates at a neighborhood store
resulting to his death. The trial court, in convicting De
Mesa for murder, appreciated the aggravating
circumstance of commission of the crime in contempt
of or with assault to public authorities.
Held: The trial court also erred in appreciating the
aggravating circumstance that the commission of the
crime was in contempt of or with assault to public
authorities. The requisites of this circumstance are:
(1) the public authority is engaged in the discharge of
his duties and (2) he is not the person against whom
the crime is committed. None of these circumstances
are present in this case. In the first place, the crime
was committed against the barangay chairman
himself. At the time that he was killed, he was not
engaged in the discharge of his duties as he was in
fact playing a card game with his neighbors.
People v. Montinola: Montinola boarded a
passenger jeepney driven by Hibinioda. Among the
passengers was Reteracion. All of a sudden,
appellant drew his gun, an unlicensed firearm, .380
cal pistol and directed Reteracion to hand over his
money or else he would be killed. Montinola aimed
the firearm at the neck of Reteracion and fired
successive shots at the latter. As a result Reteracion
slumped dead. Montinola was charged with robbery
with homicide and illegal possession of firearm.
Held: Disregard of age, sex or rank is not aggravating
in robbery with homicide, which is primarily a crime
against property, as the homicide is regarded as
merely incidental to the robbery.
People v. Taño (2000): Amy was tending a video
rental shop owned by Marina. Taño kept going in and
out of the shop and on the last time he went inside
said shop, he suddenly jumped over the counter,
strangled Amy, poked a knife at the left side of her
neck, pulled her towards the kitchen where he forced
her to undress, and gained carnal knowledge of her
against her will and consent. Before they could reach
the upper floor, he suddenly pulled Amy down and
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
started mauling her until she lost consciousness; then
he freely ransacked the place. Leaving Amy for dead
after repeatedly banging her head, first on the wall,
then on the toilet bowl, he took her bracelet, ring and
wristwatch. He then proceeded upstairs where he
took as well the jewelry box containing other
valuables belonging to his victim's employer. The trial
court appreciated dwelling as an aggravating
circumstance because the incident took place
supposedly at the residence of private complainant's
employer, "which doubles as a video rental shop.
Held: Dwelling cannot be appreciated as an
aggravating circumstance in this case because the
rape was committed in the ground floor of a two-story
structure, the lower floor being used as a video rental
store and not as a private place of abode or
residence.
People v. Rios (2000):
The word dwelling includes every dependency of the
house that forms an integral part thereof and
therefore it includes the staircase of the house and
much more, its terrace. When a crime is committed in
the dwelling of the offended party and the latter has
not given provocation, dwelling may be appreciated
as an aggravating circumstance. 32 Provocation in
the aggravating circumstance of dwelling must be: (a)
given by the offended party, (b) sufficient, and (c)
immediate to the commission of the crime.
People v. Arizobal (2000):
Generally, dwelling is considered inherent in the
crimes which can only be committed in the abode of
the victim, such as trespass to dwelling and robbery in
an inhabited place. However, in robbery with homicide
the authors thereof can commit the heinous crime
without transgressing the sanctity of the victim's
domicile. In the case at bar, the robbers demonstrated
an impudent disregard of the inviolability of the
victims' abode when they forced their way in, looted
their houses, intimidated and coerced their inhabitants
into submission, disabled Laurencio and Jimmy by
tying their hands before dragging them out of the
house to be killed.
4. Abuse of Confidence and Obvious
Ungratefulness
 Par. 4 provides two aggravating
circumstances:
1. if present in the same case
2. must be independently appreciated.
1) ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE
a. That the offended party had trusted the
offender.
b. That the offender abused such trust by
committing a crime against the offended
party.
c. That the abuse of confidence facilitated
the commission of the crime.
Chapter IV. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY
 The confidence between the offender and
the offended party must be immediate and
personal. 56
 It is inherent in malversation, qualified theft,
CRIMINAL LAW 1
estafa by conversion or misappropriation
and qualified seduction.
2) OBVIOUS UNGRATEFULNESS
a. That the offended party had trusted the
offender;
b. That the offender abused such trust by
committing a crime against the offended
party;
c. That the act be committed with obvious
ungratefulness.
 The ungratefulness must be obvious–
manifest and clear.
 In a case where the offender is a servant,
the offended party is one of the members of
the family. The servant poisoned the child. It
was held that abuse of confidence is
aggravating. This is only true, however, if
the servant was still in the service of the
family when he did the killing. If he was
driven by the master out of the house for
some time and he came back to poison the
child, abuse of confidence will no longer be
aggravating. The reason is because that
confidence has already been terminated
when the offender was driven out of the
house.
People v. Arrojado (2001): Arrojado is the first
cousin of the victim, Mary Ann and lived with her and
her father. Arrojado helped care for the victim’s father
for which he was paid a P1,000 monthly salary.
Arrojado killed Mary Ann by stabbing her with a knife.
Thereafter he claimed that the latter committed
suicide.
Held: The aggravating circumstance of abuse of
confidence is present in this case. For this
aggravating circumstance to exist, it is essential to
show that the confidence between the parties must be
immediate and personal such as would give the
accused some advantage or make it easier for him to
commit the criminal act. The confidence must be a
means of facilitating the commission of the crime, the
culprit taking advantage of the offended party's belief
that the former would not abuse said confidence.
5. Crime in Palace or in Presence of the
Chief Executive
 If it is the Malacañang palace or a church
 it is aggravating,
 regardless of whether State or official or
religious functions are being held.
 The President need not be in the palace.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Chapter IV. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY

 His presence alone in any place where  offender deliberately sought the
the crime is committed is enough to cover of darkness and
constitute the AC.  the offender purposely took 57
 It also applies even if he is not engaged advantage of nighttime to facilitate

CRIMINAL LAW 1
in the discharge of his duties in the the commission of the offense.
place where the crime was committed.
 Offender must have the intention to 2. UNINHABITED PLACE
commit a crime when he entered the  It is determined
place.  not by the distance of the nearest
 Cemeteries are not places dedicated for house to the scene of the crime
religious worship.  but whether or not in the place of
the commission of the offense,
Par. 5 there was a reasonable
Where public possibility of the victim receiving
Par. 2
authorities are some help.
Contempt or insult to
engaged in the
public authorities
discharge of their 3. BAND
duties.  There should
Public authorities are engaged in the  Be at least be four persons
performance of their duties.  At least 4 of them should be
Public duty is Public duty is armed
performed in their performed outside of  and principals by direct
office their office participation.
The offended party The public authority  This aggravating circumstance is
may or may not be the should not be the absorbed in the circumstance of abuse
public authority offended party of superior strength.
 This is inherent in brigandage.
6. Nighttime; Uninhabited Place; With a
Band Illustration:
A is on board a banca, not so far away. B and C
 These 3 circumstances may be also are on board their respective bancas.
considered separately
 when their elements are distinctly Suddenly, D showed up from underwater and
perceived and stabbed B. Is there an aggravating circumstance
 can subsist independently, of uninhabited place here?
 revealing a greater degree of
perversity. Yes, considering the fact that A and C before
 Aggravating: being able to give assistance still have to jump
 When it facilitated the commission of into the water and swim towards B and the time
the crime; or it would take them to do that, the chances of B
 When especially sought for by the receiving some help was very little, despite the
offender to insure the commission of the fact that there were other persons not so far
crime or for the purpose of impunity; or from the scene.
 When the offender took advantage
thereof for the purpose of impunity. People v. Silva (2002): Accused armed with a gun, a
bolo, a rope and a flashlight abducted brothers
1. NIGHTTIME Edmund and Manuel Ceriales while the two were
 The commission of the crime must playing a game of cards inside their house in the
middle of the night. They tied both their hands and
begin and be accomplished in the feet with a rope and they brought the brothers at an
nighttime (after sunset and before isolated place. Edmund was stabbed and beheaded
sunrise). causing his instantaneous death. Edmund Ceriales
 The offense must be actually was able to escape while the accused were about to
committed in the darkness of the kill his brother. The trial court appreciated nighttime
night. as an aggravating circumstance.
 When the place is illuminated by light,
nighttime is not aggravating. Held: By and of itself, nighttime is not an aggravating
circumstance, however, it becomes aggravating only
 It must be shown that the:
when: (1) it is especially sought by the offender; or (2)
it is taken advantage of by him; or (3) it facilitates the
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Chapter IV. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY

commission of the crime by ensuring the offender's Also, if treachery is also present in the commission of
immunity from capture. In this case, the trial court the crime, nighttime is absorbed in treachery and can
correctly appreciated nighttime as aggravating not be appreciated as a generic aggravating 58
considering that nighttime facilitated the abduction of circumstance.

the Ceriales brothers, the killing of Manuel and the
attempt to kill Edmund. Evidence shows that accused-
appellants took advantage of the darkness to
successfully consummate their plans. The fact that
they brought with them a flashlight clearly shows that
they intended to commit the crime in darkness.
CRIMINAL LAW 1
People v. Berdida: Nighttime was considered since it
was purposely sought and treachery is further
appreciated because the victim’s hands and arms
were tied together before he was beaten up by the
accused.

People v. Ancheta (2004): Appellant Ulep and his

group, robbed Alfredo Roca of 35 sacks of Palay after 7. On Occasion of a Calamity
killing his son, his wife and his mother with their guns.
Thereafter, they boarded their jeep and left.  The rationale for this AC is the debased
form of criminality of one who, in the midst of
Held: The offense was proven to have been executed a great calamity, instead of lending aid to
by a band. A crime is committed by a band when at the afflicted, adds to their suffering by
least four armed malefactors act together in the taking advantage of their misfortune and
commission thereof. In this case, all six accused were despoiling them.
armed with guns which they used on their victims.  The offender must take advantage of the
Clearly, all the armed assailants took direct part in the
calamity or misfortune.
execution of the robbery with homicide.
 “OR OTHER CALAMITY OR
MISFORTUNE” – refers to other conditions
People v. Librando (2000): Edwin and his daughter of distress similar to “conflagration,
Aileen, and a relative, Fernando, were traversing a
shipwreck, earthquake or epidemic.”
hilly portion of a trail on their way home when they
met Raelito Librando, Larry and Eddie. Edwin was
carrying a torch at that time as it was already dark. 8. Aid of Armed Men or Means to Ensure
Raelito inquired from Edwin the whereabouts of
Impunity
Fernando and without any warning hit Edwin with a
piece of wood. Eddie followed suit and delivered Elements:
another blow to Edwin. Edwin ran but he was chased a. That the armed men or persons took
by Raelito. Thereafter, the three men took turns hitting indirectly part in the commission of the
Edwin with pieces of wood until the latter fell and died.
crime,
The trial court considered nighttime and uninhabited
place as just one aggravating circumstance. b. That the accused availed himself of their
aid or relied upon them when the crime
Held: The court did not err in considering nighttime was committed.
and uninhabited place as just one aggravating
circumstance. The court cited the case of People vs. Not applicable -
Santos where it has been held that if the aggravating  When both the attacking party and the
circumstances of nighttime, uninhabited place or band party attacked were equally armed.
concur in the commission of the crime, all will
constitute one aggravating circumstance only as a
 When the accused as well as those who
general rule although they can be considered cooperated with him in the commission of
separately if their elements are distinctly perceived the crime acted under the same plan and
and can subsist independently, revealing a greater for the same purpose.
degree of perversity.  Casual presence, or when the offender did
not avail himself of their aid nor knowingly
People v. Bermas (1999): By and of itself, nighttime count upon their assistance in the
is not an aggravating circumstance; it becomes so commission of the crime.
only when:
1) it is specially sought by the offender; or Par. 8
2) it was taken advantage of by him; or Par. 6
With aid of armed
3) it facilitates the commission of the crime by By a band
men
insuring the offender’s immunity from
capture. Requires more than At least two armed
three armed men
In this case, other than the time of the occurrence of malefactors
the felony, nothing else suggests that it was Requires that more This circumstance is
consciously resorted to by Bermas. In fact, the crime than three armed present even if one of
was well illuminated by two pressure gas lamps. malefactors shall have the offenders merely
acted together in the relied on their aid, for
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
commission of an actual aid is not
offense necessary
Band members are all Armed men are mere
principals accomplices
People v. Licop: Aid of armed men includes “armed
women”.
9. Recidivism
Elements:
a. That the offender is on trial for an offense;
b. That he was previously convicted by final
judgment of another crime;
c. That both the first and the second offenses
are embraced in the same title of the
Code;
d. That the offender is convicted of the new
offense.
 Different forms of repetition or habituality of
offender
 Recidivism under Article 14 (9)—The
offender at the time of his trial for one
crime shall have been previously
convicted by final judgment of another
embraced in the same title of the
Revised Penal Code.
 Repetition or reiteracion under
Article 14 (9)—The offender has been
previously punished for 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.
 Habitual delinquency under Article 62
(5)—The offender within a period of 10
years from the date of his release or last
conviction of the crimes of serious or
less serious physical injuries, robo,
hurto, estafa or falsification, is found
guilty of any of the said crimes a third
time or another.
 Quasi-recidivism under Article 160—
Any person who shall ` a felony after
having been convicted by final judgment
before beginning to serve such
sentence or while serving such
sentence shall be punished by the
maximum period prescribed by law for
the new felony
 In recidivism, the crimes committed
should be felonies. There is no recidivism
if the crime committed is a violation of a
special law.
 What is controlling
 is the time of the trial, not the time of
the commission of the offense.
Chapter IV. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY
 i.e. there was already a conviction
by final judgment at the time of
the trial for the second crime 59
 At the time of the trial means from the
CRIMINAL LAW 1
arraignment until after sentence is
announced by the judge in open court.
 Recidivism does not prescribe. No matter
how long ago the offender was convicted, if
he is subsequently convicted of a crime
embraced in the same title of the Revised
Penal Code, it is taken into account as
aggravating in imposing the penalty.
 Pardon does not erase recidivism, even if
it is absolute because it only excuses the
service of the penalty, not the conviction.
 If the offender has
 already served his sentence and
 he was extended an absolute pardon,
 the pardon shall erase the
conviction including recidivism
because there is no more penalty
 so the pardon shall be understood
as referring to the conviction or the
effects of the crime.
Illustration:
In 1980, A committed robbery.
While the case was being tried, he committed
theft in 1983.
He was also found guilty and was convicted of
theft also in 1983.
The conviction became final because he did not
appeal anymore and the trial for the earlier
crime of robbery ended in 1984 for which he
was also convicted. He also did not appeal this
decision.
Is the accused a recidivist? NO.
The subsequent conviction must refer to a
felony committed later in order to constitute
recidivism. The reason for this is at the time the
first crime was committed, there was no other
crime of which he was convicted so he cannot
be regarded as a repeater.
People vs. Molina (2000): To prove recidivism, it is
necessary to allege the same in the information
and to attach thereto certified copies of the sentences
rendered against the accused. Nonetheless, the trial
court may still give such AC credence if the accused
does not object to the presentation.
People v. Dacillo (2004): Pacot stabbed and
strangled Rosemarie leading to the latters death.
Dacillo for his part, hold down Rosemarie’s legs to
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Chapter IV. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY

prevent her from struggling. The two men stopped Art. 14, Par. 9 Art. 62 par. 5 Habitual
only when they were sure that the victim was already Recidivism Delinquency
dead. Dacillo then encase her corpse in a cement. Two convictions are At least three convictions 60
The trial court imposed the death penalty on the enough are required

CRIMINAL LAW 1
ground that Dacillo admitted during re-cross The crimes are not The crimes are limited
examination that he had a prior conviction for the specified; it is enough and specified to:
death of his former live-in partner. The fact that that they may be a. serious physical
Dacillo was a recidivist was appreciated by the trial embraced under the injuries,
court as a generic aggravating circumstance which same title of the Revised b. Less serious
increased the imposable penalty from reclusion Penal Code physical injuries,
perpetua to death c. robbery,
d. theft,
Held: The aggravating circumstance of recidivism was e. estafa or swindling
not alleged in the information and therefore cannot be and
appreciated against appellant. f. falsification
There is no time limit There is a time limit of
In order to appreciate recidivism as an aggravating between the first not more than 10 years
circumstance, it is necessary to allege it in the conviction and the between every conviction
information and to attach certified true copies of the subsequent conviction. computed from the first
sentences previously meted out to the accused, in Recidivism is conviction or release
accordance with Rule 110, Section 8 of the Revised imprescriptible. from punishment thereof
Rules of Criminal Procedure. to conviction computed
from the second
conviction or release
10. Reiteracion/Habituality therefrom to the third
conviction and so on
Elements:
It is a generic Habitual delinquency is a
a. That the accused is on trial for an aggravating circumstance special aggravating
offense; which can be offset by an circumstance, hence it
b. That he previously served sentence for ordinary mitigating cannot be offset by any
another offense to which the law circumstance. mitigating circumstance.
attaches:
i. an equal or If not offset, it would only Aside from the penalty
ii. greater penalty, or increase the penalty prescribed by law for the
iii. for 2 or more crimes to which it prescribed by law for the crime committed, an
attaches lighter penalty than that for crime committed to its additional penalty shall
maximum period be imposed depending
the new offense; and upon whether it is already
c. That he is convicted of the new offense. the third conviction, the
 Reiteracion or Habituality fourth, the fifth and so on
 it is essential that the offender be
previously punished;  Since reiteracion provides that the accused
 that is, he has served sentence. has duly served the sentence for
 Par. 10 speaks of previous conviction/s, or is legally
considered to have done so,
 penalty attached to the offense,
 quasi-recidivism cannot at the same
 not the penalty actually imposed
time constitute reiteracion, hence the
Par. 9 Recidivism Par. 10 Reiteracion
latter cannot apply to a quasi-recidivist.
It is enough that a final It is necessary that the  If the same set of facts constitutes
judgment has been offender shall have recidivism and reiteracion,
rendered in the first served out his sentence  the liability of the accused should be
offense. for the first offense. aggravated by recidivism which can
Requires that the The previous and be easily proven.
offenses be included in subsequent offenses
the same title of the Code must not be embraced in
the same title of the Code
Always to be taken into Not always an
consideration in fixing the aggravating circumstance
penalty to be imposed
upon the accused
Rationale is the proven Rationale is the proven
tendency to commit a resistance to
similar offense rehabilitation
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Chapter IV. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY

R Commission/Conviction R No RECIDIVISM
O O 61
1983
B B A cannot be deemed a repeater

B T T B
E H H E
R E E R
Y F F Y
T T
Commission Conviction
1980 1984
CRIMINAL LAW 1
because when he was convicted
for the second crime, he was still
considered innocent as to the
first.

Reiteracion can be
appreciated in the trial for
E SERVICE OF SENTENCE R robbery.
S O
T B 1) Robbery carries a graver
A B penalty
F E 2) Sentence was already
A R served for Estafa when
Y the robbery was
committed
Conviction Commission

People v. Cajara (2000): Accused Cajara raped 16-

year old Marita in front of his common-law wife who is
11. Price, Reward or Promise
the half-sister of the victim and his two small children.  When this AC is present,
The trial court convicted him as charged and
 there must be 2 or more principals,
sentenced him to death.
 the one who gives or offers the price
Held: The records show that the crime was or promise
aggravated by reiteracion under Art. 14, par. 10, of  and the one who accepts it,
The Revised Penal Code, the accused having been  both of whom are principals –
convicted of frustrated murder in 1975 and of  to the former, because he directly
homicide, frustrated homicide, trespass to dwelling, induces the latter to commit the
illegal possession of firearms and murder sometime in crime,
1989 where his sentences were later commuted to
imprisonment for 23 years and a fine of P200,000.00.
 and the latter because he commits
He was granted conditional pardon by the President it.
of the Philippines on 8 November 1991. Reiteracion or  When this AC is present, it affects not only
habituality under Art. 14, par. 10, herein cited, is the person who received the price or
present when the accused has been previously reward, but also the person who gave it.
punished for an offense to which the law attaches an  If without previous promise it was
equal or greater penalty than that attached by law to  given voluntarily after a crime was
the second offense or for two or more offenses to committed
which it attaches a lighter penalty. As already
discussed, herein accused can be convicted only of
 as an expression of his appreciation for
simple rape and the imposable penalty therefor is the sympathy and aid shown by the
reclusion perpetua. Where the law prescribes a single other accused,
indivisible penalty, it shall be applied regardless of the  it should not be taken into
mitigating or aggravating circumstances attendant to consideration for the purpose of
the crime, such as in the instant case. increasing the penalty.
 The price, reward or promise
 need not consist of or refer to material
things or
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
 that the same were actually delivered,
 it being sufficient that the offer
made by the principal by
inducement was accepted by the
principal by direct participation
before the commission of the
offense.
12. Inundation, Fire, Poison
 Unless used by the offender as a means
to accomplish a criminal purpose,
 any of the circumstances in paragraph
12
 cannot be considered to increase the
penalty or to change the nature of the
offense.
 When another AC already qualifies the
crime,
 any of these AC’s shall be considered
as generic aggravating circumstance
only.
 Fire is not aggravating in the crime of arson.
 Whenever a killing is done with the use
of fire, as when you kill someone, you burn
down his house while the latter is inside,
this is murder.
 There is no such crime as murder with
arson or arson with homicide. The crime
is only murder.
 If the intent is to destroy property,
 the crime is arson even if someone dies
as a consequence.
 If the intent is to kill,
 there is murder even if the house is
burned in the process.
Illustration:
A and B were arguing about something. One
argument led to another until A struck B to death
with a bolo. A did not know that C, the son of B
was also in their house and who was peeping
through the door and saw what A did. Afraid that
A might kill him too, he hid somewhere in the
house. A then dragged B’s body and poured
gasoline on it and burned the house altogether.
As a consequence, C was burned and
eventually died too.
As far as the killing of B is concerned, it is
homicide since it is noted that they were arguing.
It could not be murder. As far as the killing of
C is concerned, it is arson since he intended to
burn the house only.
Chapter IV. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY
13. Evident Premeditation
Elements: 62
a. The time when the offender determined
CRIMINAL LAW 1
to commit the crime;
b. An act manifestly indicating that the
culprit has clung to his determination;
and
c. A sufficient lapse of time between the
determination and execution, to allow
him to reflect upon the consequences of
his act and to allow is conscience to
overcome the resolution of his will.
 Evident premeditation implies
 a deliberate planning of the act
 before executing it.
 The essence of premeditation
 an opportunity to coolly and serenely
think and deliberate
 on the meaning and
 consequences of what he planned
to do,
 an interval long enough for his
conscience and better judgment
 to overcome his evil desire and
scheme.
 The premeditation must be based upon
external facts, and must be evident, not
merely suspected indicating deliberate
planning
 Evident premeditation is inherent in
robbery, adultery, estafa, and
falsification.
Illustrations:
1. A and B fought on Monday. A told B that
someday he will kill B. On Friday, A killed B.
2. C and D fought on Monday but since C
already suffered so many blows, he told D,
“This week shall not pass, I will kill you.” On
Friday, C killed D.
Is there evident premeditation in both cases?
None in both cases.
What condition is missing to bring about evident
premeditation? Evidence to show that
between Monday and Friday, the offender
clung to his determination to kill the victim,
acts indicative of his having clung to his
determination to kill B.
3. A and B had a quarrel. A boxed B. A told B,
“I will kill you this week.” A bought firearms. Commented [i8]: Special complex crime of arson
On Friday, he waited for B but killed C with homicide of B?
instead.
Was there evident premeditation?
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
There is aberratio ictus. So, qualify.
Insofar as B is concerned, the crime is
attempted murder because there is evident
premeditation. However, that murder cannot be
considered for C. Insofar as C is concerned, the
crime is homicide because there was no evident
premeditation.
People v. Salpigao: Evident premeditation is
presumed to exist when conspiracy is directly
established. When conspiracy is merely implied,
evident premeditation cannot be presumed, the latter
must be proved just like any other fact.
US v. Manalinde (1909): If the offender premeditated
on the killing of any person, it is proper to consider
against the offender the aggravating circumstance of
evident premeditation, because whoever is killed by
him is contemplated in the premeditation.
People v. Mondijar (2002): In a previous incident,
Aplacador had stabbed Mondijar, his father in law on
the knee. A month after, Mondiijar stabbed and
hacked his son-in-law with the use of a sharp and
pointed bolo which resulted to his death.
Held: There was no evident premeditation. For the
circumstance of evident premeditation to be
appreciated, the prosecution must present clear and
positive evidence of the planning and preparation
undertaken by the offender prior to the commission of
the crime. Settled is the rule that evident
premeditation, like any other circumstance that
qualifies a killing to murder, must be established
beyond reasonable doubt as conclusively and
indubitably as the killing itself. In the present case, no
evidence was presented by the prosecution as to
when and how appellant planned and prepared for the
killing of the victim. There is no showing of any
notorious act evidencing a determination to commit
the crime which could prove appellant's criminal
intent.
People v. Torpio: While having a drinking spree in a
cottage, Anthony tried to let Dennis Torpio drink gin
and as the latter refused, Anthony bathed Dennis with
gin and mauled him several times. Dennis crawled
beneath the table and Anthony tried to stab him with a
22 fan knife but did not hit him. Dennis got up and ran
towards their home. Upon reaching home, he got a
knife. He went back to the cottage by another route
and upon arrival Anthony was still there. Upon seeing
Dennis, Anthony avoided Dennis and ran by passing
the shore towards the creek but Dennis met him,
blocked him and stabbed him. When he was hit,
Anthony ran but got entangled with a fishing net
beside the creek and fell on his back. Dennis then
mounted on him and continued stabbing him resulting
to the latter’s death. Thereafter, Dennis left and slept
at a grassy meadow near a Camp. In the morning, he
went to Estrera, a police officer to whom he voluntarily
surrendered.
Chapter IV. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Held: No evident premeditation exist in this case.
There was no sufficient interregnum from the time
Dennis was stabbed by the victim, when Dennis fled 63
to their house and his arming himself with a knife, and
CRIMINAL LAW 1
when he stabbed the victim. In a case of fairly recent
vintage, it was ruled that there is no evident
premeditation when the fracas was the result, not of a
deliberate plan but of rising tempers, or when the
attack was made in the heat of anger.
People v. Bernal (2002): Appellant, Fernando, Felix,
Rey all surnamed Bernal and the victim Pedrito went
to a pubhouse. Pedrito, Rey and appellant went
inside while Fernando and Felix waited outside.
Fernando later went inside and saw the three in a
sleeping position. Fernando then asked Felix to start
the tricycle as they would bring home the three. He
first brought Pedrito out of the pub and had him
seated at the passengers seat inside the tricycle.
Fernado then got appellant who was roused when
they reached the tricycle. While Fernado was fetching
Rey, accused positioned himself at the back of
Pedrito who was still asleep and discharged his
firearm twice hitting the latter on the head.
Held: The Court ruled that there was no evidence
directly showing any pre-conceived plan or devise
employed by accused-appellant to kill the victim.
Accused-appellant did not go to Barangay
Dangdangla, Bangued to kill the victim but to attend to
some important matters. Accused-appellant was just
invited by his relatives, whom he had not seen for a
while after he changed residence, to have a drinking
spree. The probability is that the decision to shoot the
victim was made only right there and then. This
should at least cast reasonable doubt on the
existence of a premeditated plan to kill the victim.
Further, the mere existence of ill-feeling or grudge
between the parties is not sufficient to establish
premeditated killing. Hence, it would be erroneous to
declare that the killing of the victim was premeditated.
People v. Biso (2003): Dario, a black belt in karate,
entered an eatery, seated himself beside Teresita and
made sexual advances to her in the presence of her
brother, Eduardo. Eduardo contacted his cousin, Biso,
an ex-convict and a known toughie in the area, and
related to him what Dario had done to Teresita.
Eduardo and Pio, and 2 others decided to confront
Dario. They positioned themselves in the alley near
the house of Dario. When Dario arrived on board a
taxicab, the four assaulted Dario. Eduardo held, with
his right hand, the wrist of Dario and covered the
mouth of Dario with his left hand. The 2 others held
Dario's right hand and hair. Pio then stabbed Dario
near the breast with a fan knife. Eduardo stabbed
Dario and fled with his three companions from the
scene.
Held: There was no evident premeditation. The
prosecution failed to prove that the four intended to kill
Dario and if they did intend to kill him, the prosecution
failed to prove how the malefactors intended to
consummate the crime. Except for the fact that the
appellant and his three companions waited in an alley
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Chapter IV. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY

for Dario to return to his house, the prosecution failed

to prove any overt acts on the part of the appellant People v. Labuguen (2000): Under the pretext of
and his cohorts showing that that they had clung to selling 3 cows to the victim, Labuguen convinced the 64
any plan to kill the victim. victim to see the cows and bring P40,000 with him.

CRIMINAL LAW 1
The two rode on the victiim’s motorcycle and
Labuguen lured him to where he could divest the
14. Craft, Fraud or Disguise victim of his money with the least danger of being
 Involves intellectual trickery and cunning on caught. He then boarded a bus leaving the motorcycle
of the victim on the side of the road. The victim’s dead
the part of the accused. body was found on the middle of a rice field, 50
 It is employed as a scheme in the execution meters from the service drop of an irrigation canal.
of the crime.
 FRAUD Held: The generic aggravating circumstances of fraud
 Insidious words or machinations used and craft is present in this case. Craft involves
 to induce the victim intellectual trickery and cunning on the part of the
 to act in a manner offender. When there is a direct inducement by
 which would enable the offender to carry insidious words or machinations, fraud is present. By
saying that he would accompany the victim to see the
out his design. cows which the latter intended to buy, appellant was
 CRAFT able to lure the victim to go with him.
 Craft and fraud may be
 absorbed in treachery if they have
been deliberately adopted as the 15. Superior Strength or Means to Weaken
means, methods or forms for the Defense
treacherous strategy, or
 To TAKE ADVANTAGE of superior strength
 they may co-exist independently
means
where they are adopted for a
 to use purposely excessive force
different purpose in the commission
of the crime.  out of proportion to the means of
defense available to the person
Fraud Craft attacked.
When there is a DIRECT The act of the accused  Superiority may arise from
INDUCEMENT by done in order NOT TO  aggressor’s sex, build, weapon or
insidious words or AROUSE THE
machinations SUSPICION
number
 as compared to that of the victim (e.g.
 DISGUISE accused attacked an unarmed girl with a
knife; 3 men stabbed to death the
 Resorting to any device to conceal
female victim).
identity.
 No advantage of superior strength when
 The test of disguise is
 one who attacks is overcome with
 whether the device or contrivance
passion and obfuscation or
resorted to by the offender
 was intended to or did make  when quarrel arose unexpectedly and
identification more difficult, such the fatal blow was struck while victim
as the use of a mask, false hair or and accused were struggling.
beard.  Versus by a band:
 But if in spite of the use of  In the circumstance of abuse of superior
handkerchief to cover their faces, the strength, what is taken into account is
culprits were recognized by the victim,  not the number of aggressors nor
disguised is not considered the fact that they are armed
aggravating.  but their relative physical might
vis-à-vis the offended party
 Means Employed to Weaken Defense
People v. San Pedro: Where the accused pretended
to hire the driver in order to get his vehicle, it was held  This circumstance is applicable only
that there was craft directed to the theft of the vehicle,  to crimes against persons and
separate from the means subsequently used to  sometimes against person and
treacherously kill the defenseless driver. property, such as robbery with
physical injuries or homicide.
People v. Masilang: There was also craft where after  The means used must not totally
hitching a ride, the accused requested the driver to eliminate possible defense of the victim,
take them to a place to visit somebody, when in fact  otherwise it will fall under treachery
they had already planned to kill the driver.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Chapter IV. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY

People v. Carpio: There must be evidence of they each twice hacked Uldarico resulting to his
notorious inequality of forces between the offender death.
and the offended party in their age, size and strength, 65
and that the offender took advantage of such superior Held: "Mere superiority in number, even assuming it to

CRIMINAL LAW 1
strength in the commission of the crime. The mere be a fact, would not necessarily indicate the
fact that there were two persons who attacked the attendance of abuse of superior strength. The
victim does not per se constitute abuse of prosecution should still prove that the assailants
superior strength. purposely used excessive force out of proportion to
the means of defense available to the persons
attacked."
People v. Lobrigas (2002): Frank, Marlito, both
surnamed Lobrigas and Mante mauled and box
"Finally, to appreciate the qualifying circumstance of
Taylaran who was already 76 years old. The victim
abuse of superior strength, what should be
died caused by severe beating and mauling on the
considered is whether the aggressors took advantage
chest portion on the victim’s body.
of their combined strength in order to consummate the
offense. To take advantage of superior strength
Held: The crime committed was murder qualified by
means to purposely use excessive force out of
the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior
proportion to the means available to the person
strength. To appreciate abuse of superior strength,
attacked to defend himself." In the case at bar, the
there must be a deliberate intent on the part of the
victim Uldarico de Castro was the one who picked a
malefactors to take advantage of their greater
fight with the accused-appellants because he did not
number. They must have notoriously selected and
like the joke by one of the accused-appellants. There
made use of superior strength in the commission of
was no evidence to show that the accused-appellants
the crime. To take advantage of superior strength is to
purposely sought and took advantage of their number
use excessive force that is out of proportion to the
to subdue the victim.
means for self-defense available to the person
attacked; thus, the prosecution must clearly show the
offenders' deliberate intent to do so. People v. Ventura (2004): Ventura armed with a .38
Caliber Home-made Revolver and Flores armed with
a bladed weapon, entered the house of the Bocatejas
People v. Barcelon (2002): Barcelon went inside the
by cutting a hole in the kitchen door. Ventura
house of Amador. Thereafter, accused strangled and
announced a hold-up and hit Jaime on the head and
stabbed the victim with a knife. Amador died as a
asked for the keys. Jaime called out for help and tried
result. At the time the crime was committed, Amador
to wrestle the gun away from Ventura. Flores then
was a 69 year-old woman and Barcelon was only 29
stabbed Jaime 3 times. Flores also stabbed Jaime’s
years old.
wife Aileen who had been awakened. Aileen tried to
defend herself with an electric cord to no avail. Aileen
Held: Abuse of superior strength was present in the
died on the hospital on the same day.
commission of the crime. The court cited the case of
People vs. Ocumen, where an attack by a man with a
Held: By deliberately employing a deadly weapon
deadly weapon upon an unarmed woman constitutes
against Aileen, Flores took advantage of the
the circumstance of abuse of that superiority which his
superiority which his strength, sex and weapon gave
sex and the weapon used in the act afforded him, and
him over his unarmed victim. The fact that Aileen
from which the woman was unable to defend herself.
attempted to fend off the attack on her and her
husband by throwing nearby objects, such as an
The disparity in age between the assailant and the
electric cord, at appellant Flores does not
victim, aged 29 and 69, respectively, indicates
automatically negate the possibility that the latter was
physical superiority on appellant's part over the
able to take advantage of his superior strength.
deceased. It did not matter that appellant was "dark"
with a "slim body build" or "medyo mataba." What
mattered was that the malefactor was male and 16. Treachery (Aleviosa)
armed with a lethal weapon that he used to slay the
victim.  Employment of means, methods and form in
the commission of the crime
People v. Sansaet (2002): Uldarico was drinking  which tend directly and specially to
with 15 other men that include the Sansaet brothers,  ensure its execution
Rogelio, Leopoldo and Silverio. Because of a bad joke  without risk to himself arising from the
that cropped up, verbal exchanges ensued. defense which the offended party might
Thereafter, Rogelio and Uldarico started hacking each
make.
other with bolos. Silverio and Leopolo positioned
themselves behind the victim and also hacked him.  The essence of treachery is that
Uldarico retaliated wounding Silverio. Rogelio then  by virtue of the means, method or form
hacked Uldarico a 2nd time. Leopoldo and Rogelio employed by the offender,
continued hacking Uldarico when the latter fell. They  the offended party was not able to put
then dragged Uldarico towards the river and there up any defense.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
 If the offended party was able to put up
a defense, even only a token one, there
is no treachery.
 Instead, some other aggravating
circumstance may be present but it is no
longer treachery.
 Rules Regarding Treachery
 Applicable only to crimes against
persons.
 Means, methods or forms need not
insure accomplishment of crime.
 The mode of attack must be consciously
adopted.
 Attacks show intention to eliminate risk:
 Victim asleep
 Victim half-awake or just awakened
 Victim grappling or being held.
 Attacked from behind
 Additional rules:
 When the aggression is CONTINUOUS,
treachery must be present in the
BEGINNING of the assault.
 When the assault WAS NOT
CONTINUOUS, in that there was an
interruption, it is sufficient that treachery
was present AT THE MOMENT THE
FATAL BLOW WAS GIVEN.
Illustration:
A and B have been quarreling for some time.
One day, A approached B and befriended him. B
accepted. A proposed that to celebrate their
renewed friendship, they were going to drink. B
was having too much to drink. A was just waiting
for him to get intoxicated and after which, he
stabbed B.
A pretended to befriend B, just to intoxicate the
latter. Intoxication is the means deliberately
employed by the offender to weaken the
defense of the other party.
If this was the very means employed, the
circumstance may be treachery and not abuse
of superior strength or means to weaken the
defense People vs. Ilagan: Suddenness of the
attack does not by itself constitute treachery in
the absence of evidence that the manner of
attack was consciously adopted by the offender
to render the victim defenseless.
People vs. Gupo: Treachery is not appreciated
where quarrel and heated discussion preceded a
killing, because the victim would be put on guard.
People vs. Toribio: But although a quarrel preceded
a killing where the victim was atop a coconut tree,
Chapter IV. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY
treachery was considered as the victim was not in a
position to defend himself.
66
People v. Malejana: Treachery may still be
CRIMINAL LAW 1
appreciated even when the victim was forewarned of
danger to his person. What is decisive is that the
execution of the attack made it impossible for the
victim to defend himself or to retaliate. Thus, even a
frontal attack could be treacherous when unexpected
and on an unarmed victim who would be in no
position to repel the attack or avoid it.
Treachery cannot co-exist with passion and
obfuscation.
People v. Rendaje (2000): Lennie was a 15-year old
deaf-mute. Rendaje, on the other hand, was 23 years
old and in the prime of his strength. Rendaje followed
Lennie when the latter was on her way home alone.
With the use of a knife, he then inflicted 8 stab
wounds, 5 of which were fatal on the victim’s back.
Lennie died as a result. Her body was found in a
sugar cane plantation.
Held: Treachery qualified the killing to murder.
To constitute treachery, two conditions must concur:
(1) the employment of means, methods or manner of
execution that would ensure the offender's safety from
any defense or retaliatory act on the part of the
offended party; and (2) the offender's deliberate or
conscious choice of the means, method or manner of
execution.
No one has positively testified on how Lennie was
killed but the victim’s body shows the manner in which
she was attacked by her assailant. It eloquently
speaks for itself. The injuries established the manner
in which the killing was cruelly carried out with little or
no risk to the assailant. The number of stab wounds,
most of which were inflicted at the back of the child —
unarmed and alone — shows the deliberateness, the
suddenness and the unexpectedness of the attack,
which thus deprived her of the opportunity to run or
fight back.
People v. Umayam (2002): Umayam and the victim,
Mendoza were living as husband and wife in a shanty
erected inside a compound owned by Velasquez.
During the couple’s stay in the compound, Velasquez
would notice them frequently quarelling and Mendoza
on occasions would run to Velasquez for help for the
beatings inflicted on her by her husband. Velasquez
then noticed a foul odor emanating from the couple’s
shanty which he at first thought to be that of a poultry
feed or kaning baboy. With the assistance of the
police who broke the shanty’s walls, the decomposing
body of Mendoza was found inside. The trial court
found Umayam guilty of murder.
Held: The qualifying circumstance of treachery was
not established with concrete evidence. The
circumstantial evidence on record does not clearly
show that there was any conscious and deliberate
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
effort on the part of the accused to adopt any
particular means, method or form of attack to ensure
the commission of the crime without affording the
victim any means to defend herself. The conclusion
that there was treachery can hardly be gleaned
because the victim and Umayam were inside their
shanty and no one witnessed how the killing took
place. Notably, the medical findings of the victim's
cadaver show, contusions on her arms and legs,
indicating that there may have been a quarrel prior to
the stabbing. This reasonably negates treachery.
People v. Dumadag (2004): Prudente with his friends
including Meliston agreed to meet at a swimming pool
to celebrate the feast of St. John. On their way home,
there was heavy downpour so they decided to take a
shelter at a store where 2 men, 1 of whom is
Dumadag are having some drinks. Dumadag offered
Prudente a drink of Tanduay but the latter refused
then left. Dumadag followed Prudente and stabbed
the victim on his breast with a knife which resulted to
his death.
Held: As a general rule, a sudden attack by the
assailant, whether frontally or from behind, is
treachery if such mode of attack was deliberately
adopted by him with the purpose of depriving the
victim of a chance to either fight or retreat. The rule
does not apply if the attack was not preconceived but
merely triggered by infuriation of the appellant on an
act made by the victim. In the present case, it is
apparent that the attack was not preconceived. It was
triggered by the appellant's anger because of the
victim's refusal to have a drink with the appellant and
his companions.
People v. De Guzman (2007):
It should be made clear that the essence of treachery
is the sudden and unexpected attack on an
unsuspecting victim without the slightest provocation
on his part. This is even more true if the assailant is
an adult and the victim is a minor. Minor children,
who by reason of their tender years, cannot be
expected to put up a defense. Thus, when an adult
person illegally attacks a minor, treachery exists.
17. Ignominy
 It is a circumstance pertaining to the moral
order,
 which adds disgrace to the material injury
caused by the crime.
 The means employed or the circumstances
brought about must tend to make the
effects of the crime
 MORE HUMILIATING or
 TO PUT THE OFFENDED PARTY TO
SHAME.
 Applicable to crimes against chastity, rape,
less serious physical injuries, light or grave
coercion and murder.
Chapter IV. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY
 Raping a woman from behind is ignominous
because that is not the normal form of
intercourse, it is something which offends 67
the morals of the offended woman. This is
CRIMINAL LAW 1
how animals do it.
People v. Torrefiel (1947): The novelty of the manner
in which the accused raped the victim by winding
cogon grass around his genitals augmented the
wrong done by increasing its pain and adding
ignominy thereto.
People v. Alfanta (1999): There was ignominy
because the accused not only used missionary
position but also “the same position as dogs do.” He
also inserted his finger inside her. Although the “dog
position” is not novel and often been used by couples,
there is ignominy if the sexual act is performed not by
consenting parties.
People v. Siao (2000):
The aggravating circumstance of ignominy is present
in this case. Where the accused in committing the
rape used not only the missionary position, i.e. male
superior, female inferior but also the dog position as
dogs do, i.e. entry from behind, as was proven like the
crime itself in the instant case, the aggravating
circumstance of ignominy attended the commission
thereof.
People v. Cachola (2004):
For ignominy to be appreciated, it is required that the
offense be committed in a manner that tends to make
its effect more humiliating, thus adding to the victim's
moral suffering. Where the victim was already dead
when his body or a part thereof was dismembered,
ignominy cannot be taken against the accused. In this
case, the information states that Victorino's sexual
organ was severed after he was shot and there is no
allegation that it was done to add ignominy to the
natural effects of the act. We cannot, therefore,
consider ignominy as an aggravating circumstance.
People v. Bumidang (2000):
The aggravating circumstance of ignominy shall be
taken into account if means are employed or
circumstances brought about which add ignominy to
the natural effects of the offense; or if the crime was
committed in a manner that tends to make its effects
more humiliating to the victim, that is, add to her moral
suffering. It was established that Baliwang used the
flashlight and examined the genital of Gloria before he
ravished her. He committed his bestial deed in the
presence of Gloria's old father. These facts clearly
show that Baliwang deliberately wanted to further
humiliate Gloria, thereby aggravating and
compounding her moral sufferings. Ignominy was
appreciated in a case where a woman was raped in
the presence of her betrothed, or of her husband, or
was made to exhibit to the rapists her complete
nakedness before they raped her.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
18. Unlawful Entry
 There is unlawful entry when an entrance is
effected by a way not intended for the
purpose.
 Unlawful entry must be a means to effect
entrance and not for escape.
 There is no unlawful entry when
 the door is broken and
 thereafter the accused made an entry
thru the broken door.
 The breaking of the door is covered by
paragraph 19.
 Unlawful entry is
 inherent in the crime of trespass to
dwelling and robbery with force upon
things
 but aggravating in the crime of robbery
with violence against or intimidation of
persons.
19. Breaking Wall, Floor, Roof
 To be considered as an AC,
 breaking the door must be utilized
 as a means to the commission of the
crime.
 It is only aggravating in cases where
 the offender resorted to any of said
means TO ENTER the house.
 If the wall, etc. is broken in order to get
out of the place, it is not aggravating
20. With Aid of Persons Under 15; By
Motor Vehicle
With the aid of persons under 15 years of age
 To repress, so far as possible,
 the frequent practice resorted to by
professional criminals
 of availing themselves of minors
o taking advantage of their lack of
criminal responsibility
o (remember that minors are given
leniency when they commit a crime)
By means of a motor vehicle
 To counteract the great facilities found
by modern criminals in said means to
commit crime and flee and abscond once
the same is committed.
 This circumstance is aggravating only
when used in the commission of the
offense.
 If motor vehicles are used only in the
escape of the offender, it is not
aggravating. It must have been used to
Chapter IV. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY
facilitate the commission of the crime to
be aggravating.
 “or other similar means” – the expression 68
should be understood as referring to
CRIMINAL LAW 1
 MOTORIZED vehicles or
 other efficient means of transportation
similar to automobile or airplane.
21. Cruelty
Elements:
a. That the injury caused be deliberately
increased by causing other wrong;
b. That the other wrong be unnecessary for
the execution of the purpose of the
offender.
 For it to exist, it must be shown that the
accused enjoyed and delighted in making
his victim suffer.
 If the victim was already dead when the
acts of mutilation were being performed,
 this would also qualify the killing to
murder due to outraging of his
corpse.
Ignominy Cruelty
shocks the moral physical
conscience of man
refers to the moral effect refers to the physical
of a crime and it pertains suffering of the victim so
to the moral order, he has to be alive
whether or not the victim
is dead or alive
People v. Catian (2002); Catian repeatedly strike
Willy with a "chako" on the head, causing Willy to fall
on his knees. Calunod seconded by striking the victim
with a piece of wood on the face. When Willy finally
collapsed, Sumalpong picked him up, carried him over
his shoulder, and carried Willy to a place where they
burned Willy. The latter’s skeletal remains were
discovered by a child who was pasturing his cow near
a peanut plantation.
Held: The circumstance of cruelty may not be
considered as there is no showing that the victim was
burned while he was still alive. For cruelty to exist,
there must be proof showing that the accused
delighted in making their victim suffer slowly and
gradually, causing him unnecessary physical and
moral pain in the consummation of the criminal act.
No proof was presented that would show that
accused-appellants deliberately and wantonly
augmented the suffering of their victim.
People v. Guerrero (2002): Appellant first severed
the victim's head before his penis was cut-off. This
being the sequence of events, cruelty has to be ruled
out for it connotes an act of deliberately and
sadistically augmenting the wrong by causing another
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Chapter IV. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY

wrong not necessary for its commission, or 1. Relationship

inhumanely increasing the victim's suffering. As
testified to by Dr. Sanglay, and reflected in her (SADBSA) 69
medical certificate, Ernesto in fact died as a result of a. Spouse

CRIMINAL LAW 1
his head being severed. No cruelty is to be b. Ascendant
appreciated where the act constituting the alleged c. Descendant
cruelty in the killing was perpetrated when the victim d. Brother
was already dead. e. Sister
f. Relative by Affinity

Other Aggravating Circumstances A. Where relationship is exempting

 In the case of an accessory who is
1. Organized or Syndicated Crime Group related to the principal within the
(Art. 62, RPC) relationship prescribed in Article 20;
 Organized or syndicated crime group:  Also in Article 247, a spouse does not
incur criminal liability for a crime of less
 A group of two or more persons
serious physical injuries or serious
 collaborating, confederating or
physical injuries if this was inflicted
mutually helping one another
after having surprised the offended
 for the purpose of gain in the
spouse or paramour or mistress
commission of a crime.
committing actual sexual intercourse.
 Special aggravating circumstance
 Those commonly given in Article 332
 The maximum penalty shall be imposed
when the crime of theft, malicious
 if the offense was committed by any mischief and swindling or estafa.
person
 who belongs to an organized or B. Where relationship is aggravating
syndicated crime group.  in CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS in
cases where
2. Use Of Drugs  the offended party is a relative of a
higher degree than the offender
 Under the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (grandson kills grandfather), or
(Sec. 25)  when the offender and the offended
 notwithstanding the provisions of party are relatives of the same level,
any law to the contrary, as killing a brother, a brother-in-law,
 a positive finding for the use of a half-brother or adopted brother.
dangerous drugs shall be:  When CRIME AGAINST PERSONS is
 a qualifying aggravating any of the SERIOUS PHYSICAL
circumstance in the commission of INJURIES (Art. 263), even if the
a crime by an offender, and the offended party is a descendant of the
application of the penalty provided offender, relationship is
for in the Revised Penal Code shall AGGRAVATING.
be applicable.  But the serious physical injuries must
not be inflicted by a parent upon his
child by excessive chastisement.
V. Alternative Circumstances  When the crime is LESS SERIOUS
(ASKED TWICE IN BAR EXAMS) PHYSICAL INJURIES OR SLIGHT
PHYSICAL INJURIES
THREE TYPES of alternative circumstances:  if the offended party is a relative of a
higher degree than the offender
1. Relationship  When crime against persons is
2. Intoxication HOMICIDE OR MURDER,
3. Degree of education/instruction  relationship is aggravating even if the
victim of the crime is a relative of
IMPORTANT POINT: lower degree.
Circumstances which must be taken in  In CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY,
consideration as aggravating or mitigating  relationship is always aggravating
according to the nature and effects of the  In the CRIME OF QUALIFIED
crime. SEDUCTION,
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
 the offended woman must be a virgin
and less than 18 years old.
 But if the offender is a brother of
the offended woman or an
ascendant of the offended woman,
▪ regardless of whether the woman
is of bad reputation,
▪ even if the woman is 60 years old
or more,
 crime is qualified seduction. In
such a case, relationship is
qualifying.
C. Where relationship is mitigating
 When the CRIME IS LESS SERIOUS
PHYSICAL INJURIES OR SLIGHT
PHYSICAL INJURIES
 if the offended party is a relative of a
higher degree than the offender
 When crime against persons is
HOMICIDE OR MURDER,
 relationship is aggravating even if the
victim of the crime is a relative of
lower degree.
 In CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY,
 relationship is always aggravating
 In the CRIME OF QUALIFIED
SEDUCTION,
 the offended woman must be a virgin
and less than 18 years old.
 But if the offender is a brother of
the offended woman or an
ascendant of the offended woman,
▪ regardless of whether the woman
is of bad reputation,
▪ even if the woman is 60 years old
or more,
 crime is qualified seduction. In
such a case, relationship is
qualifying.
 When the CRIME IS LESS SERIOUS
People v. Atop (1998): 11-year-old Regina lives with
her grandmother. Atop is the common-law husband of
her grandmother. Atop was found guilty of 4 counts of
rape which was committed in 1993 (2x), 1994 and
1995. The lower court took into account the
Aggravating Circumstance of relationship.
Held: The law cannot be stretched to include persons
attached by common-law relations. In this case, there
is no blood relationship or legal bond that links Atop to
his victim.
People v. Marcos (2001): Virgilio arrived at the house
of the Marcoses and proceeded to the artesian well
located at the back of the house. Virgilio bent down to
put on the ground the tools he was carrying. Cesar
then came out of the kitchen door with a bolo in hand
and suddenly hacked Virgilio from behind. Virgilio was
Chapter IV. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY
hit on the nape of the neck which caused him to fall to
the ground. Then Cesar hacked him again and this
time, Virgilio was hit on the right side of the head. 70
Virgilio is the elder brother of Cesar.
CRIMINAL LAW 1
Held: In order that the alternative circumstance of
relationship may be taken into consideration in the
imposition of the proper penalty, the offended party
must either be the (a) spouse, (b) ascendant, (c)
descendant, (d) legitimate, natural or adopted brother
or sister, or (e) relative by affinity in the same degree,
of the offender. In the case at bar, Cesar and Virgilio
Marcos are brothers. Accused likewise declared that
Virgilio is his brother. The rule is that relationship is
aggravating in crimes against persons as when the
offender and the offended party are relatives of the
same level, such as killing a brother.
2. Intoxication
 It is only the circumstance of intoxication
which
 if not mitigating,
 is automatically aggravating.
A. When mitigating
1. There must be an indication that
a. because of the alcoholic intake of the
offender,
b. he is suffering from diminished self-
control.
c. It is not the quantity of alcoholic drink.
d. Rather it is the effect of the alcohol
upon the offender which shall be
the basis of the mitigating
circumstance.
2. That offender is
a. not a habitual drinker and
b. did not take alcoholic drink with the
intention to reinforce his resolve to
commit crime
B. When Aggravating:
1. If intoxication is habitual
2. If it is intentional to embolden offender to
commit crime
People v. Camano (1982): After the accused had
been drinking liquor, he stabbed twice the victim
Pascua with a bolo while the latter was walking along
the barrio street. After hacking and stabbing to death
the victim, the accused proceeded to the seashore
and upon finding Buenaflor, hacked the latter with the
same bolo.
Held: Intoxication is mitigating if accidental, not
habitual nor intentional, i.e., not subsequent to the
plan to commit the crime. It is aggravating if habitual
or intentional. To be mitigating, it must be indubitably
proved. A habitual drunkard is one given to
intoxication by excessive use of intoxicating drinks.
The habit should be actual and confirmed. It is
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Chapter IV. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY

unnecessary that it be a matter of daily occurrence. means are resorted to by commit a crime and
Intoxication lessens the individual resistance to evil a public officer to trap would arrest him upon or
thought and undermines will-power making its victim a and catch the criminal. after the commission of 71
potential evil doer. In this case, the intoxication of the the crime by the latter.

CRIMINAL LAW 1
appellant not being habitual and considering that the Not a bar to the The accused must be
said appellant was in a state of intoxication at the time prosecution and acquitted because the
of the commission of the felony, the alternative conviction of the offender simply acts as a
circumstance of intoxication should be considered lawbreaker. tool of the law enforcers
mitigating.
EXAMPLE OF ENTRAPMENT:
3. Degree of Instruction/ Education A, a government anti-narcotics agent, acted as a
poseur buyer of shabu and negotiated with B, a
 Refers to the lack of sufficient intelligence of suspected drug pusher who is unaware that A is a
and knowledge of the full significance of police officer. A then paid B in marked money and
one’s act the latter handed over a sachet of shabu. Upon
 Being illiterate does not mitigate liability if signal, the cops closed in on B
crime committed is one which one
inherently understands as wrong (e.g. EXAMPLE OF INSTIGATION:
parricide) A, leader of an anti-narcotics team, approached
 To be considered mitigating, degree of and persuaded B to act as a buyer of shabu and
instruction must have some reasonable transact with C, a suspected pusher. B was
connection to the offense given marked money to pay C for a sachet of
shabu. After the sale was consummated, the
cops closed in and arrested both B and C.
VI. Absolutory Causes
People v. Pacis (2002): Yap, an NBI agent, received
information that a Pacis was offering to sell ½ kg of
There are FOUR TYPES of absolutory circumstances:
"shabu." A buy-bust operation was approved. The
informant introduced Yap to Pacis as an interested
1. Instigation
buyer. They negotiated the sale of ½ kg of shabu.
2. Pardon
Pacis handed to Yap a paper bag with the markings
3. Other Absolutory Causes
"Yellow Cab". While examining it, Pacis asked for the
4. Acts not covered by law and in case of
payment. Yap gave the "boodle money" to Pacis.
excessive punishment (Art. 5)
Upon Pacis's receipt of the payment, the officers
identified themselves as NBI agents and arrested him.
IMPORTANT POINTS:
Held: The operation that led to the arrest of appellant
Acts not covered by law and in case of was an entrapment, not instigation. In entrapment,
excessive punishment (art. 5) ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of
trapping and capturing lawbreakers in the execution of
their criminal plan. In instigation, instigators practically
Absolutory causes are those where the act
induce the would-be defendant into the commission of
committed is a crime but for reasons of public the offense and become co-principals themselves.
policy and sentiment there is no penalty Entrapment is sanctioned by law as a legitimate
imposed. method of apprehending criminal elements engaged
in the sale and distribution of illegal drugs.
1. Entrapment and Instigation
Entrapment Instigation US v. Phelps (1910): Phelps was charged and found
Ways and means are The instigator practically guilty for violating the Opium Law (Act No. 1761).
resorted to for the induces the would-be Phelps was induced by Smith, an employee of the
purpose of trapping and accused into the Bureau of Internal Revenue, into procuring opium,
capturing the lawbreaker commission of the providing for a venue and making arrangements for
in the execution of his offense and himself the two of them to smoke opium.
criminal plan becomes a co-principal.
The means originate from The law enforcer Held: Smith not only suggested the commission of the
the mind of the criminal. conceives the crime but also expressed his desire to commit the
commission of the crime offense in paying the amount required for the
and suggests to the arrangements. Such acts done by employees of
accused who carries it government in encouraging or inducing persons to
into execution. commit a crime in order to prosecute them are most
A person has planned or A public officer or a reprehensible.
is about to commit a private detective induces
crime and ways and an innocent person to
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
This is an instance of instigation where Smith, the
instigator (who is either a public officer or a private
detective) practically induces the would-be accused
into the commission of the offense.
People v. Lua Chu and Uy Se Tieng (1931): Juan
Samson smoothed the way for the introduction of
prohibited drugs, but only after the accused Uy Se
Tieng had already planned its importation and ordered
said drug.
Held: Entrapment is not a case where an innocent
person is induced to commit a crime merely to
prosecute him, but it simply a trap set to catch a
criminal.
Entrapment - Entrapping persons into crime for
the purpose of instituting criminal prosecutions.
It is a scheme or technique ensuring the
apprehension of the criminals by being in the
actual crime scene.
The law officers shall not be guilty to the crime if
they have done the following:
a. He does not induce a person to commit a
crime for personal gain or is not involved in
the planning of the crime.
b. Does take the necessary steps to seize the
instrument of the crime and to arrest the
offenders before he obtained the profits in
mind.
Instigation - The involvement of a law officer in
the crime itself in the following manner:
a. He induces a person to commit a crime for
personal gain.
b. Doesn’t take the necessary steps to seize the
instrument of the crime & to arrest the
offenders before he obtained the profits in
mind.
c. He obtained the profits in mind even through
afterwards does take the necessary steps
seize the instrument of the crime and to
arrest the offenders.
2. Pardon
General rule: Pardon does not extinguish
criminal action (Art 23).
Exception: Pardon by marriage between the
accused and the offended party in cases of
SEDUCTION, ABDUCTION, RAPE AND ACTS
OF LASCIVIOUSNESS (Art 344).
Chapter IV. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY
3. Other Absolutory Causes
a. Spontaneous desistance 72
b. Light felonies not consummated
CRIMINAL LAW 1
c. Accessories in light felonies
d. Accessories exempt under Article 20
e. Trespass to dwelling to prevent serious
harm to self
f. exemption from criminal liability in crimes
against property
g. Under Article 332, exemptions from criminal
liability for cases of theft, swindling and
malicious mischief. There would only be civil
liability.
h. Death under exceptional circumstances (Art.
247)
i. Under Article 219, discovering secrets
through seizure of correspondence of the
ward by their guardian is not penalized.
j. Ways on how criminal liability is
extinguished under Art 89.
4. Acts Not Covered By Law And In Case
Of Excessive Punishment
Article 5 covers two situations:
a. The court cannot convict the accused
because the acts do not constitute a
crime. The proper judgment is acquittal, but
the court is mandated to report to the
Chief Executive that said act be made
subject of penal legislation and why.
b. Where the court finds the penalty
prescribed for the crime too harsh
considering the conditions surrounding the
commission of the crime, the judge should
impose the law the judge should impose the
law. The most that he could do is
recommend to the Chief Executive to
grant executive clemency.
People v. Veneracion (1995): The accused was
found guilty of the crime of Rape with Homicide.
The instant petition raised the issue of whether or not
the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of
discretion when he failed or refused to impose the
mandatory penalty of death under RA 7659.
Held: The law plainly and unequivocally provides that
“when by reason or on the occasion of rape, a
homicide is committed, the penalty shall be death.
Courts are not concerned with wisdom, efficacy or
morality of law. The discomfort faced by those forced
by law to impose death penalty is an ancient one, but
it is a matter upon which judges have no choice. The
Rules of Court mandates that after an adjudication of
guilt, the judges should impose the proper penalty and
civil liability provided for by the law on the accused.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Chapter IV. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY

VII. Extenuating Circumstances

73
 Circumstances which mitigate the criminal

CRIMINAL LAW 1
liability of the offender but not found in
Article 13

Illustration:
A kleptomaniac is criminally liable. But he would
be given the benefit of a mitigating circumstance
analogous to paragraph 9 of Article 13, that of
suffering from an illness which diminishes the
exercise of his will poser without, however,
depriving him of the consciousness of his act.
An unwed mother killed her child in order to
conceal a dishonor. The concealment of
dishonor is an extenuating circumstance insofar
as the unwed mother or the maternal
grandparents are concerned, but not insofar as
the father of the child is concerned. Mother
killing her new born child to conceal her
dishonor, penalty is lowered by two degrees.
Since there is a material lowering of the penalty
or mitigating the penalty, this is an extenuating
circumstance.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Chapter V. Persons Criminally Liable
Under the Revised Penal Code, when more than one
person participated in the commission of the crime,
the law looks into their participation because in
punishing offenders, the Revised Penal Code
classifies them as:
I. PRINCIPAL
II. ACCOMPLICE
III. ACCESSORY
 This classification is true only under the
Revised Penal Code and is not applied
under special laws, because the penalties
under the latter are never graduated.
 Do not use the term “principal” when the
crime committed is a violation of special law
(use the term “offender/s, culprit/s, accused)
 As to the liability of the participants in the
grave, less grave or light felony:
 When the felony is grave, or less grave,
all participants are criminally liable.
 But when the felony is only light, only
the principal and the accomplice are
liable. The accessory is not.
 Therefore, it is only when the light felony
is against persons or property that
criminal liability attaches to the principal
or accomplice, even though the felony is
only attempted or frustrated, but
accessories are not liable for light
felonies.
I. Principals
A. By Direct Participation
B. By Inducement
C. By Indispensable Cooperation
A. By Direct Participation
1. Those who are liable:
 materially execute the crime;
 appear at the scene of the crime;
 perform acts necessary in the
commission of the offense.
2. Why one who does not appear at the scene
of the crime is not liable:
 his non-appearance is deemed
desistance which is favored and
encouraged.
 conspiracy is generally not a crime
unless the law specifically provides a
penalty therefore.
Chapter V. PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABILE
 there is no basis for criminal liability
because there is no criminal
participation. 74
CRIMINAL LAW 1
B. By Inducement
a. Inducement must be strong enough that the
person induced could not resist.
 This is tantamount to an irresistible force
compelling the person induced to carry
out the crime.
 Ill-advised language is not enough
unless he who made such remark or
advice is a co-conspirator in the crime
committed.
b. When does a principal by induction become
liable:
 The principal by induction becomes
liable only when the principal by direct
participation committed the act induced.
c. What are the effects of acquittal of principal
by direct participation upon the liability of
principal by inducement:
 Conspiracy is negated by the acquittal
of co-defendant.
 One cannot be held guilty of having
instigated the commission of a crime
without proof that the crime had been
actually committed by another. Commented [i9]: Not always – what if the
principal by direct participation isacquitted because he
Illustrations:
1) While in the course of a quarrel, a person
is exempt from liability? Remember, inducement can
be by force.
shouted to A, “Kill him! Kill him!” A killed the other
person. Is the person who shouted criminally
liable? Is that inducement? No. The shouting
must be an irresistible force for the one
shouting to be liable.
2) There was a quarrel between two families. One of
the sons of family A came out with a shotgun. His
mother then shouted, “Shoot!” He shot and killed
someone. Is the mother liable? No.
People v. Valderrama (1993):
Ernesto shouted to his younger brother Oscar,
“Birahin mo na, birahin mo na!” Oscar stabbed the
victim.
It was held that there was no conspiracy.
Joint or simultaneous action per se is not indicia of
conspiracy without showing of common design.
Oscar has no rancor with the victim for him to kill the
latter.
Considering that Ernesto had great moral ascendancy
and influence over Oscar, being much older (35 years
old) than the latter, who was 18 years old, and it was
Ernesto who provided his allowance, clothing as well
as food and shelter,
Ernesto is principal by inducement.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Chapter V. PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABILE

People v. Agapinay (1990):  is not in conspiracy with the principal by

The one who uttered “kill him, we will bury him” while direct participation.
the felonious aggression was taking place cannot be 75
held liable as principal by inducement. Conspirator Accomplice

CRIMINAL LAW 1
Utterance was said in the excitement of the hour, They know of and join in the They know and agree with
not a command to be obeyed. criminal design the criminal design
Conspirators know the Accomplices come to know
criminal intention because about it after the principals
People v. Madall (1990): they themselves have have reached the decision
The son was mauled. decided upon such course of and only then do they agree
The family was not in good terms with their neighbors. action to cooperate in its execution
The father challenged everybody and when the Conspirators decide that a Accomplices merely assent
neighbors approached, he went home to get a rifle. crime should be committed to the plan and cooperate in
The shouts of his wife “here comes another, shoot its accomplishment
him” cannot make the wife a principal by inducement. Conspirators are the authors Accomplices are merely
of a crime instruments who perform
It is not the determining cause of the crime in the
acts not essential to the
absence of proof that the words had great influence perpetration of the offense.
over the husband.
Neither is the wife’s act of beaming the victim with a
flashlight indispensable to the killing. She assisted her C. Requisites:
husband in taking good aim, but such assistance
merely facilitated the felonious act of shooting.  That there be community of design; that
Considering that it was not so dark and the husband is, knowing the criminal design of the
could have accomplished the deed without his wife’s principal by direct participation, he concurs
help, and considering further that doubts must be with the latter in his purpose;
resolved in favor of the accused, the liability of the  That he cooperates in the execution of
wife is only that of an accomplice. the offense by previous or simultaneous
acts, with the intention of supplying material
C. By Indispensable Cooperation or moral aid in the execution of the crime in
an efficacious way; and
 The focus is not just on participation but on  That there be a relation between the acts
the importance of participation in done by the principal and those
committing the crime. attributed to the person charged as
 The basis is the importance of the accomplice.
cooperation to the consummation of the
crime. Principal by Accomplice
 If the crime could hardly be committed Cooperation
without such cooperation, then such Cooperation is Cooperation is not
indispensable to the indispensable to the
cooperator would be a principal.
commission of the act commission of the act
 If the cooperation merely facilitated or
hastened the consummation of the
crime, the cooperator is merely an
accomplice. III. Accessories
 In case of doubt, favor the lesser penalty or A. When accessories are not criminally
liability. Apply the doctrine of pro reo. liable:
1. When the felony committed is a light felony
II. Accomplices 2. When the accessory is related to the
principal as
A. When is one regarded as an i. spouse
accomplice: ii. ascendant, or descendant, or
iii. brother or sister whether legitimate, or
 Determine if there is a conspiracy.
natural or adopted or
 If there is, as a general rule, the criminal
iv. where the accessory is a relative by
liability of all will be the same, because the
affinity within the same degree,
act of one is the act of all.
 unless the accessory himself
profited from the effects or proceeds
B. What are the other traits of an of the crime or assisted the offender
accomplice: to profit therefrom.
 does not have previous agreement or
understanding; or
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
B. When one cannot be an accessory:
 he does not know the commission of the
crime
 he participated in the crime as a principal or
an accomplice
C. When an accessory is exempt from
criminal liability:
(ASKED 4 TIMES IN THE BAR EXAMS)
 When the principal is his:
 spouse,
 ascendant
 descendant
 legitimate, natural or adopted brother,
sister or relative by affinity within the
same degree.
Note: Even if only two of the principals guilty of
murder are the brothers of the accessory and the
others are not related to him, such accessory is
exempt from criminal liability.
D. When an accessory is NOT exempt
from criminal liability even if the
principal is related to him:
 If such accessory
 profited from the effects of the crime, or
 assisted the offender to profit by the
effects of the crime
E. Other instances when one becomes an
accessory:
1. accessory as a fence
2. acquiring the effects of piracy or brigandage
3. destroying the corpus delicti
4. harboring or concealing an offender
5. whether the accomplice and the accessory
may be tried and convicted even before the
principal is found guilty
1. Accessory as a fence:
Presidential Decree No. 1612 (Anti-Fencing
Law)
 One who knowingly profits or assists the
principal to profit by the effects of
robbery or theft (i.e. a fence) is not just
an accessory to the crime, but
principally liable for fencing
 The penalty is higher than that of a mere
accessory to the crime of robbery or
theft.
 Mere possession of any article of value
which has been the subject of robbery or
theft brings about the presumption of
“fencing”.
 Presidential Decree No. 1612 has,
therefore, modified Article 19 of the
Revised penal Code.
Chapter V. PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABILE
2. Acquiring the effects of piracy or
brigandage: 76
Presidential Decree 532 (Anti-piracy and
CRIMINAL LAW 1
Highway Robbery law of 1974)
 If the crime was piracy or brigandage
under PD 532, said act constitutes the
crime of abetting piracy or abetting
brigandage as the case may be,
although the penalty is that of an
accomplice, not just an accessory, to the
piracy or the brigandage.
 Section 4 of PD 532 provides that any
person who knowingly and in any
manner acquires or receives property
taken by such pirates or brigands or in
any manner derives benefit therefrom,
shall be considered as an accomplice of
the principal offenders in accordance
with the Rules prescribed by the
Revised Penal Code.
 It shall be presumed that any person
who does any acts provided in this
section has performed them knowingly,
unless the contrary is proven.
 Although Republic Act 7659, in
amending Article 122 of the Revised
Penal Code, incorporated therein the
crime of piracy in Philippine territorial
waters and thus correspondingly
superseding PD 532 section 4 of said
Decree, which punishes said acts as a
crime of abetting piracy or brigandage,
still stands as it has not been replaced
or modified, and is not inconsistent with
any provision of RA 7659.
3. Destroying the Corpus Delicti
 When the crime is robbery or theft, with
respect to the third involvement of the
accessory, do not overlook the purpose
which must be to prevent discovery of
the crime.
 The corpus delicti is not the body of the
person who is killed.
 Even if the corpse is not recovered,
as long as that killing is established
beyond reasonable doubt, criminal
liability will arise.
 If there is someone who destroys
the corpus delicti to prevent
discovery, he becomes an
accessory.
4. Harboring or Concealing an Offender
 In the fourth form or manner of
becoming an accessory, take note that
the law distinguishes between:
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Chapter V. PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABILE

 a public officer harboring, the latter is acquitted, the accomplice

concealing or assisting the principal and the accessory shall not be criminally
to escape, and liable, unless the acquittal is based on a 77
 a private citizen or civilian harboring, defense which is personal only to the

CRIMINAL LAW 1
concealing or assisting the principal principal.
to escape.  However, it is not always true that
the accomplice and the accessory
Public Officer Civilian
cannot be criminally liable without
The nature of the crime is The nature of the crime is
immaterial material the principal being first convicted.
What is material is that he For him to become an  Under Rule 110 of the Revised
used his public function in accessory, the principal Rules on Criminal Procedure, it is
assisting the escape must have committed the required that all those involved in
crime of treason, parricide,
murder or attempt on the life the commission of the crime must
of the Chief Executive be included in the information that
may be filed.
Illustration:  The liability of the accused will depend
a. Crime committed is kidnapping for ransom of his on the quantum of evidence adduced by
employer. Principal was being chased by police. the prosecution against the particular
b. His aunt hid him in the ceiling of her house and
she told the soldiers that her nephew had never
accused but the prosecution must
visited her. When the soldiers left, the aunt even initiate the proceedings against the
gave money to her nephew for the latter to go to principal.
the province.  Even if the principal is convicted, if the
c. Is the aunt criminally liable? No. Article 20 does evidence presented against a supposed
not include an aunt. However, this is not the accomplice or accessory does not meet
reason. the required proof beyond reasonable
d. The principal must have committed either doubt, then said accused will be
treason, parricide, murder, or attempt on the life acquitted.
of the Chief Executive, or that the principal is
known to be habitually guilty of some other crime,
 So the criminal liability of an accomplice
e. for a person who is not a public officer and who or accessory does not depend on the
assists an offender to escape or otherwise criminal liability of the principal but
harbors, or conceals such offender, to be depends on the quantum of evidence.
criminally liable.  But if the evidence shows that the act
f. In this case, the crime committed was done does not constitute a crime and
kidnapping. the principal is acquitted, then the
 In the preceding illustration, the aunt is not supposed accomplice and accessory
criminally liable under the Revised Penal Code should also be acquitted.
because the crime is kidnapping, but she can be  If there is no crime, then there is no
held liable under PD 1829. criminal liability, whether principal,
accomplice or accessory.
Revised Penal Code PD 1829 (Also Known as
the Law Penalizing Taer v. CA (1990):
“Obstruction of Justice”) Accused received from his co-accused two stolen
Specifies the crimes that There is no specification of
male carabaos. Conspiracy was not proven. Taer
should be committed in case the crime to be committed by
a civilian aids in the escape the offender in order that was held liable as an accessory in the crime of
criminal liability be incurred cattle-rustling under PD 533. Taer should have
The offender is the principal The offender need not even been liable as principal for violation of the Anti-
or must be convicted of the be the principal or need not Fencing Law since cattle-rustling is a form of theft
crime charged be convicted of the crime or robbery of large cattle, except that he was not
charged charged with fencing.
The one who harbored or An offender of any crime is
concealed an offender is still no longer an accessory but
Enrile v. Amin (1990): A person charged with
an accessory is simply an offender without
regard to the crime of the rebellion should not be separately charged under
person assisted to escape PD 1829. The theory of absorption must not confine
itself to common crimes but also to offenses
5. Whether the accomplice and the punished under special laws which are perpetrated
accessory may be tried and convicted in furtherance of the political offense.
even before the principal is found guilty
 There is an earlier Supreme Court ruling
that the accessory and accomplice must
be charged together with the principal; if
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Chapter VI. Penalties
This Section discusses the following:
I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
II. PENALTIES WHICH MAY BE IMPOSED
III. SPECIFIC PRINCIPAL AND ACCESSORY
PENALTIES
IV. ACCESSORY PENALTIES
V. MEASURES NOT CONSIDERED PENALTY
VI. APPLICATION AND COMPUTATION OF
PENALTIES
VII. SPECIAL RULES FOR CERTAIN SITUATIONS
VIII. THE INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW
IX. EXECUTION AND SERVICE OF PENALTIES
Penalty is the suffering that is inflicted by the
State for the transgression of a law.
Different Juridical Conditions of Penalty:
1. Must be PRODUCTIVE OF SUFFERING,
without affecting the integrity of the human
personality.
2. Must be COMMENSURATE to the offense –
different crimes must be punished with
different penalties.
3. Must be PERSONAL – no one should be
punished for the crime of another.
4. Must be LEGAL – it is the consequence of a
judgment according to law.
5. Must be CERTAIN – no one may escape its
effects.
6. Must be EQUAL for all.
7. Must be CORRECTIONAL.
Theories justifying penalty:
1. PREVENTION – to suppress danger to the
State
2. SELF-DEFENSE – to protect the society
from the threat and wrong inflicted by the
criminal.
3. REFORMATION – to correct and reform the
offender.
4. EXEMPLARITY – to serve as an example to
deter others from committing crimes.
5. JUSTICE – for retributive justice, a
vindication of absolute right and moral law
violated by the criminal.
Purpose of penalty under the RPC:
1. RETRIBUTION OR EXPIATION – the
penalty is commensurate with the gravity of
the offense. It permits society to exact
proportionate revenge, and the offender to
atone for his wrongs.
2. CORRECTION OR REFORMATION – as
shown by the rules which regulate the
execution of the penalties consisting in
deprivation of liberty.
Chapter VI. PENALTIES
3. SOCIAL DEFENSE – shown by its inflexible
severity to recidivist and habitual
delinquents. 78
CRIMINAL LAW 1
I. General Principles
Art. 21. Penalties that may be imposed. — No
felony shall be punishable by any penalty not
prescribed by law prior to its commission.
 This article prohibits the Government from
punishing any person for any felony with any
penalty which has not been prescribed by
the law.
 It has no application to any of the provisions
of the RPC for the reason that for every
felony defined in the Code, a penalty has
been prescribed.
 REASON: An act or omission cannot be
punished by the State if at the time it was
committed there was no law prohibiting it,
because a law cannot be rationally obeyed
unless it is first shown, and a man cannot be
expected to obey an order that has not been
given.
 OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL
PROHIBITIONS
1987 CONSTITUTION Commented [i10]: I believe the constitutional
Section 18.
freedoms, e.g. due process, religion, speech, act as
(1) No person shall be detained solely by reason of
his political beliefs and aspirations. restrictions on criminal law as well.
(2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist
except as a punishment for a crime whereof the
party shall have been duly convicted.
Section 19.
(1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel,
degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted.
Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless,
for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes,
the Congress hereafter provides for it.
Any death penalty already imposed shall be
reduced to reclusion perpetua.
Section 20. No person shall be imprisoned for debt or
non-payment of a poll tax.
Section 22. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder
shall be enacted.
II. Penalties Which May Be Imposed
Art. 25. Penalties which may be imposed.
The penalties which may be imposed according to
this Code, and their different classes, are those
included in the following:
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Chapter VI. PENALTIES

A. Scale of Principal Penalties  Indivisible

 those which have no fixed duration:
1. Capital punishment: 79
 Death
 Death.
 Reclusion perpetua

CRIMINAL LAW 1
2. Afflictive penalties:  Perpetual absolute or special
 Reclusion perpetua, disqualification
 Reclusion temporal,  Public censure
 Perpetual or temporary absolute
2. According to subject-matter
disqualification,
 Corporal (death)
 Perpetual or temporary special
 Deprivation of freedom (reclusion,
disqualification,
prision, arresto)
 Prision mayor.
 Restriction of freedom (destierro)
3. Correctional penalties:  Deprivation of rights (disqualification
 Prision correccional, and suspension)
 Arresto mayor,  Pecuniary (fine)
 Suspension,
3. According to their gravity
 Destierro.
 Capital
4. Light penalties:  Afflictive
 Arresto menor,  Correctional
 Public censure.  Light

5. Penalties common to the three preceding Note: Public censure is a penalty,

classes:  Thus, it is not proper in acquittal.
 Fine, and  However, the Court in acquitting the
 Bond to keep the peace. accused may criticize his acts or conduct.
Penalties that are either principal or
B. Scale of Accessory Penalties accessory:
 Perpetual or temporary absolute
1. Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification,
disqualification,  Perpetual or temporary special
2. Perpetual or temporary special disqualification, and
disqualification,  Suspension
3. Suspension from public office, the right
 may be principal or accessory
to vote and be voted for, the profession
penalties, because they formed in the
or calling.
2 general classes.
4. Civil interdiction,
(Asked 3 times in the Bar Exams)
5. Indemnification,
6. Forfeiture or confiscation of instruments
and proceeds of the offense,
7. Payment of costs III. Specific Principal and Accessory
Penalties
C. Major Classification A. Capital Punishment: Death Penalty
(Asked 3 times in the Bar Exams)  RA 9346 or “An Act Prohibiting the
Imposition of Death Penalty in the
 PRINCIPAL PENALTIES – those expressly Philippines”
imposed by the court in the judgment of  expressly repealed RA 8177 or “Act
conviction. Designating Death by Lethal Injection”
 ACCESSORY PENALTIES – those that are and RA 7659 or “Death Penalty Law”.
deemed included in the imposition of the  RA 9346 repealed all the other laws
principal penalties. imposing death penalty.
 Section 2 states that: “In lieu of the
D. Other Classifications of Penalties death penalty, the following shall be
imposed:
1. According to their divisibility: a. the penalty of reclusion perpetua,
 Divisible when the law violated makes use of
 those that have fixed duration
 divisible into three periods.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
the nomenclature of the penalties of
the Revised Penal Code; or
b. the penalty of life imprisonment,
when the law violated does not
make use of the nomenclature of
the penalties of the Revised Penal
Code.”
People v. Bon (2006): Yet in truth, there is no
material difference between “imposition” and
“application,” for both terms embody the operation in
law of the death penalty.
Since Article 71 denominates “death” as an element
in the graduated scale of penalties, there is no
question that the operation of Article 71 involves the
actual application of the death penalty as a means of
determining the extent which a person’s liberty is to
be deprived.
Since Rep. Act No. 9346 unequivocally bars the
application of the death penalty, as well as expressly
repeals all such statutory provisions requiring the
application of the death penalty,
such effect necessarily extends to its relevance to the
graduated scale of penalties under Article 71.
The court cannot find basis to conclude that Rep. Act
No. 9346 intended to retain the operative effects of
the death penalty in the graduation of the other
penalties in our penal laws.
Munoz cannot enjoin us to adopt such conclusion.
Rep. Act No. 9346 is not swaddled in the same
restraints appreciated by Muñoz on Section 19(1),
Article III.
The very Congress empowered by the Constitution to
reinstate the imposition of the death penalty once
thought it best to do so, through Rep. Act No. 7650.
Within the same realm of constitutional discretion,
Congress has reversed itself.
It must be asserted that today, the legal status of the
suppression of the death penalty in the Philippines
has never been more secure than at any time in our
political history as a nation.
B. Afflictive Penalties
Art. 27.
a. 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.
b. Reclusion temporal.
The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be from
twelve years and one day to twenty years.
c. 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
Chapter VI. PENALTIES
the penalty of disqualification is imposed as an
accessory penalty, in which case its duration
shall be that of the principal penalty. 80
CRIMINAL LAW 1
Art. 41. Reclusion perpetua and reclusion
temporal; Their accessory penalties:
The penalties of reclusion perpetua and reclusion
temporal shall carry with them
that of civil interdiction for life or during the period of
the sentence as the case may be, and
that of perpetual absolute disqualification which the
offender shall suffer
even though pardoned as to the principal penalty,
unless the same shall have been expressly
remitted in the pardon.
Art. 42. Prision mayor; Its accessory penalties:
The penalty of prision mayor, shall carry with it
that of temporary absolute disqualification and
that of perpetual special disqualification from the right
of suffrage
which the offender shall suffer although pardoned as
to the principal penalty, unless the same shall have
been expressly remitted in the pardon.
1. Reclusion Perpetua
 Duration: 20 years and 1 day to 40 years
 Accessory Penalties:
a. Civil interdiction for life or during the
period of the sentence as the case may
be.
b. Perpetual Absolute Disqualification
which the offender shall suffer even
though pardoned as to the principal
penalty, unless the same shall have
been expressly remitted in the pardon.
People v. Gatward (1997):
The accused was convicted of violating the
Dangerous Drugs Act for unlawfully importing into the
Philippines heroin.
The trial court sentenced the accused to suffer the
penalty of imprisonment for 35 years of reclusion
perpetua
there being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance
shown to have attended in the commission of the
crime.
Held:
As amended by RA 7659, the penalty of reclusion
perpetua is now accorded a defined duration ranging
from 20 years and 1 day to 40 years.
The Court held that in spite of the amendment putting
the duration of RP, it should remain as an indivisible
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Chapter VI. PENALTIES

penalty since there was never intent on the part of  Distinguished from Life Imprisonment
Congress to reclassify it into a divisible penalty. (ASKED 5 TIMES IN THE BAR EXAMS)
81
The maximum duration of reclusion perpetua is not
and has never been 30 years which is merely the People v. Ballabare (1996):

CRIMINAL LAW 1
number of years which the convict must serve in order The trial court erred in imposing the penalty of life
to be eligible for pardon or for the application of the 3- imprisonment for violation of PD 1866.
fold rule (infra).
The crime of illegal possession of firearm in its
aggravated form is punished by the penalty of death.
People v. Ramirez (2001):
The SC disagrees with the trial court in sentencing Since the offense was committed on Sep. 16, 1990, at
appellant "to suffer imprisonment of forty (40) years a time when the imposition of the death penalty was
reclusion perpetua." prohibited, the penalty next lower in degree which is
reclusion perpetua should be imposed.
There was no justification or need for the trial court to
specify the length of imprisonment, because reclusion This is not equivalent to life imprisonment.
perpetua is an indivisible penalty.
While life imprisonment may appear to be the English
The significance of this fundamental principle was laid translation of reclusion perpetua, in reality, it goes
down by the Court in People v. Diquit. "Since deeper than that.
reclusion perpetua is an indivisible penalty, it has no
minimum, medium or maximum periods. LIFE IMPRISONMENT RECLUSION
PERPETUA
It is imposed in its entirety regardless of any Imposed for serious Prescribed under the
mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may offenses penalized by RPC
have attended the commission of the crime. (Art. 63, special laws
Revised Penal Code)
Does not carry with it Carries with it accessory
Reclusion Perpetua is imprisonment for life but the accessory penalties penalties
person sentenced to suffer it shall be pardoned after Does not appear to have Entails imprisonment for
undergoing the penalty for thirty (30) years, any definite extent or at least 30 years after
duration which the convict
unless by reason of his conduct or some other serious becomes eligible for
cause, he shall be considered by the Chief Executive pardon although the
as unworthy of pardon (Art. 27, Revised Penal maximum period shall in
Code)." no case exceed 40 years

The following table also contains DISQUALIFICATION as an afflictive penalty, because its different forms can
also be imposed as a principal although it is primarily categorized as an accessory penalty.

PENALTY DURATION EFFECTS ACCESSORIES

Death Indivisible
(REPEALED)
Death, when not executed  PAD
due to pardon or  Civil interdiction 30
commutation yrs from sentence
(REPEALED)
20 years & 1 day to  PAD
Reclusion perpetua 40 years  Civil interdiction for
(Indivisible) life
 Deprivation of public office,
even if by election
 Deprivation of right to vote &
Perpetual absolute
For life be voted for
disqualification (PAD)
 Disqualification from public
office held
 Loss of retirement rights
 Deprivation of office,
employment, profession, or
Perpetual special
For life calling affected
disqualification (PSD)
 Disqualification from similar
offices or employments
 PAD
12 years & 1 day  Civil interdiction for
Reclusion temporal
to 20 years duration of
sentence
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Chapter VI. PENALTIES

PENALTY DURATION EFFECTS ACCESSORIES

6 years & 1 day  TAD 82
Prision mayor  PSD of suffrage
to 12 years

CRIMINAL LAW 1
 Deprivation of public office,
even if by election
Temporary absolute  Deprivation of right to vote &
6 years & 1 day
disqualification be voted for during sentence
to 12 years
(TAD)  Disqualification from public
office held during sentence
 Loss of retirement rights
 Deprivation of office,
Temporary special employment, profession, or
6 years & 1 day
disqualification calling affected
to 12 years
(TSD)  Disqualification from similar
offices or employments

2. Reclusion Temporal
 Duration: 12 years and 1 day to 20 years
 Accessory Penalties:
a. Civil interdiction for life or during the
period of the sentence as the case may
be.
b. Perpetual Absolute Disqualification
which the offender shall suffer even
though pardoned as to the principal
penalty, unless the same shall have
been expressly remitted in the pardon.
3. Prision Mayor
 Duration: 6 years and 1 day to 12 years
 Accessory Penalties:
a. Temporary Absolute Disqualification
b. Perpetual Special Disqualification from
the right to suffrage which the offender
shall suffer although pardoned as to the
principal penalty unless the same shall
have been expressly remitted in the
pardon.
C. Correctional Penalties
Art. 27 (4). Prision correccional, suspension, and
destierro.
1) The duration of the penalties of prision
correccional, suspension and destierro
2) shall be from six months and one day to six
years,
3) except when suspension is imposed as an
accessory penalty,
4) 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.
Art. 39. Subsidiary penalty.
If the convict has no property with which to meet the
fine mentioned in the paragraph 3 of the next
preceding article,
 he shall be subject to a subsidiary personal
liability at the rate of one day for each eight
pesos, subject to the following rules:
1) If the principal penalty imposed be prision
correccional or arresto and fine,
 he shall remain under confinement until his
fine referred to in the preceding paragraph is
satisfied,
 but his subsidiary imprisonment shall not
exceed one-third of the term of the sentence,
 and in no case shall it continue for more than
one year, and no fraction or part of a day
shall be counted against the prisoner.
2) When the principal penalty imposed be only a
fine,
 the subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed
six months,
 if the culprit shall have been prosecuted for a
grave or less grave felony, and shall not
exceed fifteen days, if for a light felony.
3) When the principal imposed is higher than prision
correccional,
 no subsidiary imprisonment shall be imposed
upon the culprit.
4) If the principal penalty imposed is not to be
executed by confinement in a penal institution,
 but such penalty is of fixed duration,
 the convict, during the period of time
established in the preceding rules,
 shall continue to suffer the same
deprivations as those of which the principal
penalty consists.
5) The subsidiary personal liability which the convict
may have suffered by reason of his insolvency
shall not relieve him,
 from the fine in case his financial
circumstances should improve. (As amended
by RA 5465, April 21, 1969).
(Asked 2 times in the Bar Exams)
Art. 43. Prision correccional; Its accessory
penalties.
The penalty of prision correccional shall carry with it
that of suspension from public office,
from the right to follow a profession or calling,
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Chapter VI. PENALTIES

and that of perpetual special disqualification from the D. Light Penalties

right of suffrage, if the duration of said imprisonment
shall exceed eighteen months. Art. 27 (6). Arresto menor. 83
The duration of the penalty of arresto menor shall be

The offender shall suffer the disqualification provided
in the article although pardoned as to the principal
penalty, unless the same shall have been expressly
remitted in the pardon.
Art. 44. Arresto; Its accessory penalties.
The penalty of arresto shall carry with it
that of suspension of the right to hold office and
CRIMINAL LAW 1
from one day to thirty days.
Art. 39. Subsidiary penalty. SUPRA
Art. 44. Arresto; Its accessory penalties.
The penalty of arresto shall carry with it that of
suspension of the right too hold office and the right of
suffrage during the term of the sentence.

the right of suffrage during the term of the sentence.

1. Arresto Menor
 Duration: 1 day to 30 days
1. Prision Correccional  Accessory Penalties:
 Duration: 6 months and 1 day to 6 years a. Suspension of right to hold office
 Accessory Penalties: b. Suspension of the right of suffrage
a. Suspension from public office during the term of the sentence.
b. Suspension from the right to follow a
profession or calling 2. Public Censure
c. Perpetual Special Disqualification fro the  Censure, being a penalty is not proper in
right of suffrage, if the duration of the acquittal.
imprisonment shall exceed 18 months

2. Arresto Mayor
 Duration: 1 month and 1 day to 6 months
 Accessory Penalties:
a. Suspension of right to hold office
b. Suspension of the right of suffrage
during the term of the sentence.

PENALTY DURATION EFFECTS ACCESSORIES

6 months &  Suspension from public office
Prision
1 day  Suspension from profession or calling PSD of suffrage, if
correccional
to 6 years penalty exceeds 18 mos.
 Public
6 months & office
Suspension 1 day  Profession
to 6 years or calling
 Suffrage
 Prohibition
to enter
w/in 25-
6 months &
250 km
Destierro 1 day
radius
to 6 years
from the
designate
d place
1 month &  Suspension of right to hold office and
Arresto mayor 1 day  right of suffrage
to 6 months
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Chapter VI. PENALTIES

E. Penalties Common to Afflictive, office of the clerk of the court to guarantee said
undertaking.
Correctional and Light Penalties 84
1. Fine The court shall determine, according to its discretion,

Art. 26. When afflictive, correctional, or light
penalty.
1) A fine, whether imposed as a single or as an
alternative penalty,
2) shall be considered an afflictive penalty, if it
exceeds 6,000 pesos;
3) a correctional penalty, if it does not exceed 6,000
pesos but is not less than 200 pesos;
4) and a light penalty if it less than 200 pesos.
CRIMINAL LAW 1
the period of duration of the bond.
Should the person sentenced fail to give the bond as
required
he shall be detained for a period which shall in no
case exceed six months, is he shall have been
prosecuted for a grave or less grave felony, and shall
not exceed thirty days, if for a light felony.
2 WAYS OF GIVING BOND:

 This article merely classifies fine and has a. The offender must present
nothing to do with the definition of light  2 sufficient sureties who shall undertake
felony. that
 Fine is:  the offender will not commit the
 Afflictive – over P6,000 offense sought to be prevented,
 Correctional – P200 to P6,000  and that in case such offense be
 Light Penalty – less than P200 committed
o they will pay the amount
Art. 66. Imposition of fines. — In imposing fines the determined by the court;
courts may fix any amount within the limits
established by law; in fixing the amount in each case b. The offender must
attention shall be given, not only to the mitigating and  deposit such amount with the clerk of
aggravating circumstances, but more particularly to court to guarantee said undertaking;
the wealth or means of the culprit.
 The court shall determine the period of
 The court can fix any amount of the fine duration of the bond.
within the limits established by law.  The offender may be detained, if he
 The court must consider: cannot give the bond,
 The mitigating and aggravating  for a period not to exceed 6 months if
circumstances; and prosecuted for grave or less grave
 More particularly, the wealth or means felony, or
of the culprit.  for a period not to exceed 30 days, if for
 When the law does not fix the minimum of a light felony.
the fine,  Bond to keep the peace is different from
 the determination of the amount of the bail bond which is posted for the provisional
fine to be imposed upon the culprit release of a person arrested for or accused
 is left to the sound discretion of the of a crime.
court,
 provided it shall not exceed the PENALTY DURATION ACCESSORIES
maximum authorized by law.
 Fines are not divided into 3 equal Suspension of right
Arresto 1 day to 30
to hold office and
portions. menor days
right of suffrage
Public
2. Bond to Keep the Peace censure
Penalty
Art. 35. Effects of bond to keep the peace. — (Common to
It shall be the duty of any person sentenced to give All Three
bond to keep the peace, Types)
to present two sufficient sureties who shall undertake Fine
that such person will not commit the offense sought to Bond to
be prevented, As determined
keep the
by the court
peace
and that in case such offense be committed they will
pay the amount determined by the court in the
judgment, or otherwise to deposit such amount in the
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Chapter VI. PENALTIES

IV. Accessory Penalties 3) of the right to vote in any popular election for any
public office or to be elected to such office.
4) Moreover, the offender shall not be permitted to 85
A. Perpetual or temporary absolute hold any public office during the period of his

CRIMINAL LAW 1
disqualification, disqualification.
B. Perpetual or temporary special
disqualification, Art. 33. Effects of the penalties of suspension
C. Suspension from public office, the right to from any public office, profession or calling, or
vote and be voted for, the profession or the right of suffrage.
calling. The suspension from public office, profession or
D. Civil interdiction, calling, and the exercise of the right of suffrage
E. Indemnification/ Forfeiture or confiscation of
instruments and proceeds of the offense, shall disqualify the offender from holding such office
F. Payment of costs. or exercising such profession or calling or right of
suffrage during the term of the sentence.

A. Perpetual or Temporary Absolute
Disqualification
Art. 30. Effects of the penalties of perpetual or
temporary absolute disqualification. —
1) The deprivation of the public offices and
employments which the offender may have held
even if conferred by popular election.
2) The deprivation of the right to vote in any election
for any popular office or to be elected to such
office.
3) The disqualification for the offices or public
employments and for the exercise of any of the
rights mentioned.
 In case of temporary disqualification, such
disqualification as is comprised in paragraphs 2
and 3 of this article shall last during the term of
the sentence.
4) The loss of all rights to retirement pay or other
pension for any office formerly held.
 Effects:
 Deprivation of any public office or
employment of offender;
 Deprivation of the right to vote in any
election or to be voted upon;
 Loss of rights to retirement pay or
pension
 All these effects
 last during the lifetime of the convict and
 even after the service of the sentence
The person suspended from holding public office
shall not hold another having similar functions during
the period of his suspension.
Art. 34. Civil interdiction.
Civil interdiction shall deprive the offender during the
time of his sentence
of the rights of parental authority, or guardianship,
either as to the person or property of any ward, of
marital authority, of the right to manage his property
and of the right to dispose of such property by any act
or any conveyance inter vivos.
Art. 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.
(Asked once in the Bar Exams)

 EXCEPT as regards paragraphs 2 and 3 of B. Perpetual or Temporary Special

the above in connection with temporary Disqualification
absolute disqualification.
Art. 31. Effect of the penalties of perpetual or
Art. 32. Effect of the penalties of perpetual or temporary special disqualification.
temporary special disqualification for the exercise 1) The deprivation of the office, employment,
of the right of suffrage. profession or calling affected;
1) The perpetual or temporary special 2) The disqualification for holding similar offices or
disqualification for the exercise of the right of employments either perpetually or during the
suffrage term of the sentence according to the extent of
2) shall deprive the offender perpetually or during such disqualification.
the term of the sentence, according to the nature
of said penalty,  Effects: For public office, profession or
calling:
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
 Deprivation of the office, employment,
profession or calling affected;
 Disqualification for holding similar offices
or employments during the period of
disqualification;
 Effects: For the exercise of right to suffrage:
 Deprivation of the right to vote or to be
elected in an office;
 Cannot hold any public office during the
period of disqualification
 The penalty for disqualification if imposed as
an accessory penalty is imposed for
PROTECTION and NOT for the withholding
of a privilege.
 Temporary disqualification or suspension if
imposed as an accessory penalty, the
duration is the same as that of the principal
penalty.
C. Suspension from Public Office, the
Right to Vote and Be Voted for, the
Right to Practice a Profession or
Calling
 Effects:
 Disqualification from holding such office
or the exercise of such profession or
right of suffrage during the term of the
sentence;
 Cannot hold another office having
similar functions during the period of
suspension.
D. Civil Interdiction
 Effects: Deprivation of the following rights:
 Parental authority
 Guardianship over the ward
 Marital authority
 Right to manage property and to
dispose of the same by acts inter vivos
 Civil interdiction is an accessory penalty to
the following principal penalties:
 Death if commuted to life imprisonment;
 Reclusion perpetua
 Reclusion temporal
E. Indemnification or Confiscation of
Instruments or Proceeds of the Offense
 This is included in every penalty for the
commission of the crime.
 The confiscation is in favor of the
government.
 Property of a third person not liable for the
offense is not subject to confiscation.
 If the trial court did not order any
confiscation of the procees of the crime, the
Chapter VI. PENALTIES
government cannot appeal from the
confiscation as that would increase the
penalty already imposed. 86
CRIMINAL LAW 1
F. Payment of Costs
 Includes:
 Fees, and
 Indemnities, in the course of judicial
proceedings.
 Costs may be fixed amounts already
determined by law or regulations or amounts
subject to a schedule.
 If the accused is convicted; costs may be
charged against him.
 If he is acquitted, costs are de officio,
meaning each party bears his own expense.
V. Measures Not Considered Penalty
RPC, Art. 24. Measures of prevention or safety
which are nor considered penalties.
 The following shall not be considered as
penalties:
1) The arrest and temporary detention of
accused persons, as well as their detention
by reason of insanity or imbecility, or illness
requiring their confinement in a hospital.
2) The commitment of a minor to any of the
institutions mentioned in Article 80 and for
the purposes specified therein.
3) Suspension from the employment of public
office during the trial or in order to institute
proceedings.
4) Fines and other corrective measures which,
in the exercise of their administrative
disciplinary powers, superior officials may
impose upon their subordinates.
5) Deprivation of rights and the reparations
which the civil laws may establish in penal
form.
 They are not penalties because they are not
imposed as a result of judicial proceedings.
 Those mentioned in par. 3 and 4 are merely
preventive measures before conviction of
offenders.
 The commitment of a minor mentioned in
par. 2 is not a penalty because it is not
imposed by the court in a judgment of
conviction.
 The imposition of the sentence in such case
is suspended.
 The succeeding provisions are some
examples of deprivation of rights established
in penal form:
Family Code, Art. 228. Parental authority terminates
permanently:
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
(1) Upon the death of the parents;
(2) Upon the death of the child; or
(3) Upon emancipation of the child. (327a)
Family Code, Art. 229. Unless subsequently revived
by a final judgment, parental authority also terminates:
1. Upon adoption of the child;
2. Upon appointment of a general guardian;
3. Upon judicial declaration of abandonment of the
child in a case filed for the purpose;
4. Upon final judgment of a competent court
divesting the party concerned of parental
authority; or
5. Upon judicial declaration of absence or incapacity
of the person exercising parental authority.
(327a)
VI. Application and Computation of
Penalties
Art. 28. Computation of penalties. — If the offender
shall be in prison, the term of the duration of the
temporary penalties shall be computed from the day
on which the judgment of conviction shall have
become final.
If the offender be not in prison,
the term of the duration of the penalty consisting of
deprivation of liberty shall be computed from the day
that the offender is placed at the disposal of the
judicial authorities for the enforcement of the penalty.
The duration of the other penalties shall be computed
only from the day on which the defendant commences
to serve his sentence.
COMPUTATION OF PENALTIES:
1) WHEN THE OFFENDER IS IN PRISON –
the duration of temporary penalties is from
the day on which the judgment of conviction
becomes final.
2) WHEN THE OFFENDER IS NOT IN
PRISON – the duration of penalty consisting
in deprivation of liberty, is from the day that
the offender is placed at the disposal of
judicial authorities for the enforcement of the
penalty.
3) THE DURATION OF OTHER PENALTIES –
the duration is from the day on which the
offender commences to serve his sentence
 Examples of temporary penalties:
1) Temporary absolute disqualification
2) Temporary special disqualification
3) Suspension
 If offender is under detention, as when he is
undergoing preventive imprisonment, Rule
No. 1 applies.
 If not under detention, because the offender
has been released on bail, Rule No. 3
applies.
Chapter VI. PENALTIES
 Examples of penalties consisting in
deprivation of liberty: 87
1) Imprisonment
CRIMINAL LAW 1
2) Destierro
 When the offender is not in prison, Rule No.
2 applies.
 If the offender is undergoing preventive
imprisonment, Rule No. 3 applies but the
offender is entitled to a deduction of full time
or 4/5 of the time of his detention.
Art. 29. Period of preventive imprisonment
deducted from term of imprisonment.
Offenders who have undergone preventive
imprisonment
shall be credited in the service of their sentence
consisting of deprivation of liberty,
with the full time during which they have undergone
preventive imprisonment,
if the detention prisoner agrees voluntarily in writing to
abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon
convicted prisoners,
except in the following cases:
a. When they are recidivists or have been convicted
previously twice or more times of any crime; and
b. When upon being summoned for the execution of
their sentence they have failed to surrender
voluntarily.
If the detention prisoner does not agree to abide by
the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted
prisoners,
he shall be credited in the service of his sentence with
four-fifths of the time during which he has undergone
preventive imprisonment. (As amended by Republic
Act 6127, June 17, 1970).
Whenever an accused has undergone preventive
imprisonment
 for a period equal to or more than the possible
maximum imprisonment of the offense charged to
which he may be sentenced
 and his case is not yet terminated,
he shall be released immediately without prejudice to
the continuation of the trial thereof or the proceeding
on appeal,
if the same is under review.
In case the maximum penalty to which the accused
may be sentenced is destierro, he shall be released
after thirty (30) days of preventive imprisonment. (As
amended by E.O. No. 214, July 10, 1988).
 The accused undergoes preventive
imprisonment when the offense charged is
nonbailable, or even if bailable, he cannot
furnish the required bail.
 The convict is to be released immediately if
the penalty imposed after trial is less than
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
the full time or four-fifths of the time of the
preventive imprisonment.
 The accused shall be released immediately
whenever he has undergone preventive
imprisonment for a period equal to or more
than the possible maximum imprisonment
for the offense charged.
(Asked 4 times in the Bar Exams)
Art. 46. Penalty to be imposed upon principals in
general. — The penalty prescribed by law for the
commission of a felony shall be imposed upon the
principals in the commission of such felony.
Whenever the law prescribes a penalty for a felony is
general terms, it shall be understood as applicable to
the consummated felony.
 GENERAL RULE: The penalty prescribed
by law in general terms shall be imposed:
 Upon the principals
 For consummated felony
 EXCEPTION: The exception is when the
penalty to be imposed upon the principal in
frustrated or attempted felony is fixed by
law.
 Whenever it is believed that the penalty
lower by one or two degrees corresponding
to said acts of execution is not in proportion
to the wrong done, the law fixes a distinct
penalty for the principal in frustrated or
attempted felony.
 The graduation of penalties by degrees
refers to STAGES OF EXECUTION
(consummated, frustrated or attempted) and
to the DEGREE OF THE CRIMINAL
PARTICIPATION OF THE OFFENDER
(whether as principal, accomplice or
accessory)
 The division of a divisible penalty into three
periods, as maximum, medium and
minimum, refers to the proper period of the
penalty which should be imposed when
aggravating or mitigating circumstances
attend the commission of the crime.
People v. Formigones (1950):: The accused without
a previous quarrel or provocation took his bolo and
stabbed his wife in the back resulting to the latter’s
death. The accused was sentenced to the penalty of
reclusion perpetua.
Held:
The penalty applicable for parricide under Art. 246 of
the RPC is composed only of 2 indivisible penalties,
reclusion perpetua to death. Although the commission
of the act is attended by some mitigating
circumstance without any aggravating circumstance to
Chapter VI. PENALTIES
offset them, Art. 63 of the RPC should be applied. The
said article provides that when the commission of the
act is attended by some mitigating circumstance and 88
there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser
CRIMINAL LAW 1
penalty shall be applied.
 Principals, Accomplices and Accessories
in Consummated, Frustrated and
Attempted Felonies.
Art. 46. Penalty to be imposed upon principals in
general.
The penalty prescribed by law for the commission of a
felony shall be imposed upon the principals in the
commission of such felony.
Whenever the law prescribes a penalty for a felony is
general terms, it shall be understood as applicable to
the consummated felony.
Art. 50. Penalty to be imposed upon principals of
a frustrated crime.
The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed
by law for the consummated felony shall be imposed
upon the principal in a frustrated felony.
Art. 51. Penalty to be imposed upon principals of
attempted crimes.
A penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed
by law for the consummated felony shall be imposed
upon the principals in an attempt to commit a felony.
Art. 52. Penalty to be imposed upon accomplices
in consummated crime.
The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed
by law for the consummated shall be imposed upon
the accomplices in the commission of a consummated
felony.
Art. 53. Penalty to be imposed upon accessories
to the commission of a consummated felony.
The penalty lower by two degrees than that
prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall
be imposed upon the accessories to the commission
of a consummated felony.
Art. 54. Penalty to imposed upon accomplices in a
frustrated crime.
The penalty next lower in degree than prescribed by
law for the frustrated felony shall be imposed upon the
accomplices in the commission of a frustrated felony.
Art. 55. Penalty to be imposed upon accessories
of a frustrated crime.
The penalty lower by two degrees than that
prescribed by law for the frustrated felony shall be
imposed upon the accessories to the commission of a
frustrated felony.
Art. 56. Penalty to be imposed upon accomplices
in an attempted crime.
The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed
by law for an attempt to commit a felony shall be
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Chapter VI. PENALTIES

imposed upon the accomplices in an attempt to  A DEGREE is one entire penalty, one whole
commit the felony. penalty or one unit of the penalties
Art. 57. Penalty to be imposed upon accessories enumerated in the graduated scales 89
of an attempted crime. provided for in Art. 71.

The penalty lower by two degrees than that
prescribed by law for the attempted felony shall be
imposed upon the accessories to the attempt to
commit a felony.
CRIMINAL LAW 1
 Each of the penalties of reclusion perpetua,
reclusion temporal, prision mayor, etc.,
enumerated in the graduated scales of Art.
71 is a degree.

 When there is a mitigating or aggravating

CONSUMMATED

circumstance, the penalty is lowered or

FRUSTRATED
ATTEMPTED

DIAGRAM OF THE APPLICATION increased by PERIOD only,

OF ARTS. 50-57:
 EXCEPT when the penalty is divisible and
there are two or more mitigating and without
aggravating circumstances, in which case
the penalty is lowered by degree.
PRINCIPALS 0 1 2
ACCOMPLICES 1 2 3  A PERIOD is one of the three equal portions
called the minimum, medium and maximum
ACCESSORIES 2 3 4 of a divisible penalty.

 “0” represents the penalty prescribed by law  GENERAL RULE: An accomplice is

in defining a crime, which is to be imposed
on the PRINCIPAL in a CONSUMMATED
OFFENSE, in accordance with the
provisions of Art. 46.
 The other figures represent the degrees to
which the penalty must be lowered, to meet
the different situation anticipated by law.
 EXCEPTIONS: Arts. 50 to 57 shall not apply
to cases where the law expressly prescribes
the penalty for frustrated or attempted
felony, or to be imposed upon accomplices
or accessories.
punished by a penalty one degree lower
than the penalty imposed upon the principal.
 EXCEPTIONS:
 The ascendants, guardians, curators,
teachers and any person who, by abuse
of authority or confidential relationship,
shall cooperate as accomplices in the
crimes of rape, acts of lasciviousness,
seduction, corruption of minors, white
slate trade or abduction. (Art. 346)
 One who furnished the place for the
perpetration of the crime of slight illegal
detention. (Art. 268)

Art. 60. Exception to the rules established in General rule: An accessory is punished by a
Articles 50 to 57. penalty two degrees lower than the penalty
The provisions contained in Articles 50 to 57, imposed upon the principal.
inclusive, of this Code
shall not be applicable to cases in which the law Exception: When accessory is punished as
expressly prescribes the penalty provided for a principal – knowingly concealing certain evil
frustrated or attempted felony, or to be imposed upon practices is ordinarily an act of the accessory,
accomplices or accessories.
but in Art. 142, such act is punished as the act of
the principal.
 BASES FOR THE DETERMINATION OF
THE EXTENT OF PENALTY:  When accessories are punished with a
 The stage reached by the crime in its penalty one degree lower:
development (either attempted,  Knowingly using counterfeited seal or
frustrated or consummated) forged signature or stamp of the
 The participation therein of the person President (Art. 162).
liable.  Illegal possession and use of a false
 The aggravating or mitigating treasury or bank note (Art. 168).
circumstances which attended the  Using falsified document (Art. 173 par.3)
commission of the crime.  Using falsified dispatch (Art. 173 par. 2)
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Art. 61. Rules for graduating penalties.
For the purpose of graduating the penalties which,
according to the provisions of Articles 50 to 57,
inclusive, of this Code, are to be imposed upon
persons guilty as principals of any frustrated or
attempted felony, or as accomplices or accessories,
the following rules shall be observed:
1) When the penalty prescribed for the felony is
single and indivisible, the penalty next lower in
degrees shall be that immediately following that
indivisible penalty in the respective graduated
scale prescribed in Article 71 of this Code.
2) When the penalty prescribed for the crime is
composed of two indivisible penalties, or of one
or more divisible penalties to be impose to their
full extent, the penalty next lower in degree shall
be that immediately following the lesser of the
penalties prescribed in the respective graduated
scale.
3) When the penalty prescribed for the crime is
composed of one or two indivisible penalties and
the maximum period of another divisible penalty,
the penalty next lower in degree shall be
composed of the medium and minimum periods
of the proper divisible penalty and the maximum
periods of the proper divisible penalty and the
maximum period of that immediately following in
said respective graduated scale.
4) When the penalty prescribed for the crime is
composed of several periods, corresponding to
different divisible penalties, the penalty next lower
in degree shall be composed of the period
immediately following the minimum prescribed
and of the two next following, which shall be
taken from the penalty prescribed, if possible;
otherwise from the penalty immediately following
in the above mentioned respective graduated
scale.
5) When the law prescribes a penalty for a crime in
some manner not especially provided for in the
four preceding rules, the courts, proceeding by
analogy, shall impose corresponding penalties
upon those guilty as principals of the frustrated
felony, or of attempt to commit the same, and
upon accomplices and accessories.
 This article provides for the rules to be
observed in lowering the penalty by one or
two degrees:
 For the principal in frustrated felony 
one degree lower;
 For the principal in attempted felony 
two degrees lower;
 For the accomplice in consummated
felony  one degree lower; and
 For the accessory in consummated
felony  two degrees lower.
 The rules provided for in Art. 61 should also
apply in determining the MINIMUM of the
indeterminate penalty under the
Indeterminate Sentence Law.
Chapter VI. PENALTIES
 The MINIMUM of the indeterminate penalty
is within the range of the penalty next lower
than that prescribed by the RPC for the 90
offense.
CRIMINAL LAW 1
 Those rules also apply in lowering the
penalty by one or two degrees by reason of
the presence of privileged mitigating
circumstance (Arts. 68 and 69),
 or when the penalty is divisible and there are
two or more mitigating circumstances
(generic) and no aggravating circumstance
(Art. 64).
 The lower penalty shall be taken from the
graduated scale in Art. 71.
The INDIVISIBLE PENALTIES are:
a. death
b. reclusion perpetua
c. public censure
The DIVISIBLE PENALTIES are:
a. reclusion temporal
b. prision mayor
c. prision correccional
d. arresto mayor
e. destierro
f. arresto menor
The divisible penalties are divided into three periods:
MINIMUM, MEDIUM AND THE MAXIMUM
 FIRST RULE: When the penalty is single
and indivisible.
 Ex. reclusion perpetua
 The penalty immediately following it is
reclusion temporal.
 Thus, reclusion temporal is the penalty
next lower in degree.
 SECOND RULE (a): When the penalty is
composed of two indivisible penalties
 Ex. reclusion perpetua to death
 The penalty immediately following the
lesser of the penalties, which is
reclusion perpetua, is reclusion
temporal.
 SECOND RULE (b): When the penalty is
composed of one or more divisible penalties
to be imposed to their full extent
 Ex. prision correccional to prision mayor
 The penalty immediately following the
lesser of the penalties of prision
correccional to prision mayor is arresto
mayor.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Chapter VI. PENALTIES

 THIRD RULE (a): When the penalty is  If the penalty is any one of the three
composed of two indivisible penalties and periods of a divisible penalty, the penalty
the maximum period of a divisible penalty next lower in degree shall be that period 91
 Ex. reclusion temporal in its MAXIMUM next following the given penalty.

CRIMINAL LAW 1
period to death  The penalty immediately inferior is
prision mayor in its MEDIUM period.
Death Penalty for the
Reclusion principal in SIMPLIFIED RULES:
Perpetua consummated murder
The rules prescribed in pars. 4 and 5 of Art. 61 may
Maximum
be simplified as follows:
Reclusion Medium Penalty for accomplice;
1. If the penalty prescribed by the Code consists in
Temporal Minimum or for principal in
3 periods, corresponding to different divisible
Maximum frustrated murder
penalties, the penalty next lower in degree is the
Prision Medium penalty consisting in the 3 periods down in the
Mayor Minimum scale.
2. If the penalty prescribed by the Code consists in
 THIRD RULE (b): When the penalty is 2 periods, the penalty next lower in degree is the
composed of one indivisible penalty and the penalty consisting in 2 periods down in the scale.
maximum period of a divisible penalty. 3. If the penalty prescribed by the Code consists in
only 1 period, the penalty next lower in degree is
 Ex. Reclusion temporal in its MAXIMUM the next period down in the scale.
period to Reclusion perpetua
 The same rule shall be observed in  Effects of Mitigating and Aggravating
lowering the penalty by one or two Circumstances
degrees.
Art. 62. Effect of the attendance of mitigating or
 FOURTH RULE: When the penalty is aggravating circumstances and of habitual
composed of several periods. delinquency.
 Ex. Prision Mayor in its MEDIUM period Mitigating or aggravating circumstances and habitual
to Reclusion temporal in its MINIMUM delinquency shall be taken into account for the
period. purpose of diminishing or increasing the penalty in
 This rule contemplates a penalty conformity with the following rules:
1) Aggravating circumstances which in themselves
composed of at least 3 periods.
constitute a crime specially punishable by law or
 The several periods must correspond to which are included by the law in defining a crime
different divisible penalties. and prescribing the penalty therefor shall not be
taken into account for the purpose of increasing
Maximum the penalty.
Reclusion
Medium 2) The same rule shall apply with respect to any
temporal
Minimum Penalty for the principal aggravating circumstance inherent in the crime to
Maximum in the consummated such a degree that it must of necessity
Prision felony accompany the commission thereof.
Medium
Mayor 3) Aggravating or mitigating circumstances which
Minimum Penalty for the
Maximum accomplice; or principal arise from the moral attributes of the offender, or
Prision in frustrated felony from his private relations with the offended party,
Medium
Correccional or from any other personal cause, shall only
Minimum
serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of the
 FIFTH RULE (a): When the penalty has two
principals, accomplices and accessories as to
periods whom such circumstances are attendant.
 Ex. Prision correccional in its MINIMUM 4) The circumstances which consist in the material
and MEDIUM periods execution of the act, or in the means employed to
accomplish it, shall serve to aggravate or mitigate
Maximum the liability of those persons only who had
Prision knowledge of them at the time of the execution of
Medium The penalty prescribed for
correccional the act or their cooperation therein.
Minimum the felony
Maximum 5) Habitual delinquency shall have the following
Arresto Mayor Medium The penalty next lower effects:
Minimum (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
 FIFTH RULE (b): When the penalty has one and to the additional penalty of prision
period. correccional in its medium and maximum
 Ex. Prision Mayor in its MAXIMUM periods;
period (b) Upon a fourth conviction, the culprit shall be
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
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
6) 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.
7) 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.
 What are the effects of the attendance of
mitigating or aggravating
circumstances?
1) Aggravating circumstances which are
not considered for the purpose of
increasing the penalty:
 Those which in themselves
constitute a crime especially
punishable by law.
 Those included by law in defining
the crime.
 Those inherent in the crime but of
necessity they accompany the
commission thereof.
2) Aggravating or mitigating circumstances
that serve to aggravate or mitigate the
liability of the offender to whom such are
attendant. Those arising from:
 Moral attributes of the offender
 His private relations with the
offended party
 Any other personal cause
3) Aggravating or mitigating circumstances
that affect the offenders only who had
knowledge of them at the time of the
execution of the act or their cooperation
therein.
 What are the legal effects of habitual
delinquency?
 Third conviction. The culprit is
sentenced to the penalty for the crime
committed and to the additional penalty
of prision correccional in its medium and
maximum period.
 Fourth conviction. The penalty is that
provided by law for the last crime and
the additional penalty of prision mayor in
its minimum and medium periods.
Chapter VI. PENALTIES
 Fifth or additional conviction. The
penalty is that provided by law for the
last crime and the additional penalty of 92
prision mayor in its maximum period to
CRIMINAL LAW 1
reclusion temporal in its minimum
period.
 Note:
 In no case shall the total of the 2
penalties imposed upon the offender
exceed 30 years.
 The law does not apply to crimes
described in Art. 155.
 The imposition of the additional penalty
on habitual delinquents are
CONSTITUTIONAL because such law is
neither an EX POST FACTO LAW nor
an additional punishment for future
crimes.
 It is simply a punishment on future
crimes on account of the criminal
propensities of the accused.
 The imposition of such additional
penalties is mandatory and is not
discretionary.
 Habitual delinquency applies at any
stage of the execution because
subjectively, the offender reveals the
same degree of depravity or perversity
as the one who commits a
consummated crime.
 It applies to all participants because it
reveals persistence in them of the
inclination to wrongdoing and of the
perversity of character that led them to
commit the previous crime.
 Cases where attending aggravating or
mitigating circumstances are not
considered in the imposition of penalties
1) Penalty that is single and indivisible
2) Felonies through negligence
3) When the penalty is a fine
4) When the penalty is prescribed by a
special law.
(Asked 3 times in the Bar Exams)
Art. 63. Rules for the application of indivisible
penalties.
1) In all cases in which the law prescribes a single
indivisible penalty,
2) it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any
mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may
have attended the commission of the deed.
3) In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty
composed of two indivisible penalties,
4) the following rules shall be observed in the
application thereof:
a) When in the commission of the deed there is
present only one aggravating circumstance,
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Chapter VI. PENALTIES

the greater penalty shall be applied. present in the commission of the act, they
b) When there are neither mitigating nor shall impose the penalty in its maximum
aggravating circumstances and there is no period. 93
aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty iv. When both mitigating and aggravating

CRIMINAL LAW 1
shall be applied. circumstances are present, the court shall
c) When the commission of the act is attended reasonably offset those of one class against
by some mitigating circumstances and there the other according to their relative weight.
is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser v. When there are two or more mitigating
penalty shall be applied. circumstances and no aggravating
d) When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall
circumstances attended the commission of impose the penalty next lower to that
the act, the court shall reasonably allow prescribed by law, in the period that it may
them to offset one another in consideration deem applicable, according to th7e number
of their number and importance, for the and nature of such circumstances.
purpose of applying the penalty in vi. Whatever may be the number and nature of
accordance with the preceding rules, the aggravating circumstances, the courts
according to the result of such shall not impose a greater penalty than that
compensation. prescribed by law, in its maximum period.
vii. Within the limits of each period, the court
 Rules for the application of indivisible shall determine the extent of the penalty
penalties: according to the number and nature of the
aggravating and mitigating circumstances
a. Penalty is single and indivisible
and the greater and lesser extent of the evil
i. The penalty shall be applied produced by the crime.
regardless of the presence of
mitigating or aggravating  Rules for the application of DIVISIBLE
circumstances. PENALTIES
ii. Ex. reclusion perpetua or death 1) No aggravating and No mitigating:
b. Penalty is composed of 2 indivisible MEDIUM PERIOD
penalties: 2) One mitigating: MINIMUM PERIOD
a) One aggravating circumstance 3) One aggravating: (any number cannot
present: HIGHER penalty exceed the penalty provided by law in its
b) No mitigating circumstances maximum period): MAXIMUM PERIOD
present: LESSER penalty 4) Mitigating and aggravating
c) Some mitigating circumstances circumstances present:
present and no aggravating:
 to offset each other according to
LESSER penalty
relative weight
d) Mitigating and aggravating 5) 2 or more mitigating and no
circumstances offset each other aggravating:
 Basis of penalty: number and
 one degree lower (has the effect of
importance.
a privileged mitigating circumstance)
(Asked 2 times in the Bar Exams)
 NOTE: Art. 64 does not apply to:
Art. 64. Rules for the application of penalties
which contain three periods. 1) indivisible penalties
1) In cases in which the penalties prescribed by law 2) penalties prescribed by special laws
contain three periods, 3) fines
2) whether it be a single divisible penalty or 4) crimes committed by negligence
composed of three different penalties, (Asked 3 times in the Bar Exams)
3) each one of which forms a period in accordance
with the provisions of Articles 76 and 77, Art. 67. Penalty to be imposed when not all the
4) the court shall observe for the application of the requisites of exemption of the fourth
penalty the following rules, according to whether circumstance of Article 12 are present.
there are or are not mitigating or aggravating When all the conditions required in circumstances
circumstances: Number 4 of Article 12 of this Code to exempt from
i. When there are neither aggravating nor criminal liability are not present,
mitigating circumstances, they shall impose
the penalty prescribed by law in its medium the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to
period. prision correccional in its minimum period shall be
ii. When only a mitigating circumstances is imposed upon the culprit if he shall have been guilty
present in the commission of the act, they of a grave felony,
shall impose the penalty in its minimum and arresto mayor in its minimum and medium
period. periods, if of a less grave felony.
iii. When an aggravating circumstance is
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
 Penalty to be imposed if the requisites of
accident (Art. 12 par 4) are not all
present:
a) GRAVE FELONY: arresto mayor
maximum period to prision correccional
minimum period
b) LESS GRAVE FELONY: arresto mayor
minimum period and medium period
Art. 69. Penalty to be imposed when the crime
committed is not wholly excusable.
A penalty lower by one or two degrees than that
prescribed by law shall be imposed if the deed is not
wholly excusable by reason of the lack of some of the
conditions required to justify the same or to exempt
from criminal liability in the several cases mentioned
in Article 11 and 12, provided that the majority of such
conditions be present. The courts shall impose the
penalty in the period which may be deemed proper, in
view of the number and nature of the conditions of
exemption present or lacking.
 Penalty to be imposed when the crime
committed is not wholly excusable:
 One or two degrees lower
 if the majority of the conditions for
justification or exemption in the cases
provided in Arts. 11 and 12 are present.
People v. Lacanilao (1988): The CFI found the
accused, a policeman, guilty of homicide. On appeal
before the CA, the CA found that the accused acted in
the performance of a duty but that the shooting of the
victim was not the necessary consequence of the due
performance thereof, therefore crediting to him the
mitigating circumstance consisting of the incomplete
justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty. The CA
lowered the penalty merely by one period applying
Art. 64 (2) appreciating incomplete fulfillment of duty
as a mere generic mitigating circumstance lowering
the penalty to minimum period.
Held:
CA erred because incomplete fulfillment of duty is a
privileged mitigating circumstance which not only
cannot be offset by aggravating circumstances but
also reduces the penalty by one or two degrees than
that prescribed b law. The governing provision is Art.
69 of the RPC.
VII. Special Rules for Certain Situations
A. Complex Crimes
Monteverde v. People (2002):
Monteverde was purportedly charged with the
complex crime of estafa through falsification of a
commercial document for allegedly falsifying the
document she had submitted to show that the money
donated by PAGCOR was used and spent for lighting
materials for her barangay.
Chapter VI. PENALTIES
Held:
Under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, a
complex crime refers to: 94
1) the commission of at least two grave or less
CRIMINAL LAW 1
grave felonies that must both (or all) be the result
of a single act, or
2) one offense must be a necessary means for
committing the other (or others).
Using the above guidelines, the acts cannot constitute
a complex crime.
Specifically, the alleged actions showing falsification
of a public and/or a commercial document
were not necessary to commit estafa.
Neither were the two crimes the result of a single act.
People v. Gonzalez (Supra):
Both of the families of Andres and that of Gonzalez
were on their way to the exit of the Loyola Memorial
Park.
Gonzales was driving with his grandson and 3
housemaids, while Andres was driving with his
pregnant wife, Feliber, his 2yr old son, Kenneth, his
nephew Kevin and his sister-in-law.
At an intersection, their two vehicles almost collided.
Gonzales continued driving while Andres tailed
Gonzales’ vehicle and cut him off when he found the
opportunity to do so, then got out of his vehicle and
knocked on the appellant's car window.
Heated exchange of remarks followed. On his way
back to his vehicle, he met Gonzales son, Dino.
Andres had a shouting match this time with Dino.
Gonzales then alighted from his car and fired a single
shot at the last window on the left side of Andres'
vehicle at an angle away from Andres.
The single bullet fired hit Kenneth, Kevin and Feliber
which caused the latter’s death.
Held:
The rules on the imposition of penalties for complex
crimes under Art. 48 of the Revised Penal Code are
not applicable in this case.
Art. 48 applies if a single act constitutes two or more
grave and less grave felonies or when an offense is a
necessary means of committing another;
in such a case, the penalty for the most serious
offense shall be imposed in its maximum period.
Considering that the offenses committed by the act of
the appellant of firing a single shot are:
one count of homicide, a grave felony, and two counts
of slight physical injuries, a light felony,
the rules on the imposition of penalties for complex
crimes, which requires two or more grave and/or less
grave felonies, will not apply.
People v. Comadre (2004):
Robert Agbanlog, Wabe, Bullanday, Camat and
Eugenio were having a drinking spree on the terrace
of the house of Robert’s father, Jaime Agbanlog.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Jaime was seated on the banister of the terrace
listening to the conversation of the companions of his
son.
As the drinking session went on, Robert and the
others noticed appellants George and Antonio
Comadre and Lozano walking. The 3 stopped in front
of the house.
While his companions looked on, Antonio suddenly
lobbed a hand grenade which fell on the roof of the
terrace. Appellants immediately fled.
The hand grenade exploded ripping a hole in the roof
of the house. Robert died while his father, Jaime,
Wabe, Camat, and Bullanday sustained shrapnel
injuries.
Held:
Antonio is guilty of the complex crime of murder with
multiple attempted murder under Article 48 of the
Revised Penal Code.
The underlying philosophy of complex crimes in the
Revised Penal Code, which follows the pro reo
principle, is intended to favor the accused by imposing
a single penalty irrespective of the crimes committed.
The rationale being, that the accused who commits
two crimes with single criminal impulse demonstrates
lesser perversity than when the crimes are committed
by different acts and several criminal resolutions.
The single act by appellant of detonating a hand
grenade may quantitatively constitute a cluster of
several separate and distinct offenses,
yet these component criminal offenses should be
considered only as a single crime in law on which a
single penalty is imposed
because the offender was impelled by a “single
criminal impulse” which shows his lesser degree of
perversity.
People v. Delos Santos (2001):
Glenn Delos Santos and his 3 friends went to
Bukidnon on his Isuzu Elf truck.
On their way, they decided to pass by a restaurant
where Glenn had 3 bottles of beer.
From Bukidnon to Cagayan de Oro City, Glenn’s truck
hit, bumped, seriously wounded and claimed the lives
of several members of the PNP who were undergoing
an endurance run on a highway wearing black shirts
and shorts and green combat shoes.
Twelve trainees were killed on the spot, 12 were
seriously wounded, 1 of whom eventually died and 10
sustained minor injuries.
At the time of the occurrence, the place of the incident
was very dark as there was no moon. Neither were
there lamposts that illuminated the highway.
The trial court convicted Glenn of the complex crime
of multiple murder, multiple frustrated murder and
multiple attempted murder, with the use of motor
vehicle as the qualifying circumstance.
Held:
Chapter VI. PENALTIES
Considering that the incident was not a product of a
malicious intent but rather the result of a single act of
reckless driving, 95
Glenn should be held guilty of the complex crime of
CRIMINAL LAW 1
reckless imprudence resulting in multiple homicide
with serious physical injuries and less serious physical
injuries.
The slight physical injuries caused by Glenn to the ten
other victims through reckless imprudence, would,
had they been intentional, have constituted light
felonies.
Being light felonies, which are not covered by Article
48, they should be treated and punished as separate
offenses.
Separate informations should have, therefore, been
filed.
People v. Velasquez (2000):
Velasquez, poked a toy gun and forced Karen to go
with her at his grandmother’s house.
Out of fear and not knowing that the gun that
Velasquez was holding is a mere toy, Karen went with
Velasquez.
Velasquez then raped Karen twice.
The trial court convicted Velasquez of two counts of
rape.
Held:
Considering that Velasquez forcibly abducted Karen
and then raped her twice, he should be convicted of
the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape and
simple rape.
The penalty for complex crimes is the penalty for the
most serious crime which shall be imposed in its
maximum period.
Rape is the more serious of the two crimes and is
punishable with reclusion perpetua under Article 266-
A of the Revised Penal Code and since reclusion
perpetua is a single indivisible penalty, it shall be
imposed as it is.
The subsequent rape committed by Velasquez can no
longer be considered as a separate complex crime of
forcible abduction with rape
but only as a separate act of rape punishable by
reclusion perpetua.
B. Crimes Different from That Intended
 Impossible Crimes (supra)
 Plural Crimes (supra)
 Additional Penalty for Certain
Accessories
Art. 58. Additional penalty to be imposed upon
certain accessories.
Those accessories falling within the terms of
paragraphs 3 of Article 19 of this Code
who should act with abuse of their public functions,
shall suffer the additional penalty of
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
 absolute perpetual disqualification if the principal
offender shall be guilty of a grave felony, and that
 of absolute temporary disqualification if he shall
be guilty of a less grave felony.
 Absolute perpetual disqualification if the
principal offender is guilty of a grave felony.
 Absolute temporary disqualification if the
principal offender is guilt of less grave
felony.
C. Where the Offender Is Below 18 Years
Art. 68. Penalty to be imposed upon a person
under eighteen years of age.
When the offender is a minor under eighteen years
and his case is one coming under the provisions of
the paragraphs next to the last of Article 80 of this
Code,
the following rules shall be observed:
1) Upon a person under fifteen but over nine years
of age, who is not exempted from liability by
reason of the court having declared that he acted
with discernment, a discretionary penalty shall be
imposed, but always lower by two degrees at
least than that prescribed by law for the crime
which he committed.
2) Upon a person over fifteen and under eighteen
years of age the penalty next lower than that
prescribed by law shall be imposed, but always in
the proper period.
PD No. 603. ART. 192. Suspension of Sentence
and Commitment of Youthful Offender.
1) If after hearing the evidence in the proper
proceedings, the court should find that the
youthful offender has committed the acts charged
against him
2) the court shall determine the imposable penalty,
including any civil liability chargeable against him.
3) However, instead of pronouncing judgment of
conviction, the court shall suspend all further
proceedings and shall commit such minor to the
custody or care of the Department of Social
Welfare, or to any training institution
4) until he shall have reached twenty-one years of
age or, for a shorter period as the court may
deem proper,
5) after considering the reports and
recommendations of the Department of Social
Welfare or the agency or responsible individual
under whose care he has been committed.
The youthful offender shall be subject to visitation and
supervision
by a representative of the Department of Social
Welfare or any duly licensed agency or such other
officer as the court may designate subject to such
conditions as it may prescribe.
 Art. 68 applies to such minor if his
application for suspension of sentence is
Chapter VI. PENALTIES
disapproved or if while in the reformatory
institution he becomes incorrigible in which
case he shall be returned to the court for the 96
imposition of the proper penalty.
CRIMINAL LAW 1
 9 to 15 years only with discernment: at least
2 degrees lower.
 15 to 18 years old: penalty next lower
 Art. 68 provides for two of the PRIVILEGED
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
 If the act is attended by two or more
mitigating and no aggravating circumstance,
the penalty being divisible, a minor over 15
but under 18 years old may still get a
penalty two degrees lower.
(Asked once in the Bar Exams)
D. The Three-Fold Rule
Art. 70. Successive service of sentence.
When the culprit has to serve two or more penalties,
he shall serve them simultaneously if the nature of the
penalties will so permit otherwise, the following rules
shall be observed:
In the imposition of the penalties,
the order of their respective severity shall be followed
so that they may be executed successively
or as nearly as may be possible, should a pardon
have been granted as to the penalty or penalties first
imposed, or should they have been served out.
For the purpose of applying the provisions of the next
preceding paragraph
the respective severity of the penalties shall be
determined in accordance with the following scale:
1. Death,
2. Reclusion perpetua,
3. Reclusion temporal,
4. Prision mayor,
5. Prision correccional,
6. Arresto mayor,
7. Arresto menor,
8. Destierro,
9. Perpetual absolute disqualification,
10. Temporal absolute disqualification.
11. Suspension from public office, the right to vote
and be voted for, the right to follow a profession
or calling, 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.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Chapter VI. PENALTIES

In applying the provisions of this rule the duration of  The three-fold rule applies only when the
perpetual penalties shall be computed at thirty years. convict has to serve at least four sentences.
(As amended).  All the penalties, even if by different courts 97
at different times, cannot exceed three-fold

CRIMINAL LAW 1
Outline of the provisions of this Article: the most severe.
 The Rules of Court specifically provide
1) When the culprit has to serve 2 or more that any information must not charge
penalties, he shall serve them more than one offense.
simultaneously if the nature of the penalties  Necessarily, the various offense
will so permit. punished with different penalties must
2) Otherwise, the order of their respective be charged under different informations
severity shall be followed. which may be filed in the same court or
 The respective severity of the penalties is in different courts, at the same time or at
as follows: different times.
a. Death (repealed)  Subsidiary imprisonment forms part of the
b. Reclusion perpetua penalty.
c. Reclusion temporal  Indemnity is a penalty.
d. Prision mayor  Court must impose all the penalties for all
e. Prision correccional the crimes of which the accused is found
f. Arresto mayor guilty,
g. Arresto menor  but in the service of the same, they shall not
h. Destierro exceed three times the most severe and
i. Perpetual absolute disqualification shall not exceed 40 years.
j. Temporary absolute disqualification
k. Suspension from public office, the right Mejorada v. Sandiganbayan (1987):
to vote, and be voted for, the right to The petitioner was convicted of violating Section 3(E)
follow profession or calling, and of RA No. 3019 aka the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
l. Public censure Practices Act.
 The penalties which can be One of the issues raised by the petitioner concerns
simultaneously served are: the penalty imposed by the Sandiganbayan which
1. Perpetual absolute disqualification totals 56 years and 8 days of imprisonment.
2. Perpetual special disqualification
He impugns this as contrary to the three-fold rule and
3. Temporary absolute disqualification insists that the duration of the aggregate penalties
4. Temporary special disqualification should not exceed 40 years.
5. Suspension
6. Destierro Held:
7. Public Censure Petitioner is mistaken in his application of the 3-fold
8. Fine and Bond to keep the peace rule as set forth in Art. 70 of the RPC.
9. Civil interdiction This article is to be taken into account not in the
10. Confiscation and payment of costs imposition of the penalty but in connection with
 The above penalties, except destierro, the service of the sentence imposed.
can be served simultaneously with Art. 70 speaks of “service” of sentence, “duration” of
imprisonment. penalty and penalty “to be inflicted”.
 Penalties consisting in deprivation of
Nowhere in the article is anything mentioned about
liberty cannot be served simultaneously the “imposition of penalty”.
by reason of the nature of such
penalties. It merely provides that the prisoner cannot be made to
serve more than three times the most severe of these
 Three-fold Rule: penalties the maximum which is 40 years.
8) The maximum duration of the convict’s (Asked once in the Bar Exams)
sentence
9) shall not be more than three times the  Where the Penalty Is Not Composed of 3
length of time Periods
10) corresponding to the most severe of the
Art. 65. Rule in cases in which the penalty is not
penalties imposed upon him.
composed of three periods.
In cases in which the penalty prescribed by law is not
 The phrase “the most severe of the composed of three periods,
penalties” includes equal penalties.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
the courts shall apply the rules contained in the
foregoing articles,
dividing into three equal portions of time included in
the penalty prescribed, and forming one period of
each of the three portions.
 Meaning of the Rule
a. Compute and determine first the 3
periods of the entire penalty.
b. The time included in the penalty
prescribed should be divided into 3
equal portions, after subtracting the
minimum (eliminate the 1 day) from the
maximum of the penalty.
c. The minimum of the minimum period
should be the minimum of the given
penalty (including the 1 day).
d. The quotient should be added to the
minimum prescribed (eliminate the 1
day) and the total will represent the
maximum of the minimum period.
 Take the maximum of the minimum
period, add 1 day and make it the
minimum of the medium period; then
add the quotient to the minimum
(eliminate the 1 day) of the medium
period and the total will represent
the maximum of the medium period.
 Take the maximum of the medium
period, add 1 day and make it the
minimum of the maximum period;
then add the quotient to the
minimum (eliminate the 1 day) of the
maximum period and the total will
represent the maximum of the
maximum period.
VIII. The Indeterminate Sentence Law
(ISL)
The Indeterminate Sentence is composed of:
1. A MAXIMUM taken from the penalty
imposable under the penal code
2. A MINIMUM taken from the penalty next
lower to that fixed in the code.
The law does not apply to certain offenders:
1. Persons convicted of offense punished with
death penalty or life imprisonment.
2. Those convicted of treason, conspiracy or
proposal to commit treason.
3. Those convicted of misprision of treason,
rebellion, sedition or espionage.
4. Those convicted of piracy.
5. Those who are habitual delinquents.
6. Those who shall have escaped from
confinement or evaded sentence.
Chapter VI. PENALTIES
7. Those who violated the terms of conditional
pardon granted to them by the Chief
Executive. 98
8. Those whose maximum term of
CRIMINAL LAW 1
imprisonment does not exceed one year.
9. Those who, upon the approval of the law,
had been sentenced by final judgment.
10. Those sentenced to the penalty of destierro
or suspension.
 Purpose of the law: to uplift and redeem
valuable human material and prevent
unnecessary and excessive deprivation of
liberty and economic usefulness.
 It is necessary to consider the criminal
first as an individual, and second as a
member of the society.
 The law is intended to favor the
defendant, particularly to shorten his
term of imprisonment, depending upon
his behavior and his physical, mental
and moral record as a prisoner, to be
determined by the Board of
Indeterminate Sentence.
 The settled practice is to give the accused
the benefit of the law even in crimes
punishable with death or life imprisonment
provided the resulting penalty, after
considering the attending circumstances, is
reclusion temporal or less.
 ISL does not apply to destierro. ISL is
expressly granted to those who are
sentenced to imprisonment exceeding 1
year.
PROCEDURE FOR DETERMING THE
MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM SENTENCE
1. It consists of a maximum and a minimum
instead of a single fixed penalty.
2. Prisoner must serve the minimum before he
is eligible for parole.
3. The period between the minimum and
maximum is indeterminate in the sense that
the prisoner may be exempted from serving
said indeterminate period in whole or in part.
4. The maximum is determined in any case
punishable under the RPC in accordance
with the rules and provisions of said code
exactly as if the ISL had never been
enacted.
5. Apply first the effect of privileged mitigating
circumstances then consider the effects of
aggravating and ordinary mitigating
circumstances.
6. The minimum depends upon the court’s
discretion with the limitation that it must be
within the range of the penalty next lower in
degree to that prescribed by the Code for
the offense committed.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Note: A minor who escaped from confinement in
the reformatory is entitled to the benefits of the
ISL because his confinement is not considered
imprisonment.
People v. Campuhan (supra):
The penalty for attempted rape is two (2) degrees
lower than the imposable penalty of death for the
offense charged, which is statutory rape of a minor
below seven (7) years.
Two (2) degrees lower is reclusion temporal, the
range of which is twelve (12) years and one (1) day to
twenty (20) years.
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and in the
absence of any mitigating or aggravating
circumstance,
the maximum of the penalty to be imposed upon the
accused shall be taken from the medium period of
reclusion temporal, the range of which is fourteen (14)
years, eight (8) months and (1) day to seventeen (17)
years and four (4) months,
while the minimum shall be taken from the penalty
next lower in degree, which is prision mayor, the
range of which is from six (6) years and one (1) day to
twelve (12) years, in any of its periods.
(ASKED 15 TIMES IN THE BAR EXAMS)
Art. 64. Rules for the application of penalties
which contain three periods.
In cases in which the penalties prescribed by law
contain three periods,
whether it be a single divisible penalty or composed of
three different penalties, each one of which forms a
period in accordance with the provisions of Articles 76
and 77,
the court shall observe for the application of the
penalty the following rules, according to whether there
are or are not mitigating or aggravating
circumstances:
a) When there are neither aggravating nor
mitigating circumstances, they shall impose the
penalty prescribed by law in its medium period.
b) When only a mitigating circumstance is present in
the commission of the act, they shall impose the
penalty in its minimum period.
c) When an aggravating circumstance is present in
the commission of the act, they shall impose the
penalty in its maximum period.
d) When both mitigating and aggravating
circumstances are present, the court shall
reasonably offset those of one class against the
other according to their relative weight.
e) When there are two or more mitigating
circumstances and no aggravating circumstances
are present, the court shall:
(d) impose the penalty next lower to that
prescribed by law,
(e) in the period that it may deem applicable,
(f) according to the number and nature of such
circumstances.
f) Whatever may be the number and nature of the
Chapter VI. PENALTIES
aggravating circumstances, the courts shall not
impose a greater penalty than that prescribed by
law, in its maximum period. 99
g) Within the limits of each period, the court shall
CRIMINAL LAW 1
determine the extent of the penalty according to
the number and nature of the aggravating and
mitigating circumstances and the greater and
lesser extent of the evil produced by the crime.
De la Cruz v. CA (1996):
In as much as the amount of P715k is P693k more
than the abovementioned benchmark of P22k, then
adding one year for each additional P10k,
the maximum period of 6 years, 8 months and 21
days to 8 years of prision mayor minimum would be
increased by 69 years, as computed by the trial court.
But the law categorically declares that the maximum
penalty then shall not exceed 20 years of reclusion
temporal.
Under the ISL, the minimum term of the indeterminate
penalt should be within the range of the penalty next
lower in degree to that prescribed b the Code for the
offense committed, which is prision correccional.
People v. Saley (supra):
Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
a) the maximum term of the penalty shall be "that
which, in view of the attending circumstances,
could be properly imposed" under the Revised
Penal Code,
b) and the minimum shall be "within the range of the
penalty next lower to that prescribed" for the
offense.
The penalty next lower should be based on the
penalty prescribed by the Code for the offense,
without first considering any modifying circumstance
attendant to the commission of the crime.
The determination of the minimum penalty is left by
law to the sound discretion of the court
and it can be anywhere within the range of the penalty
next lower without any reference to the periods into
which it might be subdivided.
The modifying circumstances are considered only
in the imposition of the maximum term of the
indeterminate sentence.
The fact that the amounts involved in the instant case
exceed P22,000.00 should not be considered in the
initial determination of the indeterminate penalty;
instead, the matter should be so taken as analogous
to modifying circumstances in the imposition of
the maximum term of the full indeterminate
sentence.
This interpretation of the law accords with the rule that
penal laws should be construed in favor of the
accused. Since the penalty prescribed by law for the
estafa charge against accused-appellant is prision
correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum, the
penalty next lower would then be prision correccional
minimum to medium. Thus, the minimum term of the
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
indeterminate sentence should be anywhere within six
(6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and two
(2) months.
IX. Execution and Service of Penalties
 Execution of Penalties
Art. 78. When and how a penalty is to be executed.
No penalty shall be executed except by virtue of a
final judgment.
A penalty shall not be executed in any other form than
that prescribed by law, nor with any other
circumstances or incidents than those expressly
authorized thereby.
In addition to the provisions of the law, the special
regulations prescribed for the government of the
institutions in which the penalties are to be suffered
shall be observed with regard to
 the character of the work to be performed,
 the time of its performance, and other incidents
connected therewith,
 the relations of the convicts among themselves
and other persons,
 the relief which they may receive, and
 their diet.
The regulations shall make provision for the
separation of the sexes in different institutions, or at
least into different departments and also for the
correction and reform of the convicts.
 The judgment must be final before it can be
executed, because the accused may still
appeal within 15 days from its promulgation.
 But if the defendant has expressly waived in
writing his right to appeal, the judgment
becomes final and executory.
 See Rules and regulations to implement RA
No. 8177 under Capital Punishment.
Art. 86. Reclusion perpetua, reclusion temporal,
prision mayor, prision correccional and arresto
mayor.
The penalties of reclusion perpetua, reclusion
temporal, prision mayor, prision correccional and
arresto mayor, shall be executed and served in the
places and penal establishments provided by the
Administrative Code in force or which may be
provided by law in the future.
Art. 87. Destierro.
Any person sentenced to destierro shall not be
permitted to enter the place or places designated in
the sentence,
nor within the radius therein specified,
which shall be not more than 250 and not less than 25
kilometers from the place designated.
Chapter VI. PENALTIES
 Convict shall not be permitted to enter the
place designated in the sentence nor within
the radius specified, 100
 which shall not more than 250 and not
CRIMINAL LAW 1
less than 25 km from the place
designated.
 If the convict enters the prohibited area, he
commits evasion of sentence.
 Destierro is imposed:
 When the death or serious physical
injuries is caused or are inflicted under
exceptional circumstances (art. 247);
 When a person fails to give bond for
good behavior (art. 284);
 As a penalty for the concubine in the
crime of concubinage (Art. 334);
 When after lowering the penalty by
degrees, destierro is the proper penalty.
Art. 88. Arresto menor.
The penalty of arresto menor shall be served in the
municipal jail, or in the house of the defendant himself
under the surveillance of an officer of the law,
when the court so provides in its decision, taking into
consideration the health of the offender and other
reasons which may seem satisfactory to it.
 Service of the penalty of arresto menor:
 In the municipal jail
 In the house of the offender, but under
the surveillance of an officer of the law,
whenever the court so provides in the
decision due to the health of the
offender.
In the Matter of the petition for Habeas Corpus of
Pete Lagran (2001):
The accused was convicted of 3 counts of violating
BP22 and was sentenced to imprisonment of 1 year
for each count.
He was detained on Feb. 24, 1999.
On Mar. 19, 2001, he filed a petition for habeas
corpus claiming he completed the service of his
sentence.
Citing Art. 70, RPC, he claimed that he shall serve the
penalties simultaneously.
Thus, there is no more legal basis for his detention.
Held:
Art. 70 allows simultaneous service of two or more
penalties only if the nature of the penalties so permit.
In the case at bar, the petitioner was sentenced to
suffer one year imprisonment for every count of the
offense committed.
The nature of the sentence does not allow petitioner
to serve all the terms simultaneously.
The rule of successive service of sentence must be
applied.
(Asked once in the Bar Exams)
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
 Effects of the Probation Law
Probation Law (PD 968)
Probation – a disposition under which a defendant,
after conviction and sentence, is released subject to
conditions imposed by the court and to the
supervision of a probation officer.
Question: When is the period for filing of
probation?
Answer: Filing period is within the period for
perfecting an appeal.
Question: Where do you file your probation
application?
Answer: Trial Court
Question: Does the law allow the
simultaneous filing of probation and appeal?
Answer: No. It’s either you file for probation or
you file for appeal. Only one choice, if you
choose one then you are barred from using the
other.
Question: When shall probation be denied?
Answer: Probation shall be denied when:
1. the offender is in need of correctional
treatment that can be provided most
effectively by his commitment to an
institution.
2. there is undue risk that during the probation,
the offender will commit another crime.
3. probation will deprecate the seriousness of
the offense committed.
Question: Who are the offenders disqualified
from probation?
Answer:
1. those sentenced to serve a maximum term
of imprisonment of more than six years
2. those convicted of subversion or any crime
against the national security or public order.
3. those who were previously convicted by final
judgment by imprisonment of not less than
one month and one day and/ or a fine of not
more than two hundred pesos
4. those who have been once on probation
under the provisions of the decree
5. those who are already serving sentence at
the time the substantive provsions of the
Probation Law became applicable.
Question: What if the offender violates the
conditions of his probation?
Answer: S/He shall serve the penalty imposed
for the offense under which s/he was placed on
probation.
Chapter VI. PENALTIES
Question: How long may a convict be placed
on probation?
Answer: 101
1. if the convict is sentence to imprisonment of
CRIMINAL LAW 1
not more than one year, probation shall not
exceed two years
2. if s/he sentenced to more than one year,
probation shall not exceed six years.
3. if the sentence is only a fine (offender in this
case is made to suffer subsidiary
imprisonment), probation shall be twice the
total number of days of subsidiary
imprisonment.
Pablo vs. Castillo (2000): Previous conviction”,
defined within the context of PD 968
Lagrosa vs. People (2003): A person who appeals
his conviction for purposes of reducing the penalty to
that which is within the probationable limit may still
apply for probation.
(ASKED 16 TIMES IN THE BAR EXAMS)
THE PROBATION LAW
Taken from the DOJ website
1) Section 3(a) of Presidential Decrees 968, as
amended, defines probation as a disposition
under which an accused, after conviction and
sentence, is released subject to conditions
imposed by the court and to the supervision of a
probation officer.
2) It is a privilege granted by the court; it cannot be
availed of as a matter of right by a person
convicted of a crime.
3) To be able to enjoy the benefits of probation, it
must first be shown that an applicant has none of
the disqualifications imposed by law.
A. Disqualified Offenders
1) Probation under PD No. 968, as amended, is
intended for offenders who are 18 years of age
and above, and who are not otherwise
disqualified by law.
2) Offenders who are disqualified are those:
(1) sentenced to serve a maximum term of
imprisonment of more than six years;
(2) convicted of subversion or any offense
against the security of the State, or the
Public Order;
(3) who have previously been convicted by final
judgment of an offense punished by
imprisonment of not less than one month
and one day and/or a fine of not more than
Two Hundred Pesos;
(4) who have been once on probation under the
provisions of this Decree;
B. Post-Sentence Investigation
The Post-Sentence Investigation (PSI) and the
submission of the Post-Sentence Investigation
Report (PSIR) are pre-requisites to the court
disposition on the application for probation.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
C. Period of Probation
1) The period of probation is in essence a time-
bound condition.
2) It is a condition in point of time which may be
shortened and lengthened within the statutory
limits and
3) the achievements by the probationer of the
reasonable degrees of social stability and
responsibility
4) from the measured observation of the supervising
officer and the exercise discretion by the court in
decisive order.
D. Probation Conditions
1) The grant of probation is accompanied by
conditions imposed by the court:
2) The mandatory conditions require that the
probationer shall
(a) present himself to the probation officer
designated to undertake his supervision at
each place as may be specified in the order
within 72 hours from receipt of said order,
and
(b) report to the probation officer at least once a
month at such time and place as specified by
said officer.
3) Special or discretionary conditions are those
additional conditions imposed on the probationer
which are geared towards his correction and
rehabilitation outside of prison and right in the
community to which he belongs.
4) A violation of any of the conditions may lead
either to a more restrictive modification of the
same or the revocation of the grant of probation.
5) Consequent to the revocation, the probationer
will have to serve the sentence originally
imposed.
E. Modification of Conditions of Probation
1) During the period of probation, the court may,
upon application of either the probationers or the
probation officer,
2) revise or modify the conditions or period of
probation.
3) The court shall notify either the probationer or the
probation officer of the filing of such an
application so as to give both parties an
opportunity to be heard thereon.
F. Transfer of Residence
1) Whenever a probationer is permitted to reside in
a place under the jurisdiction of another court,
control over him shall be transferred to the
executive judge of the "Court of First Instance" of
that place,
2) and in such case, a copy of the Probation Order,
the investigation report and other pertinent
records shall be furnished to said executive
judge.
3) Thereafter, the executive judge to whom
jurisdiction over the probationer is transferred
4) shall have the power with respect to him that was
previously possessed by the court which granted
the probation.
G. Revocation of Probation
Chapter VI. PENALTIES
1) At any time during probation, the court may issue
a warrant for the arrest of a probationer for any
serious violation of the conditions of probation. 102
2) The probationer, once arrested and detained,
CRIMINAL LAW 1
shall immediately be brought before the court for
a hearing of the violation charged.
3) The defendant may be admitted to bail pending
such hearing.
4) In such case, the provisions regarding release on
bail of persons charged with crime shall be
applicable to probationers arrested under this
provision.
5) An order revoking the grant of probation or
modifying the terms and conditions thereof shall
not be appealable.
H. Termination of Probation
1) After the period of probation and upon
consideration of the report and recommendation
of the probation officer,
2) the court may order the final discharge of the
probationer
3) upon finding that he has fulfilled the terms and
conditions of his probation
4) and thereupon the case is deemed terminated.
I. Programs and Services
1. Post-Sentence Investigation.
After conviction and sentence, a convicted
offender or his counsel files a petition for
probation with the trail court,
who in turn orders the Probation Officer to
conduct a post-sentence investigation to
determine whether a convicted offender may be
placed on probation or not.
The role of the probation officer in this phase is to
conduct the post-sentence investigation and to
submit his report to the court within the period not
later than 60 days from receipt of the order of the
Court to conduct the said investigation.
2. Pre-Parole Investigation.
The PAROLE AND PROBATION
ADMINISTRATION - (PPA) conducts pre-parole
investigation of all sentenced prisoners confined
in prisons and jails within their jurisdiction.
The purpose is to determine whether offenders
confined in prisons/jails are qualified for parole or
any form of executive clemency and to discuss
with them their plans after release.
Probation officers submit their pre-parole
assessment reports to the Board of Pardons and
Parole.
3. Supervision of Offenders.
The Agency supervises two types of offenders
under conditional release:
(g) probationers, or persons placed under
probation by the courts;
(h) parolees and pardonees, or prisoners
released on parole or conditional pardon and
referred by the Board of Pardons and Parole
(BPP) to PAROLE AND PROBATION
ADMINISTRATION (PPA).
The objectives of supervision are:
 to carry out the conditions set forth in the
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
probation/parole order,
 to ascertain whether the
probationer/parolee/pardonee is complying
with the said conditions, and
 to bring about the rehabilitation of the client
and his re-integration into the community.
4. Rehabilitation Programs.
The treatment process employed by the field
officers focused on particular needs of
probationers, parolees and pardonees.
Assistance is provided to the clientele in the form
of job placement, skills training, spiritual/moral
upliftment, counseling, etc.
Llamado v. CA (1989):
In its present form, Section 4 of the Probation Law
establishes a much narrower period during which an
application for probation may be filed with the trial
court: “after the trial curt shall have convicted and
sentenced a defendant and – within the period for
perfecting an appeal”.
The provision expressly prohibits the grant of an
application for probation if the defendant has
perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction.
Petitioner’s right to apply for probation was lost when
he perfected his appeal from the judgment of the trial
court.
The trial court lost jurisdiction already over the case.
Bala v. Martinez (1990):
PD 1990 which amends Sec. 4 of PD 968 is not
applicable to the case at bar.
It went into effect on Jan. 15, 1985 and cannot be
given retroactive effect because it would be prejudicial
to the accused.
Bala was placed on probation on Aug. 11, 1982.
Expiration of probation period alone does not
automatically terminate probation;
a final order of discharge from the court is required.
Probation is revocable before the final discharge by
the court.
Probationer failed to reunite with responsible society.
He violated the conditions of his probation.
Thus, the revocation of his probation is compelling.
Salgado v. CA (1990):
There is no question that the decision convicting
Salgado of the crime of serious physical injuries had
become final and executory
because the filing by respondent of an application for
probation is deemed a waiver of his right to appeal.
The grant of probation does not extinguish the civil
liability of the offender.
The order of probation with one of the conditions
providing for the manner of payment of the civil
liability during the period of probation,
did not increase or decrease the civil liability
adjudged.
The conditions listed under Sec. 10 of the Probation
law are not exclusive.
Chapter VI. PENALTIES
Courts are allowed to impose practically any term it
chooses,
the only limitation being that it does not jeopardize the 103
constitutional rights of the accused.
CRIMINAL LAW 1
Office of the Court Administrator v. Librado
(1996):
The respondent is a deputy sheriff who was charged
of violating the Dangerous Drugs Act and is now
claiming he is in probation.
The OCA filed an administrative case against him and
he was suspended from office.
Held:
While indeed the purpose of the Probation Law is to
save valuable human material,
it must not be forgotten that unlike pardon probation
does not obliterate the crime of which the person
under probation has been convicted.
The image of the judiciary is tarnished by conduct
involving moral turpitude.
The reform and rehabilitation of the probationer
cannot justify his retention in the government service.
 Suspension in case of Insanity or
Minority
Art. 79. Suspension of the execution and service
of the penalties in case of insanity.
When a convict shall become insane or an imbecile
after final sentence has been pronounced,
the execution of said sentence shall be suspended
only with regard to the personal penalty, the
provisions of the second paragraph of circumstance
number 1 of Article 12 being observed in the
corresponding cases.
If at any time the convict shall recover his reason,
his sentence shall be executed, unless the penalty
shall have prescribed in accordance with the
provisions of this Code.
The respective provisions of this section shall also be
observed if the insanity or imbecility occurs while the
convict is serving his sentence.
 Only execution of personal penalty is
suspended: civil liability may be executed
even in case of insanity of convict.
 An accused may become insane:
1) at the time of commission of the crime
 exempt from criminal liability
2) at the time of the trial
 court shall suspend hearings and
order his confinement in a hospital
until he recovers his reason
3) at the time of final judgment or while
serving sentence
 execution suspended with regard to
the personal penalty only
 See Exempting Circumstance of Minority for
PD No. 603 and Rule on Juveniles in Conflict
with Law.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Chapter VII. Extinguishment of Criminal
Liability
(ASKED 7 TIMES IN THE BAR EXAMS)
This section enumerates and explains the ways in
which criminal liability is extinguished, one of which is
prescription (of both the crime and the penalty) which
will be discussed in detail.
Two kinds of extinguishment of criminal liability:
I. TOTAL EXTINGUISHMENT
A. By the death of the convict
B. By Service of sentence
C. By Amnesty
D. By Absolute Pardon
E. By prescription of crime
F. By prescription of penalty
G. By the marriage of the offended woman and
the offender in the crimes of rape, abduction,
seduction and acts of lasciviousness. (Art.
344)
II. PARTIAL EXTINGUISHMENT
A. By Conditional Pardon
B. By Commutation of sentence
C. For good conduct, allowances which the
culprit may earn while he is serving sentence
D. By Parole
E. By Probation
Important: The Supreme Court ruled that re-
election to public office is not one of the grounds
by which criminal liability is extinguished. This is
only true in administrative cases but not in
criminal cases.
I. Total Extinguishment
A. By the Death of the Convict
 Extinguishes criminal liability as to personal
penalties;
 As to civil liabilities, liability is extinguished
only when the death of the offender occurs
before final judgment.
 EXCEPTION: Art. 33 (based on contracts).
Even if the accused dies pending appeal,
the right to file a separate civil action is not
lost.
People v. Bayotas (1991):
1) Where the offender dies before final judgment,
his death extinguishes both his criminal and civil
liabilities based solely on the offense committed.
2) So while a case is on appeal, the offender dies,
the case on appeal will be dismissed.
3) However, the claim for civil liabilities survives if
the same is based on a source of obligation
other than delict.
People v. Abungan (2000):
1) The death of appellant extinguished his criminal
liability.
Chapter VII. EXTINGUISHMENT of CRIMINAL LIABILITY
2) Moreover, because he died during the pendency
of the appeal and before the finality of the
judgment against him, his civil liability arising 104
from the crime or delict (civil liability ex delicto)
CRIMINAL LAW 1
was also extinguished.
3) It must be added, though, that his civil liability
may also be based on sources of obligation other
than delict.
4) For this reason, the victims may file a separate
civil action against his estate, as may be
warranted by law and procedural rules.
Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on
Behest Loans v. Desierto (2001):
1) The applicable law in the computation of the
prescriptive period for RA 3019 is Section 2 of
Act No. 3326
2) which provides that prescription shall begin to run
from the day of the commission of the violation of
the law
3) and if the same be not known at the time, from
the discovery thereof and the institution of judicial
proceedings for its investigation and punishment.
Recebido v. People (2000):
1) Under Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code, 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."
2) In People v. Reyes, The Court has declared that
registration in public registry is a notice to the
whole world. The record is constructive notice of
its contents as well as all interests, legal and
equitable, included therein.
3) All persons are charged with knowledge of what it
contains.
Del Castillo v. Torrecampo (2002):
1) During the execution of judgment, petitioner failed
to appear which prompted the presiding judge to
issue an order of arrest of petitioner and the
confiscation of his bond. However, petitioner was
never apprehended. He remained at large. Ten
years later, on October 24, 1997, Torrecampo
filed a motion to quash the warrant issued for his
arrest on the ground of prescription of the penalty
imposed upon him.
2) Article 93 of the Revised Penal Code provides
when the prescription of penalties shall
commence to run.
3) Under said provision, it shall commence to run
from the date the felon evades the service of his
sentence.
4) Pursuant to Article 157 of the same Code,
evasion of service of sentence can be committed
only by those who have been convicted by final
judgment by escaping during the term of his
sentence.
5) "Escape" in legal parlance and for purposes of
Articles 93 and 157 of the RPC means unlawful
departure of prisoner from the limits of his
custody.
6) Clearly, one who has not been committed to
prison cannot be said to have escaped therefrom.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Chapter VII. EXTINGUISHMENT of CRIMINAL LIABILITY

7) In the instant case, Torrecampo was never  Erases not only the conviction but also the
brought to prison. crime itself.
8) In fact, even before the execution of the judgment 105
for his conviction, he was already in hiding.
D. By Absolute Pardon

CRIMINAL LAW 1
9) Now Torrecampo begs for the compassion of the
Court because he has ceased to live a life of (ASKED 3 TIMES IN THE BAR EXAMS)
peace and tranquility after he failed to appear in
court for the execution of his sentence.  An act of grace, proceeding from the power
10) But it was Torrecampo who chose to become a entrusted with the execution of the laws
fugitive.  Exempts the individual from the penalty of
11) The Court accords compassion only to those who
the crime he has committed.
are deserving. Torrecampo’s guilt was proven
beyond reasonable doubt but he refused to
Monsanto V. Factoran, Jr. (1989):
answer for the wrong he committed. 1) Absolute pardon does not ipso facto entitle the
12) He is therefore not to be rewarded therefore.
convict to reinstatement to the public office
forfeited by reason of his conviction.
People v. Patriarca (2000):
2) Although pardon restores his eligibility for
1) Patriarca with the alias of Ka Django, an NPA,
appointment to that office, the pardoned convict
with ten (10) armed companions, requested
must reapply for the new appointment.
permission to rest in the house of Malto. They
had with them Arevalo who was hogtied.
 Difference between Amnesty and
Patriarca asked that the lights in Malto's house
be extinguished. Patriarca then ordered Arevalo Absolute Pardon
to lie down then shot the latter two times.
Amnesty Absolute Pardon
2) The trial court convicted Patriarca of murder.
Blanket pardon to Includes any crime and is
3) Patriarca then applied for amnesty under
classes of persons, guilty exercised individually
Proclamation No. 724 amending Proclamation
of political offenses
No. 347, dated March 25, 1994, entitled
May still be exercised The person is already
"Granting Amnesty to Rebels, Insurgents, and All
even before trial or convicted
Other Persons Who Have or May Have
investigation
Committed Crimes Against Public Order, Other
Crimes Committed in Furtherance of Political Looks backward – it is as Looks forward – he is
Ends, and Violations of the Article of War, and if he has committed no relieved from the
Creating a National Amnesty Commission." offense. consequences of the
4) His application was favorably granted by the offense, but rights not
National Amnesty Board restored unless explicitly
provided by the terms of
Held: the pardon
1) Paragraph 3 of Article 89 of the Revised Penal Both do not extinguish civil liability
Code provides that criminal liability is totally Public act which the court Private act of the
extinguished by amnesty, shall take judicial notice President and must be
2) which completely extinguishes the penalty and all of pleaded and proved by
its effects. the person pardoned
3) The Court takes judicial notice of the grant of Valid only when there is Valid if given either
amnesty upon Patriarca. final judgment before or after final
4) Once granted, it is binding and effective. judgment
5) Hence, the grant of amnesty extinguishes the
liability of Patriarca in the present case. Question: An offender was convicted of rebellion, but
he was given amnesty. Years later, he was convicted
B. By Service of Sentence again of rebellion. Is he a recidivist?
Answer: No. Because the amnesty granted to him
erased not only the conviction but also the effects of
the conviction itself.
C. By Amnesty
Question: Suppose what was given him was not
(ASKED ONCE IN THE BAR EXAMS)
amnesty but pardon?
 An act of the sovereign power granting Answer: Yes. Pardon, although absolute does not
erase the effects of conviction. Pardon only excuses
oblivion or general pardon for a past
the convict from serving the sentence.
offense.
 Rarely exercised in favor of a single Question: A person convicted of rebellion has
individual; usually extended in behalf of already served the sentence; yet, despite of this, he
certain classes of persons who are was still given absolute pardon. Years later, he was
subject trial but have not yet been again convicted of rebellion. Is he a recidivist?
Answer: No. When the convict has already served
convicted.
the sentence such that there is no more service of
sentence to be executed then the pardon shall be
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Chapter VII. EXTINGUISHMENT of CRIMINAL LIABILITY

understood as intended to erase the effects of the  Note: Subsidiary penalty for
conviction. nonpayment not
considered in determining 106
Question: What if the pardon was given to him while the period
he was serving his sentence?

CRIMINAL LAW 1
 Note: When fine is an
Answer: The pardon will not wipe out the effects of alternative penalty higher
the crime, unless the language of the pardon than the other penalty which
specifically relieves him of the effects of the crime. is by imprisonment,
prescription of the crime is
E. By Prescription of the Crime (Art. 90) based on the fine.

(ASKED 4 TIMES IN THE BAR EXAMS)  Prescriptive periods under special laws
and municipal ordinances (Act 3763,
 Definition: The forfeiture or loss of the right amending Act 3326)
of the State to prosecute the offender, after
the lapse of a certain period of time. Offenses punished only by fine or 1 year
 General Rule: Prescription of the crime imprisonment for not more than one
begins on the day the crime was committed. month or both
 Exception: The crime was concealed, Imprisonment for more than one 4 years
month, but less than two years
not public, in which case, the
Imprisonment for two years but less 8 years
prescription thereof would only than six years
commence from the time the offended Imprisonment for six years or more 12 years
party or the government learns of the Offenses under Internal Revenue Law 5 years
commission of the crime. Violations of municipal ordinances 2 months
Violations of the regulations or 2 months
 Difference between Prescription of Crime conditions of certificate of convenience
and Prescription of the Penalty by the Public Service Commission
Prescription of crime Prescription of the
penalty *Not applicable where the special law provides for its
own prescriptive period
Forfeiture of the State to Forfeiture to execute the
prosecute after a lapse final sentence after the
of a certain time lapse of a certain time
 Computation of Prescription of Offenses
(Art. 91)
Question: What happens when the last day of the 1) Commences to run from the day on
prescriptive period falls on a Sunday or legal holiday? which the crime is discovered by the
Answer: The information can no longer be filed on offended party, the authorities or their
the next day as the crime has already prescribed. agents.
2) Interrupted by the filing of complaint or
 Prescriptive Periods of Crimes information
(ASKED 4 TIMES IN THE BAR EXAMS) 3) It shall commence to run again when
such proceedings terminate without the
1) Crimes punishable by death, 20 years accused being convicted or acquitted, or
reclusion perpetua or reclusion
unjustifiably stopped for any reason not
temporal
2) Afflictive penalties 15 years
imputable to the accused.
3) Correctional penalties 10 years
Note: Termination must be FINAL as to amount
 Note: Those punishable by 5 years to a jeopardy that would bar a subsequent
arresto mayor
prosecution.
The highest
 Note: When the penalty penalty shall
fixed law is a compound one 4) The term of prescription shall not run
be made a
when the offender is absent from the
basis
4) Libel 1 year
Philippine archipelago.
5) Oral defamation and slander by 6 months 5) For continuing crimes, prescriptive
deed period cannot begin to run because the
6) Simple slander 2 months crime does not end.
7) Grave slander 6 months
8) Light offenses 2 months
F. By Prescription of Penalties (Art. 92)
9) Crimes punishable by fines
a) Fine is afflictive 15 years (ASKED 4 TIMES IN THE BAR EXAMS)
b) Fine is correctional 10 years
c) Fine is light 2 months  Definition: The loss or forfeiture of the right
of the government to execute the final
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
sentence after the lapse of a certain period
of time.
 Prescriptive Periods of Penalties
Death and reclusion perpetua 20 years
Other afflictive penalties 15 years
Correctional penalties 10 years
Note: If arresto mayor 5 years
Light penalties 1 year
Computation of the Prescription of Penalties (Art. 93)
Elements:
1. Penalty is imposed by final judgment
2. Convict evaded service of sentence by escaping
during the term of his sentence
3. The convict who has escaped from prison has
not given himself up, or been captured, or gone
to a foreign country with which we have no
extradition treaty, or committed another crime
4. The penalty has prescribed because of the lapse
of time from the date of the evasion of service of
the sentence by the convict.
 Period commences to run from the date
when he culprit evaded18 the service of
sentence
 When interrupted:
 Convict gives himself up
 Is captured
 Goes to a foreign country with which we
have no extradition treaty
 Commits any crime before the expiration
of the period of prescription
Question: What happens in cases where our
government has extradition treaty with another
country but the crime is not included in the treaty?
Answer: It would interrupt the running of the
prescriptive period.
Question: What is the effect of the acceptance of the
convict of a conditional pardon?
Answer: It would interrupt the acceptance of the
prescriptive period.
Question: What happens if the culprit is captured but
he evades again the service of his sentence?
Answer: The period of prescription that ran during the
evasion is not forfeited. The period of prescription that
has run in his favor should be taken into account.
G. By Marriage of the Offended Woman
with the Offender
 This applies only to the following crimes:
 Rape
18
"Escape" in legal parlance and for purposes of Articles 93
and 157 of the RPC means unlawful departure of prisoner
from the limits of his custody. Clearly, one who has not been
committed to prison cannot be said to have escaped
therefrom (Del Castillo v. Torrecampo (2002).
Chapter VII. EXTINGUISHMENT of CRIMINAL LIABILITY
 Seduction
 Abduction
 Acts of lasciviousness 107
 The marriage under Art. 344 must be
CRIMINAL LAW 1
contracted in good faith
Article 266-C (RA 8353). Effect of Pardon. — The
subsequent valid marriage between the offender and
the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action
or the penalty imposed.
In case it is the legal husband who is the offender, the
subsequent forgiveness by the wife as the offended
party shall extinguish the criminal action or the
penalty: Provided, That the crime shall not be
extinguished or the penalty shall not be abated if the
marriage is void ab initio.
II. Partial Extinguishment
(ASKED ONCE IN THE BAR EXAMS)
A. By Conditional Pardon
 If delivered and accepted, it is a contract
between the executive and the convict
that the former will release the latter upon
compliance with the condition.
 Example of a condition: “Not to violate any
of the penal laws of the country again”.
B. By Commutation of Sentence
C. For Good Conduct Allowances
 The convict may earn these while he is
serving his sentence.
 Example: Article 158. A convict who
escapes the place of confinement on the
occasion of disorder resulting from a
conflagration, earthquake or similar
catastrophe, or during a mutiny in which he
has not participated; but who returns within
48 hours after the proclamation that the
calamity had passed shall be given credit of
1/5 deduction of the original sentence.
Note: Not an automatic right for it has to be granted
by the Director of Prisons (Art. 99). Also, he must be
serving his sentence. Thus, if released because of
conditional pardon, this provision is not applicable.
D. By Parole
 Definition: The suspension of the sentence
of the convict after serving the minimum
term of the intermediate penalty, without
being granted a pardon, prescribing the
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Chapter VII. EXTINGUISHMENT of CRIMINAL LIABILITY

terms upon which the sentence shall be

suspended.
108
Question: What happens if the convict fails to

CRIMINAL LAW 1
observe the condition of the parole?
Answer: The Board of Pardons and Parole is
authorized to:
 Direct his arrest and return to custody
 To carry out his sentence without deduction of
the time that has elapsed between the date of the
parole and the subsequent arrest.

 Difference between Conditional Pardon

and Parole
Conditional Pardon Parole
May be give at any time May be given after the
after final judgment; is prisoner has served the
granted by he Chief minimum penalty; is
Executive under the granted by the Board of
provisions of the Pardons and Parole
Administrative Code under the provisions of
the Indeterminate
Sentence Law
In case of violation, the In case of violation, the
convict may be convict may not be
prosecuted under Art. prosecuted under Art.
159 of the RPC. 159 of the RPC.

E. By Probation

Note: Please see Probation Law (supra).

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Chapter VIII. Civil Liabilities Arising from
a Felony
There are FOUR POINTS in this section:
I. IN GENERAL
II. CIVIL LIABILITY IN CERTAIN CASES
III. WHAT CIVIL LIABILITY INCLUDES
IV. EXTINCTION OF CIVIL LIABILITY
I. In General
(ASKED 6 TIMES IN THE BAR EXAMS)
Art. 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of felony.
Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly
liable.
 Civil liability arises from the commission of
the felony.
 It is determined in the criminal action except
if:
1. the offended party waives his right to
file a civil action
2. the offended party reserves his right to
institute it separately, or
3. the offended party institutes the civil
action prior to the criminal action.
 Effect of ACQUITTAL: As a rule, if the
offender is acquitted, the civil liability is
extinguished, except:
1. if the acquittal is based on reasonable
doubt
2. the acquittal was due to an exempting
circumstance like insanity and
3. when the court finds that there is only
civil liability.
 Civil liability may exist, although the
accused is not held criminally liable in
the following cases:
1) Acquttal on reasonable doubt;
2) Acquittal from a cause of non-
imputability;
3) Acquittal in the criminal action for
negligence (quasi-delict);
4) In cases of independent civil actions.
Quinto v. Andres (2005):
1) The extinction of the penal action does not carry
with it the extinction of the civil action.
2) However, the civil action based on delict shall be
deemed extinguished if there is a finding in a final
judgment in the civil action that the act or
omission from where the civil liability may
arise does not exist.
3) In the present case, the court ruled that
respondents cannot be held criminally nor civilly
liable for the death of Wilson.
4) In this case, the petitioner failed to adduce proof
of any ill-motive on the part of either respondent
Chapter VIII. CIVIL LIABILITIES ARISING from a FELONY
to kill the deceased before or after the latter was
invited to join them in fishing.
5) Indeed, the petitioner testified that respondent 109
Andres used to go to their house and play with
CRIMINAL LAW 1
her son before the latter's death.
6) When the petitioner's son died inside the
drainage culvert, it was respondent Andres who
brought out the deceased.
7) He then informed the petitioner of her son's
death.
8) Even after informing the petitioner of the death of
her son, respondent Andres followed the
petitioner on her way to the grassy area where
the deceased was.
Chua v. CA (2004):
Hao, treasurer of Siena Realty Corporation, filed a
complaint-affidavit with the City Prosecutor of Manila
charging Spouses Francis and Elsa Chua, of 4 counts
of falsification of public documents pursuant to Article
172 in relation to Article 171 of the RPC.
Held:
1) Generally, the basis of civil liability arising from
crime is the fundamental postulate that every
man criminally liable is also civilly liable.
2) When a person commits a crime he offends two
entities namely:
(1) the society in which he lives in or the political
entity called the State whose law he has
violated; and
(2) the individual member of the society whose
person, right, honor, chastity or property has
been actually or directly injured or damaged
by the same punishable act or omission.
3) An act or omission is felonious because it is
punishable by law, it gives rise to civil liability not
so much because it is a crime but because it
caused damage to another.
4) Additionally, what gives rise to the civil liability is
really the obligation and the moral duty of
everyone to repair or make whole the damage
caused to another by reason of his own act or
omission, whether done intentionally or
negligently.
5) The indemnity which a person is sentenced to
pay forms an integral part of the penalty
imposed by law for the commission of the crime.
6) The civil action involves the civil liability arising
from the offense charged which includes
restitution, reparation of the damage caused, and
indemnification for consequential damages.
7) Under the Rules, where the civil action for
recovery of civil liability is instituted in the criminal
action pursuant to Rule 111, the offended party
may intervene by counsel in the prosecution of
the offense.
8) 31 Rule 111(a) of the Rules of Criminal
Procedure provides that, "[w]hen a criminal action
is instituted, the civil action arising from the
offense charged shall be deemed instituted with
the criminal action unless the offended party
 waives the civil action, reserves the right to
institute it separately, or
 institutes the civil action prior to the criminal
action."
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
II. Civil Liability in Certain Cases
A. Civil Liability for acts committed by an insane
or imbecile or minor under 9 or over 9 and
less than 15 who acted with discernment
B. Civil liability for acts committed by persons
acting under irresistible force or
uncontrollable fear
C. Civil liability of persons acting under
justifying circumstances
D. Civil liability of innkeepers and similar
persons
E. Subsidiary liability of other persons
Civil Liability of Persons Exempt from
Criminal Liability
1) Exemption from criminal liability does not
include exemption from civil liability.
2) Exceptions:
a) There is no civil liability in paragraph
4 of Art. 12 which provides for injury
caused by mere accident.
b) There is no civil liability in par. 7 of
Art. 12 which provides for failure to
perform an act required by law when
prevented by some lawful or insuperable
cause.
A. Civil Liability for Acts Committed by an
Insane or Imbecile or Minor under 9 or
over 9 and less than 15 Who Acted with
Discernment
 A minor
 over 15 years of age
 who acts with discernment
 is not exempt from criminal liability.
 Parents are subsidiarily liable according to
Art 2180 of the Civil Code.
 The final release of a child based on good
conduct does not obliterate his civil
liability for damages.
B. Civil Liability for Acts Committed by
Persons Acting under Irresistible Force
or Uncontrollabe Fear
 The persons using violence or causing the
fear are primarily liable.
 If there be no such persons, those doing the
act shall be liable secondarily.
C. Civil Liability of Persons Acting under
Justifying Circumstances
 There is no civil liability in justifying
circumstances except in par. 4 of Art. 11
Chapter VIII. CIVIL LIABILITIES ARISING from a FELONY
D. Civil Liability of Innkeepers and Similar
Persons
110
(ASKED ONCE IN THE BAR EXAMS)
CRIMINAL LAW 1
 Elements of Art. 102 PAR. 1:
1) That the INNKEEPER,
TAVERNKEEPER OR PROPRIETOR of
establishment or his employee
committed a violation of municipal
ordinance or some general or special
police regulation.
2) That a crime is committed in such
inn, tavern or establishment.
3) That the person criminally liable is
insolvent.
 Elements of Art. 102 PAR. 2:
1) The guests notified in advance the
innkeeper or the person representing
him of the deposit of their goods
within the inn or house.
2) The guest followed the directions of the
innkeeper or his representative with
respect to the care of the vigilance over
such goods.
3) Such goods of the guests lodging
therein were taken by robbery with
force upon things or theft committed
within the inn or house.
 No liability shall attach in case of robbery
with violence against or intimidation of
persons,
 unless committed by the innkeeper’s
employees.
 It is not necessary that the effects of the
guest be actually delivered to the
innkeeper,
 it is enough that they were within the
inn.
E. Subsidiary Liability of Other Persons
(ASKED 3 TIMES IN THE BAR EXAMS)
 Elements Art. 103
1) The employer, teacher, person or
corporation is engaged in any kind of
industry.
2) Any of their servants, pupils, workmen,
apprentices or employees commits a
felony while in the discharge of his
duties.
3) The said employee is insolvent and
has not satisfied his civil liability.
 No defense of diligence of a good father
of a family.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
 Supreme Court ruled that even though the
guest did not obey the rules and
regulations, the guests will only be
regarded as contributory negligence, but
it won’t absolve the management from
civil liability (Esguerra notes)
 Subsidiary civil liability is imposed in the
following:
1) In case of a felony committed under the
compulsion of an irresistible force. The
person who employed the irresistible
force is subsidiarily liable;
2) In case of a felony committed under an
impulse of an equal or greater injury.
The person who generated such an
impulse is subsidiarily liable.
Basilio v. CA (2000):
The statutory basis for an employer's subsidiary
liability is found in Article 103 of the RPC.
This liability is enforceable in the same criminal
proceeding where the award is made.
However, before execution against an employer
ensues, there must be a determination, in a hearing
set for the purpose of
1) the existence of an employer-employee
relationship;
2) that the employer is engaged in some kind of
industry;
3) that the employee is adjudged guilty of the
wrongful act and found to have committed the
offense in the discharge of his duties (not
necessarily any offense he commits "while" in the
discharge of such duties; and
4) that said employee is insolvent.
Basilio knew of the criminal case that was filed
against his driver because it was his truck that was
involved in the incident.
Further, it was the insurance company, with which his
truck was insured, that provided the counsel for
Pronebo, pursuant to the stipulations in their contract.
Basilio did not intervene in the criminal proceedings,
despite knowledge, through counsel, that the
prosecution adduced evidence to show employer-
employee relationship.
With the convict's application for probation, the trial
court's judgment became final and executory.
All told, it is our view that the lower court did not err
when it found that Basilio was not denied due
process.
He had all his chances to intervene in the criminal
proceedings, and prove that he was not the employer
of the accused, but he chooses not to intervene at the
appropriate time.
Philippine Rabbit v. People (2004):
The cases dealing with the subsidiary liability of
employers uniformly declare that, strictly speaking,
Chapter VIII. CIVIL LIABILITIES ARISING from a FELONY
they are not parties to the criminal cases instituted
against their employees.
111
Although in substance and in effect, they have an
CRIMINAL LAW 1
interest therein, this fact should be viewed in the light
of their subsidiary liability.
While they may assist their employees to the extent of
supplying the latter's lawyers, as in the present case,
the former cannot act independently on their own
behalf, but can only defend the accused.
When the accused-employee absconds or jumps bail,
the judgment meted out becomes final and executory.
The employer cannot defeat the finality of the
judgment by filing a notice of appeal on its own behalf
in the guise of asking for a review of its subsidiary civil
liability.
Both the primary civil liability of the accused-employee
and the subsidiary civil liability of the employer are
carried in one single decision that has become final
and executory.
III. What Civil Liability Includes
Civil liability of the offender falls under three
categories:
1. Restitution or Restoration
2. Reparation of the damage caused
3. Indemnification of consequential damages
People v. Taan (2006):
Regarding damages, when death occurs due to a
crime, the following may be recovered:
1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the
victim;
2) actual or compensatory damages;
3) moral damages;
4) exemplary damages;
5) attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation; and
6) interest, in proper cases.
1. Restitution or Restoration
 Presupposes that the offended party was
divested of property,
 and such property must be returned.
 If the property is in the hands of a third
party,
 the same shall be restored to the
offended party
 even if third party may be a holder for
value and a buyer in good faith of the
property
 Except when such third party buys the
property from a public sale where the law
protects the buyer.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Illustration:
1) If a third party bought a property in a public
auction conducted by the sheriff, the buyer of the
property at such execution sale is protected by
law.
2) The offended party may only resort to reparation
of the damage done from the offender.
 Regardless of the crime committed,
 if the property is illegally taken from the
offended party during the commission of
the crime,
 the court may direct the offender to
restore or restitute such property to the
offended party.
Illustration:
1) During the rape, the offender took the earrings of
the victim.
2) The offender was prosecuted for rape and theft.
3) The offender reasoned that he took the earrings
of the victim to have a souvenir of the sexual
intercourse.
4) The Supreme Court ruled that the crime
committed is not theft and rape but rape and
unjust vexation for the taking of the earning.
5) The latter crime is not a crime against property
but a crime against personal security and liberty
under Title IX of Book II of the RPC.
 If there is violation of Anti-Fencing Law
the fence
 incurs criminal liability
 aside from being required to restitute the
personal property
 IF RESTITUTION cannot be made then
REPARATION should be made
 IF OFFENDER DIES provided he died
after judgment became final:
 The heirs of offender
 shall assume the civil liability,
 but only to the extent that they inherit
property from the deceased
 IF OFFENDED PARTY DIES:
 the heirs of the offended party step into
the shoes of the latter to demand civil
liability from the offender.
2. Reparation of the Damage Caused
 Reparation is made by requiring the
offender to pay the value of damages.
 The court determines the amount of
damages by considering:
 the price of the thing and
 Its special sentimental value to the
offended party by.
 If property is brand new, then there will be
an allowance for depreciation
 The damages are limited to those caused by
the crime.
Chapter VIII. CIVIL LIABILITIES ARISING from a FELONY
3. Indemnification of Consequential
Damages
112
 Indemnification of consequential damages
CRIMINAL LAW 1
refers to the loss of earnings, loss of
profits.
 Where DEATH results:
a) INDEMNITY: P50,000
b) Lost of Earning Capacity
c) Support to a non-heir
d) Moral damages for mental anguish…
e) Exemplary damages if attended by 1 or
more aggravating circumstances
 Indemnification for consequential damages
includes:
a) those caused the injured party
b) those suffered by the family, or
c) those suffered by 3rd person by reason
of the crime
Illustration:
The offender carnapped a bridal car while the newly-
weds were inside the church. Since the car was only
rented, consequential damage not only to the newly-
weds but also to the entity which rented the car to
them.
Espaňa v. People (2005):
The award for civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory
and is granted to the heirs of the victim without need
of proof other than the commission of the crime.
 In the crime of rape, the damages awarded
to the offended woman is generally
P30,000.00 for the damage to her honor.
 The present procedural law
 does not allow a blanket recovery of
damages.
 Each kind of damages must be specified
and the amount duly proven.
 When there are several offenders,
 the court shall determine what shall be
the share of each offender
 depending upon the degree of
participation – as principal, accomplice
or accessory.
 If there are more than one principal or
more than one accomplice or accessory,
 the liability in each class of offender
shall be subsidiary.
 Anyone of them may be required to pay
the civil liability pertaining to such
offender
 without prejudice to recovery from those
whose share have been paid by
another.
 If all the principals are insolvent, the
obligation shall devolve upon the
accomplice(s) or accessory(s). But whoever
pays shall have the right of covering the
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Chapter VIII. CIVIL LIABILITIES ARISING from a FELONY

share of the obligation from those who did

not pay but are civilly liable.
 To relate with Article 38, 113
 when there is an order or preference of

CRIMINAL LAW 1
pecuniary (monetary) liability, therefore,
restitution is not included here.

There is no subsidiary penalty for non-payment

of civil liability.
(ASKED TWICE IN THE BAR EXAMS)

People vs. Tupal (2003): Exemplary damages were

awarded when the offense was committed with at
least 1 aggravating circumstance.

I. EXTINCTION OF CIVIL LIABILITY

(ASKED 5 TIMES IN THE BAR EXAMS)
 Extinguished in the same manner as other
obligations in accordance with the
provisions of the Civil Code.
 Loss of the thing due
 does not extinguish civil liability
 because if the offender cannot make
restitution, he is obliged to make
reparation.
 Unless extinguished, civil liability subsists
 even if the offender has served
sentence consisting of deprivation of
liberty or other rights or has served the
same, due to amnesty, pardon,
commutation of sentence or any other
reason.
 BUT if there is no damage caused by the
commission of the crime, the offender is
not civilly liable

Illustration:
A slapped the face of the mayor who was then in the
performance of his duty. Under Art. 148, the crime
committed is direct assault. As the slapping did not
cause any injury to the mayor, A is not civilly liable.

- end of Criminal Law I -