Crim 1 - July 27, 2017
schizophrenia, bipolar, your insanity affects your daily
Circumstances that affect criminal liability: Justifying,
exempting, mitigating, aggravating, alternative
circumstances.
Either provide lighter or graver penalty, or will absolve
criminal liability (in the case of justifying circumstance)
Article 12 - Exempting Circumstances
The concept of exempting circumstances:
 There is a crime but there is no criminal liability,
why? Because it is an exempting circumstance,
we are dealing with exemption to criminal
liability.
 The perpetrator is being exempt by the law.
There is a need for existence of criminal liability
because we need to establish the basis of civil liability.
Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code: “Every person
criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable”
Kasi kung walang criminal liability, we are actually
dealing with justifying circumstance. There is absolute
pag erase sa crime, at the same time, the criminal
liability.
The basis of art. 12 is lack of voluntariness. Acts are not
voluntary. There are factors in voluntariness that are not
met.
In intentional felonies, dili jud na mawala ang intention.
Its either freedom or intelligence ang mawala. In case of
culpable felonies, pwede mawala ang negligence, pero
dili siya exempting circumstance.. Culma maxim injuria
(inaudible).
Justifying vs exempting circumstance, as to nature, as
to effect:
Types of exempting circumstance:
1) Insanity and imbecility
IMBECILITY- even if a person is of advanced age, you
have a mental development comparable to that of a 2-7
years old child.
INSANITY- there is complete deprivation of intelligence.
What is the presumption in the evidence of insanity?
Article 800 (1) of the Civil Code: “The law presumes that
every person is of sound mind, in the absence of proof
to the contrary”. (Law of general application)
Ang bata, kay deprived man siya of intelligence, buang
ba siya? Dili. In our jurisdiction, the treatment of insanity
is always absolute. Walay level of or degree of insanity.
In case of paedophiles, the can work regularly in the day.
Pero pag gabii, na maligno na sila. Dili na sila buang.
Sa atoa, the determination of insanity is always that
absolute. Kanang buang jud.
So meaning, the determination of mental condition, like
life. You cannot function as a normal individual.
(dementia praecox or schizophrenia).
The person has no known control of his acts.
In case of doubt as to the mental capacity of the
accused, the doubt is to be resolved in favor of sanity.
Legal basis: Art. 800 (1) of the Civil code. It is for the
accused to prove the defense of insanity by quantum of
evidence. Clear and convincing evidence.
The court has the duty to presume that you are sane.
(Tests, see Reviewer)
In the Philippines, there is no definite criteria of insanity.
(People vs Niancao)
At the time you committed the crime, dapat insane ka,
dapat expert witness ka (re. epileptic attack not harmful)
SOMNUMBULISM (sleepwalking)
There is lack of intelligence. He is deprived of will.
Insanity should be conclusively proved.
Walay buang na kabalo mu rape 😂
Cognition and Volition test (determining insanity)
1) Test of cognition – complete deprivation of the
mind during the crime.
Walay cognitive functions ang utok during the
commission of the crime. (walay intelligence)
2) Test of Volition – total deprivation of freedom of
will. (walay freedom)
In PH, both the cognition and volition test are applied.
There must be complete deprivation of will or freedom.
Kung hunahunaon nimo, dili lang kani ang exempting.
For example, irresistible force or uncontrollable fear.
*inaudible* occurrence of insanity
 At the time of the commission of the crime: art
12 of the RPC, you are exempt from the effects
of the acts
 during the arraignment: suspension. The court
will order the suspension of the arraignment.
( sec. 11 rule 116, Rules of Court)
 during the trial: sec 3(f) rule 119, relation to
section 4.
 after judgment or while serving the sentence:
suspended. Take note, under article 29 of the
RPC, charge of penalties,
Example, if your sentence is 8 years. You spent 2 years
serving your sentence, then after that nabuang ka. You
were sent to the hospital and stayed there for 8 years,
dili naka ibalik sa correction.
MINORITY AS AN EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE.
RA 9344: Juvenile Justice Act of 2006
Why considered no crime ang bata? Lack of intelligence
or discernment. Wala sila kabalo unsay tama or mali.
The minimum age of responsibility is 15.
Kung walay discernment, exempted siya. Unsay
buhaton sa iya? Intervention. Unsay buhaton sa
intervention? If after the intervention, naka commit
gihapon ug offense ang bata, meaning walay epekto
ang intervention. Unsay epekto ana? Dalahon siya sa
court to determine kung mag intervention ta balik or I
sentence na siya. (with respect sa crime na na commit)
Who is a Neglected Child?
Neglected Child vs CICL.
Neglected: The child is 12 years of age, up to 15, who
commits the following particular crimes:
(Kung dili ni na commit sa bata within that particular age
bracket, dili siya matawag na naglected child)
Age element
*Parricide
*Murder
*Infanticide
*Kidnapping
*Serious illegal detention
*Robbery with Homicide
*Rape
*Destructive arson
*Prohibited drugs. Kung himoon nimo na peddler ang
bata, neglected na siya.
Sec 4 paragraph (8) ? of RA 9344 Study ni please
Child in Conflict with the Law – (see definition in RA
9344)
Discernment
Criminal Law 1
July 31 lecture
Minimum age of responsibility, 15. Automatic exempted.
DETERMINATION OF DISCERNMENT
Minimum age of responsibility under RA9344 is 15years
old sarado. There is no mention in the law that 15 years
old discernment will be determined. 15 years old and
below automatic exempted you will be going to do
intervention, its either you will be released to the parents
or you will be admitted inside bahay pag-asa.
(naghimo na siyag drawing diri)
Example, so nag commit kag violation, exactly 15 years
old ka, sa birthday party nimo nag maoy ka naa ky
napatay. SO nay criminal action. You all know unsay
mahitabo… intervention, tama? Why? In my example,
walay discernment diba automatic. So intervention…
After ng intervention class, withn the period of 15 years
of age, wala gihapon nag bag o ang bata. Unsa gani
tong gi ingon sa law? If after the intervention, there is no
reform, the minor shall be returned to the court for the
promulgation of the decision against the minor and the
court shall either decide on the sentence or extend the
intervention. Minority ladies and gentlemen is a
conditional exemption. Pagka exempt ka because of
your minority, may conditions yan.
Unsa? Dapat sundin mo ang parents mo, etc… para
mapaayo ang bata.
Kung after sa intervention wala gihapon nag bag o ang
bata, naa gihapon tendency to commit a crime, unsa
ingon sa law gani? Return to the court. That language
class, dili ban a siya determination of discernment?
Unsay gina pa sabaot ana? Basaha gud ninyo sa RA
9344, (the return to the court), nay may dira sa kuna,
MAY decide. Kung gi decide sa supreme court na you
are really a bad child, a son of the evil, what is the
conclusion there? THERE IS THE DETERMINATION
OF DISCERNMENT.
THAT IS WHAT WE CALL DISCRETIONARY
DETERMINATION OF DISCERNMENT. Kay dili pa siya
automatic.
Unlike sa 15 years old and 1 day, automatic,
discernment will be determined. Unsa I lihis nato siya o
mag diversion ta? Intervention or diversion? Ana ang
question. Kasi kung may discernment then basically
DIVERSION. That is the difference between 15 years
old on the spot and 15 years old and 1 day up to below
18 (imagine tong drawing ni sir sa board),
MANDATORY DETERMINATION OF DISCERNEMNT.
Pag walang discernment, automatic intervention tayo.
We will reform the child. Pag may discernment,
diversion. Klaro na ta?
So we go now to evidences which can prove minority
-birth certificate, baptismal records, school records,
testimony sa relatives, sa imong mama, sa imo sa child.
But take note, testimonies alone cannot be taken by the
court. Except in cases of rape… sole testimony of the
child will not be taken by the court.
(Ad: kung wala na ingon during the course of
proceeding na insane ang tao then execution of
judgment na, dili I suspend ang execution, but re-open
the trial – to avoid miscarriage of justice) section 24 rule
119
Burden of proving minority
Who has the obligation to prove minority, in court? The
defendant. Because you are claiming for the exemption
of the law. (the same in justifying circumstances and
mitigating) but not in aggravating, why? Because
criminal laws must be interpreted in favour of the
accused. Why, what is the effect of aggravating
circumstances? Mag bug at ang penalty.
Read (Sierra vs People)
Motive vs intent vs discernment – capable of
determining consequences, knowledge?
Advert: (People vs Jacinto) choosing the place to
commit the crime can be established as discernment.
Kung minor pa siya then nag commit siyag crime but dili
pa in force ang juvenile justice act? Under art 4, there is
no retroactivity of laws. But there are certain exemptions.
In the example, the juvenile justice act will be given
retroactive effect BECAUSE IT IS FAVORABLE TO
THE ACCUSED.
(Jose vs People): what principle is correlated there by
the supreme court? Conspiracy to commit felonious
acts, tapos unsa, minority, discernment. So ang mga
minors nag commit ug particular act,tapos conspiracy
could be established automatic, discernment could be
established. Bakit? Mahirap mag conspire sa mga bata.
Mag conspire na sila para mangawat ug bayabas, pero
dili mag conspire para manglugos.. automatic if
conspiracy will be established then conspiracy ang na
commit, patay kang bata ka.
They were 15, 14, 12 tapos 11. They executed na
mangloob ug tindahan ug patayon ang tag iya. They
were apprehended. Unsay epekto ana? What will be the
proper course of action sa korte? Exempt sila.
Intervention lang sa..
Karon gi commit nila usab, 16 na karon tong isa. 15 na
si 14, 13 na si 12, ug 12 na si 11. Unsay mahitabo sa
ilaha? Separate the 16, mandatory determination of
discernment. Doon sa iba, unsay mahitabo sa ila?
Discretionary determination of discernment.
BASAHA ANG MGA KASO T.T
Kung naa na tay exempting circumstance pwede pa ba
ma appreciate ang mitigating circumstance? Think of
any particular way, unsa? Of course conspiracy. May
conspirators.. pwede ma appreciate ang mitigating
circumstance sa uban na dili apil sa exempting
circumstance. ANA
Determination of discernment: evident premeditation. In
the commission of the crime, there is evident
premeditation, basically, nay conspiracy, discernment
could be established. BUT TAKE NOT WHEN AND
WHERE TO APPLY THIS.
(People vs Alcabao): nagmura yung bata dito. Sabi niya
king ina mo. Diri nasakpan ang bata na nangawat ug
mangga. The remarks made by the child establishes
discernment.
(Llave vs People): bright boy too much intelligence +
crime = discernment can be established. Of course take
note of the age of the child.
ACCIDENT WITHOUT FAULT OR WITHOUT
INTENTION TO CAUSE HARM
Take note that we’ve mentioned in the exempting
circumstances, there is civil liability. Because it affects
the actor una. Meaning, although the actor is exempted,
ang effects ay hindi kinakalimutan ng batas. May effect
talaga. In the particular circumstance, this is the
exemption. PARAGRAPH 4. Unsa ni siya, accident.
So what is the reason there nganong walay civil liability.
Because of the concept na naay injury pero walay
liability, why? because wala siya gi tuyo. Why because
if we will look at the elements of accident as an
exempting circumstance, performance of an act with
due care. Without intention of causing it.
(People vs Fallorina): Elements. Take note this could
have been a justifying circumstance.
Cases: (US vs Tanedo): nangaso siyag manok, ang
bala nag ricochet sa tao na naigo, namatay.. unsay
exemption? Accident. Ma exempt siya o dili? Exempted
What if loose firearm or unlicensed firearm? Dili na siya
musulod sa next element. Ngano? Illegal mana. Unsay
kalahian sa loose firearm ug unlicensed firearm?
Ang loose firearm RA10591 – ikaw nagadala pero dili
ikaw ang tag iya. Dili sa imo nakapangalan ang baril
Us vs tanedo vs people vs nocum – baril niya sa baba
sa floor. Nag ricochet. Nay carelessness sa part ni
nocum. Accident- defense by nocum. Walay due care
didto kay sa baba niya gi baril. So dili na master ang
exempting circumstance.
Nay justifying, exempting, mitigating, aggravating,
pwede ba? Kamo na bahala diskarte ana
Again kung dili mo sigurado always go back to the
elements.
PERSON WHO ACTS UNDER COMPULSION OF
IRRESISTABLE FORCE
ELEMENTS:
1) Acted in compulsion by means of PHYSICAL
FORCE. Gihadlok gyud ka ba.
2) Physical force must be irresistible. Meaning dili
ka kabuhi.
3) Physical force must come from the third person.
Unsa meaning aning third person? Meaning
actual person siya. Existing third person. In this
particular instance ang victim ikaw ug siya. Dili
kay pag-iisip mo lang, dili kay pagtuo lag nimo.
(People vs Moreno): explanation of third person – actual
physical person. Naa jud mismo sa imo atubangan. Diri
sa Moreno, gi befriend niya ang mga Japanese
authorities para makalaya siya, and later on, gi establish
sila as their men. Isa siya ka captain sa isa ka grupo.
Now may engwentro sa Japanese men vs Filipino
guerrillas ba. And one of the alleged perpetrators is
Paciano Delos Santos. Japanese commanders nagsulti
na dakpon si Delos Santos, nag follow sa order si
Moreno. Gi dakop si Delos Santos.
Gi pugutan niyag ulo si Delos Santos. Gi prosecute siya
sa relatives ni Delos Santos. Dakpan si Moreno and was
charged with homicide. Ang rason ni Moreno kay wala
daw siyay mabuhat kay gi hadlok daw siya sa mga
Japanese na kung dili niya buhaton, commander will kill
me. There is a threat on my life. Ang ingon sa Supreme
Court, no. gi isa2 ang elements. Third person, unsa ang
third person dira, naa jud na tao.
(People vs Baldogo): Palawan penal colony – nay duha
prison si Baldogo ug Bermas. Gi kuha ni sila na mag
trabaho sa balay. Gi patay ang lalaki na anak ni
Camacho tapos ang babae gi kidnap. Later on na
apprehend ug gi kasuhan siya. Ang theory of defense
niya unsa? Gi hadlok man gud ko ni Bermas, kung dili
nako patyon to si junior, akoy patyon ni Bermas. Iya
defense is irresistible force. Take note ni ana ang
supreme court you have so many chances na
makatakas. Pwedi nimo sila biyaan tapos isumbong
nimo sa pulis. Take not kung dalahon nimo sa bukid
mag baktas2 pa mo ana. But you never did. Therefore,
the force there, if any, is not irresistible. So wala.
(Manansala case): nay boss sa isa ka company, si
Kathleen Siy. Gi sugo niya si Marissa Bautista na mag
withdraw from her personal account. pero pag dating sa
bangko, offline man. Unsa iya gibuhat? Nag adto siya
sa petty cash custodian. Manghiram daw ug 38
thousand tapos later pag pwede na mag withdraw sa
account we will pay it. Ni ana si Bautista. Ang problema
pagkuha niya ug kwarta ug paghatag niya kay Siy, wala
niya na ingon na “mam gikan ni siya kay Manansala. Dili
ni gikan sa metrobank, gikan ni kay Manansala”. Later
on during inventory nila nadakpan na nay kulang na 38
thousand. Na discover ni Siy.
Na remember ni Bautista. Ang problema si Lacanilao
wala nila gi amend na nakabayad na diay. Gi tuyo nila
na dili I amend tung kuan records sa inventory.
Therefore, napasama ni siy. Gi order ni Lacanilao na dili
siya I amend. Gi sumbong nila sa President. Unsay
nahitabo? Tanggal sa trabaho si Kathleen Siy kay
nangorrupt lagi siya. Because of that na discover diay
niya na si Lacanilao ang nagsugo. WHAT IS THE
RESULT THERE? NAG FILE UG FALSIFICATION OF
PRIVATE DOCUMENTS.
Pag kaso ni ana si Manansala na walay koy mabuhat
dira kay gisugo lang man ko sa akong boss kay
mahadlok ko sa repercussion sa akong boss. Ana ang
supreme court no, walay irresistible force diri. Wala siya
gi hadlok ni Lacanilao. There was no mention in the
case of a particular repercussion.
UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR OR COMPULSION
Irresistible force vs uncontrollable fear.
In irresistible force, the offender uses violence, or
physical force to compel another person to commit a
crime. The injury caused is greater than or equal to the
injury the accused caused.
Ex: “patya na si carla abellana. Kung dili nimo na patyon
patyon nako imo asawa”
In uncontrollable fear, the offender uses threat or
intimidation to compel another to commit. Maybe
generated through a threatened act directly from the
third person. Not necessarily nay tao. So exemption
siya sa 3rd actor rule sa irresistible force. Pwede na wala
siya dira. Pwede mu ingon siya na “kauban nako imo
asawa diri, patyon nako imo asawa kung dili nimo rape-
on si Carla abellana on facebook live”. Basta ang
panghadlok si generated towards the accused
INJURY CAUSED MAY BE A LESSER DEGREE THAT
THE ACCUSED CAUSED
Ex: patya na si atty dalam kay gi bagsak ko ana. Kung
dili nimo siya patyon putlan taka ug kamot. Unsay mas
greater maputlan or magpatay?
INSUPERABLE CAUSES
Because of some extremities or exigencies, wala nimo
nabuhat. You are exempted by law.
It is some motive which has morally or lawfully or
physically prevented a person to do what the law
provides. Render ny act difficult. Not necessary na
accident. It is enough na ma endanger nimo ang isa ka
act commanded to you by law kung dili nimo siya i
consider.
Elements
ABSOLUTORY CAUSES
What are absolutory causes?
- there is a crime committed but for reasons of
public policy and sentiment, there is no crime
committed (Abeto, 2017)
- particular circumstances or considerations that
are not found in the RPC but in certain
instances no, it will either exempt or justify the
act.
But it will not mitigate criminal liability.
Now we can mention several absolutory causes. It can
be found in the RPC
1) Spontaneous desistance in the attempted stage
of a felony. That is an absolutory cause. It is not
justifying or exempting, and not mitigating. You
are absolved from criminal liability.
How about independent will in a frustrated
stage? We have already discussed that you will
be liable for something else
2) Article 7 – light felonies not constituting crimes
against persons and property. Again the
important consideration is here is being
particular with crimes against persons and
property. Ayaw ninyo kalimti because it can be
asked in the examination.
3) We have also this concept instigation – you
compel an individual to adapt a particular
behaviour to adapt a particular course of action.
4) Marriage of an offended party in cases of
seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness
and rape – these are called private crimes
because under normal circumstances these
crimes are committed sa mga pribadong lugar.
5) Article 20 – accessories who are exempt from
criminal liability by reason of relationship. Unsa
ni sila? Accessories. Except if (see syllabus)
6) In cases of adultery and concubinage – if the
offended party shall have consented or pardon.
Consent gihatag before the commission of the
crime. Pag pardon after the commission of the
 crime. (Art 344 of the RPC – crimes mentioned
are private crimes)
7) Trespass to dwelling art 280 of RPC – generally
you are not allowed to enter a property without
the express consent of the owner. Because of
certain exigencies, you have to enter the
property.
ENTRAPMENT VS. INSTIGATION
Entrapment- buy-bust operation, the criminal
design is from the offender
Instigation – criminal intent originated sa nagsugo.
That makes it illegal. Gina tease nimo siya to
commit a violation of the law.
ART 13 MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
- concept of mitigating circumstances – gina
reduce niya ang penalty
Rule in mitigating circumstances – dapat nag arrive
from a single fact or source.
ORDINARY OR PRIVILEGED MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCES
1) Look codal
Important terms:
- Preceding chapter. Unsa ang covered sa
preceding chapter? Articles 11 and 12.
Justifying and exempting circumstances.
Unsa iyang gi ingon
- when all the elements has not been met.
That’s why I am requiring you to memorize
the elements para kabalo mo when to apply
the first paragraph of article 13.
- Relate to art 69 – yawyaw article 69
Important words: (basi mag pa quiz siya sa computation
sa penalty)
- 1 or 2 degrees
- pag unlawful aggression lang 1 degree
lower lang
Diba ana majority of the elements. Pag majority,
unlawful aggression pero wala ang isa, duha lang, 2
degrees.
Example ang penalty is maximum sa prision correcional
iya medium kay arresto mayor and minimum is arresto
menor.
Unlawful aggression is what, a condition sine qua non.
Ngano man dako ang tanaw sa law sa unlawful
aggression? Kay nag cause siya ug imminent danger sa
imong kinabuhi. Bahalag di nimo makuha tanan
elements, basta you are entitled to defend yourself. Pag
ikaw ang nag cause ug unlawful aggression unsa,
incomplete self-defense.
Applicable ang paragraph 1, 2 and 3 sa article 11 basta
1 element plus unlawful aggression. 2 degrees lower.
SENILITY (OVER 70)
Ordinarily, ang senility is ordinary mitigating
circumstance na siya. Pero nay exemption.
Dili mag apply ang art 49, qualified by the relationship
of the offender and the offended party.
Gusto nimo patyon ang isa ka tao, imo napatay imong
anak, 70 years old ka, unsay epekto ana, parricide. Pag
adto sa korte pwede ba ka muingon na mitigating
circumstance of old age? Dili na pwede. Because art 49
is a special rule on penalty. Walay mention na pwede
mitigating circumstance.
Special aggravating or privileged mitigating, depende
sa effect.
MINORITY
RA 9344 - relate sa art 68 – penalty to be imposed on
offenders under 18 years of age, minor
Stop, article 80 – suspension of sentence of minor
delinquents. Pero gi amend na siya sa sec 38 of RA
9344 crash out 68 and 80.
Sec 38 of RA 9344 – automatic suspension of sentence.
SUSPENDED SENTENCE without need of application.
Kailan mag apply? Read section 23 of RA 9344. Pag 15
years old and up and nay determination of discernment,
unsa next na move, (sec 20, intervention).
After, tanawon ang imposable penalty sa crime
committed. Kung 6 years and nay private offended party,
nay particular form of diversion. Kinsa mag buhat ana?
Law enforcement officer ug punong barangay. Kung 6
years na walay private offended party, (illegal gambling,
drugs), kinsa mag direct? Social worker. Karon kung
higher than 6 years ang imposable penalty unsay
mahitabo, suspended sentence. (Pero agi muna sa
section 23. Automatic na nay discernment na kay
offender naman ang tawag sa imoha. ) ngano
suspended sentence man? Kay usually kung lapas sa 6
years, heinous crime na siya. Hantod asa hulaton,
gipatay niya 17 siya, hantod mag abot siyag 18, para
full criminal liability. Didto na siya mabilanggo. Provided
that the suspended sentence shall be supplied. Unsay
rule gina ingon, predating of the sentence. So kung 8
years imo penalty, 17 ka maghulat kag 1 year para full
criminal responsibility, 1 year imo gi gamit diri na
suspended sentence. Applying the rule, 7 years nalang
imong bunuon.
Sa intervention walay tay problema. Automatic, 15
years and below, intervention dayon na. Apil ba diri ang
15 years old and below? Dili. DSWD na na dira.
NO INTENTION TO COMMIT SO GRAVE A WRONG
THAN THAT COMMITTED.
!Praetor intentionem!
There is lesser perversity on your part
Cases
Nay identification na dili kadto ang intention. Notable
and evident misproportion between the means
employed in the criminal act and the result. Can this
apply to culpable felonies? No.
From the word itself: intentionem
Why? Article 4 (1) delito
(Ppl vs ural): naay ginakulata na prisoner tapos gi
bubuan ug gasoline, tapos gi sindihan tapos nasunug.
Intentionem: walay man to gi intend kay hubog siya ato
na time. Lol (dili man siya habitual drunkard)
(Ppl vs pahinado (?): belief of the accused is not
entertained in court
Not appreciated in aberration ictus. Why? From the
word praetor sa aberratio ictus isa lang imo victim but it
so happens na duha imo na igo. Per same crime lang
man. So natural tendency ana unsa? Wala kay
kaikyasan ana.
August 7 lecture
Article 12 paragraph 4 in relation to paragraph 1 article
13.
Article 67 paragraph 4
Article 64 paragraph 5
Divisible penalties. Example prision correcional: max
med min
So, understanding article 64 would give you an insight
on how to apply rules on penalties.
What is the rule?
Paragraph 1, if there is no aggravating circumstance,
mag medium ta diba. Tama?
If nay mitigating mubaba ta. If nay generic aggravating
circumstance mutaas ta. So what if paragraph 5, there’s
a special instance there. What is that instance there?
2 or more mitigating circumstance. What will happen?
Meaning, example nay 3 ka mitigating then aggravating,
zero, we will apply paragraph 5 what will happen? We
will lower 1 degree. That could be our basis of
determining proper imposable penalty.
What will happen? So we go arresto mayor in its
maximum. But take note may dalawa, isa pa sobra.
What will be the effect? The excessive 1 will be
considered ordinary mitigating circumstance. So the
proper penalty would be medium (without applying
indeterminate sentence law). You will start there.
Now what if may apat mitigating? What will be the
effect? Will you apply article 64 paragraph 5 twice?
NO. why? Because it will be applied only once. The
remaining two will be the ordinary mitigating
circumstance, therefore you go down 2 degrees lang.
so from maximum, the proper penalty, if there are 2
ordinary mitigating circumstance, therefore, the proper
penalty would be arresto mayor in its minimum. THAT
IS THE CONCEPT.THAT IS ALL THAT YOU NEED.
Now, paano kung may aggravating circumstance?
Dalawa ang aggravating lima ang mitigating. Same rule.
Rule of offsetting. 5-2=3. Then apply article 64 paragrph
5 care, meaning evident premeditation. Art 67 will not
NA RECORD DAI Q NIMO
There is no clear and succinct explanation on this
particular matter. Privileged mitigating circumstance
diba 68 69 64.
Article 68 has already been amended by section 38 RA
9344 in relation to sec 23 in relation to sec 20 in relation
to section 41. Article on death penalty has been
suspended. Art 47
Can this prevail over article 48 and article 49? No
privileged mitigating circumstance cannot offset these.
(special aggravating circumstances)
ARTICLE 12 PARAGRAPH 4
ACCIDENT
There are certain elements there:
- performs a lawful act
- with due care
- without fault
- causes injury or damage
What will be the effect if there is no injury or no damage?
ROC, cause of action elements: (exercise of a right to
sue)
Cause of action is an act which constitutes a violation of
your right
- existence of a right
- Obligation to respect the right
- violation of the right
- injury and damage on the part of the victim.
(major)
THERE WILL BE NO CAUSE OF ACTION!! –no liability-
damnum absque injuria
In this particular instance, dapat naa jud ni siyay injury
for a criminal action to pursue.
Effect of the absence of the other 3 elements of accident
as exempting.
Art 67 – penalty to be imposed skemfet read nalang bes
Always remember art 67 and 69 in relation to par 1 of
art 13, ma fail daw kung di ni ma keep in mind. Over.
Katong dili mahulog sa 69 saluon sa art 67. Mahulog sa
69 mga exempting na walay elements.
Insanity will not fall under par 1 of art 13. There is no
elements in insanity kasi absolute atong test of insanity.
COMPLETENESS. Kung dili ka completely insane
kanag dili ka ma deprive of intelligence, you may fall
under par 9 of article 13(illness) gets?
ART 67 accident. Relating
Tulo lang automatic pag walay injury walay kaso.
Automatic ba ni? NO. qualify na dapat. If mawala ang 1,
you are not performing a lawful act, tapos kani, with
intent, ibig sabihin with intent ang act. What is the effect,
the act performed is intentional felony. And it is with due
apply. Because art 67 is akin to art 365. It involves
penalties related to negligent acts. What if ang element
is this, lawful act, pero without due care, then with fault,
tapos may injury that is when you apply art 67 depende
kung grave or less grave ang felony. Culpable felonies
– art 63.
Most of the time, if you apply this to culpable felonies,
mas mugamay ang penalty. Ma defeat ang penal
purpose.
Intention can be ascertained by identifying the weapon
used and the injury inflicted.
There are certain instances where praetor intentionem
cannot be appreciated by the court. Not applicable to
culpable felonies, murder qualified by treachery.
(Ppl vs Pajenado): Ambush = treachery. You cannot
appreciate this particular mitigating circumstance. The
purpose of treachery will be defeated.
- Not appreciated in cases where there is no
material harm. Why? there is no excessive
effect.
- Applicable only to physical injuries and material
harm.
- Not available as a defense in anti-hazing law.
Why? The law stated it should not be applicable
- Abberatio ictus, the intended crime to
perpetrate, the result, there is no particular
difference. Avoid rendering article 48 useless.
- Error in personae, same reason in abberatio
ictus
(Ppl vs Boyles): Very important case………….
Intent during the commission of the felony, not during
the trial stage, mitigating circumstances could not be
appreciated, the established facts in the case has the
intention to commit the particular act. That is the
presumption of the law.
(People vs Centeno)
(Ppl vs Flores)
(People vs Cristobal): unintentional abortion (read)
(Ppl vs Lameno)
(Cimafranca vs Sandiganbayan): malversation of public
funds. Mala prohibita. Intent is immaterial.
Misappropriated because he was impelled by the
genuine love for his family. Pero 8,000 nalang ang wala
pa nabayran, in less than one month. No intention to
commit so grave a wrong. Praetor intentionem can be
appreciated. COMMENT NI SIR: MALVERSATION IS
MALA PROHIBITA, THEREFORE INTENTION IS
IMMATERIAL. IF YOU COMMITED A VIOLATION OF
THE LAW, YOU COMMITED A VIOLATION. BUT, the
mitigating circumstance in paragraph 10, analogous
circumstances. Gibalik niya ang kwarta. The proper
applicable provision is paragraph 10 article 13. This is
an aberration.
PROVOCATION
- sufficient provocation. The same as that in 11
- enough to excite or intimate an individual to
commit a particular act. Tama siya na mag
trigger ug kalain, kay gi provoke nimo siya.
Dapat ba positive and imminent? No. that is
unlawful aggression. Pero pareho lang sila
provocation.
- Any unjust or improper conduct capable of
exciting anyone, maka cause ug kalain.
Requisites:
Effect kung dili tanan present? Wala, there is no
mitigating circumstance. Unlike sa justifying ug
exempting. KUNG KULANG ANG ELEMENTS SA
MITIGATING, AUTOMATIC, WALAY MITIGATING. NO
SUCH THING AS INCOMPLETE MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCE.
 Provocation must be sufficient, meaning
adequate. How to determine? Nay certain
categories.
- the act constituted provocation
- social standing of the person provoked (ppl
vs ampar)
- place and time where the provocation is
made
 Provocation must be personal and directed to
the accused (target based ni siya)
 Provocation must immediately precede the act
(reason: diminution of free will)
DIFFERENTIATION IN ART 11 AND 13
Absence of Provocation on the part of the person
defending himself or his relative
Presence on the part of the offended party
IN BOTH, PROVOCATION SHALL BE SUFFICIENT.
August 9 2017 lecture
VINDICATION OF A GRAVE OFFENSE
NAGHIGANTI – revenge, kasi lahi2 ang gamit nila with
the provocation and passion and obfuscation, pero
pareho lang pero lahi ang pagka gamit.
EX: TIME in relation to provocation? Vindication?
Nanimalos ka, retaliation. At the outset what is the
meaning of this? Is that allowed? NO.
In retaliation, wala nay self defense dira because the
aggression has already ceased to exist. Generally it is
not allowed. Even if you allow as a mitigating, dili
gihapon ka ma exempt. That’s why mitigating
circumstance lang. there is certain consideration why
medyo mababa ang penalty.
Requisites:
 that there be a grave offense done to the one
committing the felony, to his spouse,
ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural or
adopted brothers and sisters or relatives within
the same degrees. Isa isahon nato medyo taas
siya no..
First word to be considered: grave offense – pareha
bani siya sa grave offense na gina refer nato sa art 9 in
relation to art 25 of the RPC? NO
Unsa man ang pag define? Those which are gina
tagaan ug penalty na capital punishment. Technical def.
But here, unsay meaning sa grave offense diri. ANY
ACT THAT IS OFFENSIVE TO THE OFFENDER or his
relatives. Pwede man ni siya a lawful act but then again,
you will be held liable pero nay mitigation.
Example, the offender is exercising his right to defend a
relative.. ingana. Pero majority sa elements sa defense
of a relative kay wala na meet. But basically, gi establish
na nay gibuhat sa relative niya, nay nag trigger sa iya
na magbuhat ato. So during the prosecution, pwede ba
siya justified? How about mitigating par 1? NO! kay wala
niya na meet ang majority sa elements. Pero pwede
basa par 5? YES. VINDICATION. Retaliate na siya.
Factors to determine gravity of the offense of vindication
- social standing of the person – gi unsa pag
gamit sa social standing of the person sa
provocation? KAMO NA BAHALA ANA.
- PLACE and time when the insult was made.
Walay age didto. You will put age kung naga
answer kag par 2 didto or par 10, analogous
circumstances
Pareho rana siya pero lahi lahi pagka gamit sa
provocation and vindication. Pero walay age diri
CASES
Naa bay time interval na required? Dapat ba mabilis ang
pag vindicate? Unsay gi allow na pinaka dugay? Accdg
to jurisprudence, the use of immediate here kay mali,
dapat PROXIMATE. Dapat nay particular time interval
that would connect the particular crime sa grave offense
na committed sa imoha or sa relatives nimo.
BASTA THE RATIONALE IS PWEDE PA MA
ESTABLISH WHY NA COMMIT ANG PARTICULAR
ACT.
TAKE NOT SA VINDICATION, NAAY RELATIVES DIRI
NA NA APIL
In provocation dapat ang perpetrator kay siya ang gi
provoke. On the other hand, sa vindication, it is allowed.
Qualification of the relatives
- SPOUSE
- ASCENDANTS
- DESCENDANTS
- BASTA BROTHERS OR SISTERS
- BY AFFINITY WITHIN THE SAME DEGREES
- kinsa gina mean diri? Relatives by affinity.
Kinsa ni sila? In-laws. Ang question diri kay gi
qualify sa words na within the same degrees.
Asa ni siya? Pareho ban i sila sa concept of
relatives sa justifying? Dili. Limited siya. KINSA
NI SILA? Meaning I relate nato ang relatives by
affinity sa brothers and sisters.
How many degrees ang brothers and sisters nato sa
atoa? 2nd degree. Basically kung layo na diha, you
cannot claim this. Obviously dili pud pwede provocation.
DISTINGUISH PROVOCATION AND VINDICATION
(PEOPLE vs Dagatan): ngano mali na target-based ang
vindication?
(People vs Benito)
PASSION OR OBFUSCATION
PASSION – any particular act that would diminish your
power of reasoning. dili importante diri ang nabuhat
nimo na act, ang mental state ang importante sa
perpetrator
Requisites:
- there be an act both unlawful and sufficient to
produce such a condition of mind
Diff: grave offense- pwede lawful basta anything na
offensive. But in this case nay particular na act is na
provoke ka and unlawful. Pwede ba mag apply diri ang
mistake of fact doctrine?
- that the said fact that produced the act is not far
removed from the act committed within a
considerable length of time to release the
perpetrator to recover his equanimity
- the act that causes obfuscation was committed
by the victim himself. Pareho sa par 4.
(People vs Guhiting)
(People vs Hicks): act must come from lawful
sentiments
(People vs Dela Cruz): naa siyay karapatan kay nay
connection sa ila duha
(People vs Rebucan): 4 days after the discovery that his
wife was sexually abused. 4 days was enough for the
accused to have recovered his equanimity. Passion
cannot be appreciated.
Unsay mga realizations nato diri;
- naay time element sa passion or obfuscation.
Sa provocation unsa ka dugay? Immediately.
Sa vindication – passion, musulod ba siya sa
10? Analogous circumstances. Sige lang later
Can vindication be appreciated or paired with passion
or obfuscation? “Dili because ang concept sa
vindication is revenge or retaliation” (Alaan, 2017). We
are not allowed to retaliate.
VOLUNTARY SURRENDER AND CONFESSION OF
GUILT
-duha diri ang mitigating circumstances, automatic
entitled ka to two. Privileged mitigating circumstance ni
sya
VOLUNTARY SURRENDER
1) That the offender had not been actually
arrested. Syempre. Because the state kung gi
arrest na ka has custody of your person, there’s
no use sa pag surrender kung gi arrest na ka.
 2) That the offender surrendered himself to a
person of authority or to the latter’s agent.
Question: kinsa maning persons in authority.
Answer: art 152 as amended by RA9178. Kinsa
ni sila?
Person of authority: one who is vested with
jurisdiction or power to govern and execute the
laws whether as an individual or as a member
of a tribunal court or governmental corporation.
Executive officials, mayors president,
government, judge
Because of the amendment certain individuals
were included – teachers are considered as
persons in authority. Kung nag commit kag
crime ni surrender ka sa teacher, pwede ba ka
mu claim ani na mitigating circumstance? NO
the inclusion of teachers by the reason of sheer
power of RA1978 kay in relation lang sa
DIRECT ASSAULT. (Art 148.) ang police?
Chief of police?
3) Surrender was voluntary, unconditional, and
spontaneous.
What is meant, for voluntary surrender to be
appreciated, the same must be spontaneous in such a
manner that it shows the interest of the accused to
surrender unconditionally to the authority because he
acknowledges his guilt or because he wishes the state
to be saved from the trouble and expenses necessary
for his search and capture.
Unconditional - example: pre-bargaining ka, sige mag
surrender ko pero ang I penalty sa ako for homicide lang.
pwede na siya or dili? There are certain instances when
voluntary surrender is not appreciated by the Supreme
Court:
 (Ppl vs Agacer): took notice of the crime
committed (killing) tapos nawala ang tao.
Automatic 2-3 days naa nay search warrant na
against you or arrest warrant. Surrender ka kay
nahadlok lang ka, consideration, dili siya
voluntary.
 The accused surrendered only after having
been informed of the charge of rape against him.
2 months from the commission of the crime.
The alleged surrender therefore cannot be
appreciated to a mitigating circumstance.
Dugay na kaayo..
 The accused went to the barangay chairman to
seek protection against the retaliaton of the
relatives of his victim, and not to uplift his
participation in the said crime
 seeing that the police was already approaching
and the accused did not resist, accused had no
choice but to go with them (na corner siya)
INTRIGUING CASES (SEE REYES BOOK)
Example 10 days na wala gihapoy warrant because of
misfeasance sa prosecutor, wala lang nalihok. Tapos ni
surrender ka 14 days, voluntary ba gihapon siya?
Consult section 2 sa art 3? Bill of rights – consti
VOLUNTARY CONFESSION
Requisites
1) Spontaneously confessed his guilt – pwede ba
ang confession ma contain sa isa ka particular
document? Sa pleading or counter affidavit
pero gi present siya court, that is open court.
Dili lang siya verbal but contained in the
document, pwede ba siya?
2) Made in the competent court trying the case
Cross examination pero kung gi ingon niya na
ako nag pirma, dili bana voluntary?
3) Made prior to the presentation of evidence by
the prosecutor
Example: Arrested, nag file kag bail bond sa quezon city
court, later on nag issue ug motion ang prosecution na
magkuha ug deposition paper to get your testimony.
Ang korte nag i file-an ug bail bond, mao to ang nagkuha
ug deposition paper nimo. Tapos ni ingon ka na ikaw.
Kung I present na siya sa korte, can you claim the
mitigating of voluntary confession. Kay sa court sa
quezon city ni amin ko. Can that be allowed by the
court? NO. because the court that is taking the
deposition should be the court trying the case. Sila lang
nag allow sa bail bond, ang court sa quezon. Diri man
sa davao ang jurisdiction kay diri man gi commit ang
crime. So diri ma file ang kaso.
(People vs Juan): humanag trial, ka present nag
evidence, pero wala pa nahuman, tapos bigla lang nag
confess ug guilt. So unsa mahitabo ana, humana ang
kaso because there is already confession. Guilt could
be established na pero magpadayon gihapon na not to
determine guilt but to determine kung nay mitigating or
aggravating. Can mitigating circumstance of voluntary
confession be allowed? NO. because the requirement
of the law, elements niya prior to the presentation.
If you confessed during preliminary investigation,
pwede ba? Open court ba ni siya? What if during
arraignment? Arraignment – pangutanahon ka before
the formal trial final notice that you are being accused.
For the last time na ikaw ba nagbuhat. Mao rana siya.
Pwede? Basta prior to presentation of evidence
Plea to a lesser offense; gi charge-an ka ug murder,
tapos conditional plea of guilt, confession na siya dili?
DILI. Dapat voluntary gane. Pero unsa imo gi ingon? “sir
homicide raman to kanang qualifying circumstance dira
dili na tinood. Chance encounter nana siya treachery
will not be appreciated. Claim nako homicide” tapos mu
ingon ang prosecution that the plea of the accused will
not be (skems) we will proceed with the trial for murder.
Then after sa trial convicted ka, ang na prove lang kay
homicide lang, can you be granted with the confession
(mitigating)? YES yes yes.
(People vs Yturriaga): it is not the fault of the accused
that the prosecution erroneously presented the
qualifying circumstance of treachery without adequate
evidence. Dili to niya sala.
Kung baliktad - ang charge sa imo kay murder pero nag
plea kag homicide, tapos na prove na murder – NO
because at the outset, conditional to siya
(Ppl vs waldasan): MTC na kaso, not guilty your honor,
nag proceed ang trial, pilde, tapos sa RTC, nag plead
ug guilty, pwede bani siya? Dili na.
PHYSICAL DEFECT
- offender is deaf, dumb, blind, or some physical
defect restricting his means of action on the
commission.
Nay comment si Boado diri: the physical defect must be
related to the offense committed. In other words, the
defect or illness must be a contributing factor to the
commission of the crime.
Example putol imo left, imo right naa, kusgan, pero gi
baril nimo siya. Serious physical injuries, contention,
physical defect: yes, or sumbag lang,. pero naa kay baril
lang, self-defense? No reasonable necessity of the
means employed wala. Sumbag rato, baril imoha.
Majority? Yes privileged mitigating. Pwede kaayo pud
ang physical defect
The physical defect would considerably make it difficult
for you to commit the crime.
J. Regalado: if the accused is totally or completely blind
and dumb, he does not prove that his means of action
are thereby restricted. DUMB- LACKING THE POWER
OF HUMAN SPEECH
Does this mitigating circumstance distinguish an
uneducated person? No.
ILLNESS OF THE OFFENDER – panghuna huna, kung
dili ka absolute buang, pwede ka diri. Ex: klepto, tapos
nag shoplift ka, pwede ka dri. Pero definitely dili ka
exempted. Kay dili ka completely buang.
DEFECT VS ILLNESS:
DEFECT – PHYSICAL; ILLNESS – MENTAL
Requisites:
- that the illness diminishes the accused’s
exercise of willpower
- such illness should not deprive the offender of
consciousness of his acts
Illness of the mind not amounting to insanity
ANALOGOUS CIRCUMSTANCE
- poverty pero kung recidivist, neh
- surrender of weapon
(comafranca vs ppl)
Offender based ba ang mitigating circumstance?
August 14 lecture
Classification of aggravating circumstances
Specific aggravating is distinct sa special aggravating
circumstances
QUALIFYING AGGRAVATING
- mitigating circumstance is not applied in
violation of special laws. It covers rpc provisions
EXN:
- when the violation of SPL is mala in se – (BP
22, anti loose firearms laws, effects of bearing
firearm is dako ang effect) Naay crimes na my
gamit ug penalty sa rpc pero dili siya mala in se
- when the special penal law allows for mitigation
– mala prohibita siya pero nay certain terms
provided in the provisions na pwede mu
appreciate ug mitigating or aggravating
- even if mala in se na siya, dili pwede ang
mitigating.. art 63 of RPC: in cases in which the
law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it
shall be applied by courts regardless of any
mitigating or aggravating circumstances that
may have attended the commission.
Ex: murder – of your act would fall under art248
of the RPC, maski nay mitigating that will not be
considered, why because the penalty is single
indivisible penalty. What is that penalty,
reclusion perpetua. Oras na ma qualify imong
act na murder, there are 21 aggravating
circumstance, automatic, cannot be
appreciated.
Isa lang ang kailangan, because we need to
qualify the act: treachery, all of the other
aggravating, wala na.
QUALIFYING AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE
- change the nature of the crime of the offense of
the felony committed.
Kung na prove ang isa ka aggravating
circumstance (ex. Treachery), all other
aggravating circumstances need not be proven
because the crime will be qualified to murder –
BOADO: in case of qualifying circumstances ang rule
niya, pag nay multiple aggravating circumstance, ex,
murder, naay isa ka aggravating circumstance to qualify,
the other will be generic aggravating circumstance.
THAT IS NOT ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. Why?
Because we’ve already mentioned, pag I qualify sa isa
ka aggravating circumstance ang isa ka particular act,
ma change ang nature niya, automatically the other
aggravating circumstance will no longer be appreciated
because we have art 63. –kasi in this instance, the
penalty is an indivisible one, so mawala na siya.
NOW, naa bay instance na pwede ma apply ning gina
ingon ni boado? OF COURSE NAA. Pag ang penalty
prescribed for a crime is DIVISIBLE. This is now the
case where we will apply art 64.
Example, art 295 – robbery with a band, kung gi commit
nimo ang band duha ang aggravating, we will qualify it
to make it robbery with a band, ang isa, unsa nalang?
Generic aggravating circumstance.
Art 64 kung walay aggravating or mitigating na
circumstance, we will provide the medium.
Entrapment can neither justify nor exempt nor mitigate
your criminal liability because it is a valid operation of
law, aberration ictus,
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE – factors that are if
attendant or present in the commission of the crime will
increase the penalty, except inherent and qualifying, (art
62 of RPC)
Classification of aggravating circumstances:
1) ADVANTAGE BE TAKEN BY THE OFFENDER
OF THE PUBLIC POSITION
Art 62 1(a) – max regardless of any mitigating, -special
aggravating ni. Why? Because may special rule na
provided sa iyaha.
WHEN IS THIS CONSIDERED?
Nag hold up ka tapos chief of staff ka dri sa davao, can
this aggravating circumstance be appreciated? NO. the
law requires that you take advantage of the position.
Meaning you must use this influence, prestige, and
ascendancy.
(People vs mandolado): service firearm of military
individual, no aggravating. He did not use the prestige
and ascendancy. It is by utilizing the influence, prestige,
and ascendancy that this aggravating circumstance will
be used against you.
Ex: malversation – being a public official is a must. You
cannot malverse a public fund if you are not a public
official. Unsa pa, indirect bribery – public office ka.
Basis: perversity of the offender as shown by the means
and personal circumstance of the offender, and by the
means used for the commission of the crime. Public
function is a public trust
2) THE CRIME BE COMMITED IN CONTEMPT
OF OR WITH INSULT TO PUBLIC
AUTHORITIES
Disrespect sa ila… public authority here is element sa
pag identify sa aggravating
Basis: greater perversity of the offender as shown by
lack of respect to the public authorities
Requisites:
- that the public authority is engaged in the
exercise of his functions
- that the public authority is not the person
against whom the crime was committed. (why?
Because kung siya ang target sa violation, most
likely, direct assault. Contempt of public
authority is inherent, it is a crime itself)
- that the offender knows him to be a public
authority (knowledge)
- his presence has not prevented the offender
from doing the act (presence alone is sufficient,
di kailangan na may gawin ang PA)
BOADO: teachers are included in the term public
authorities
ESTRADA: teachers are not public authorities
REYES: dili included ang teachers
DALAM: the contention of Estrada is more conclusive.
The amendment made of art 152 by RA1972,
specifically provides the inclusion of teachers for
purposes of only applying art 148 – direct assault lang.
take note dili included ang teacher.
*nag inom sila tapos gi bigyan niya iya katapd – during
trial, how will you appreciate intoxication?*
3) THAT THE ACT BE COMMITTED IN
DISREGARD OF RESPECT DUE TO THE
OFFENDED PARTY ON ACCOUNT OF HIS
RANK, AGE, SEX, AND DWELLING OF THE
OFFENDED PARTY I THE LATTER HAS NOT
GIVEN PROVOCATION
Kung naa ni tanan upat, it will be considered as one
aggravating circumstance…
Basis: greater perversion
RANK- should be given its plain ordinary meaning to a
position
(Ppl vs rodel): definition of rank - refers to a high social
position or standing, armed forces, army, navy, in
relation to tothers, designation or title…. Etc ambot di
klaro ang enunciation
Relative position in civil or social life – priests, civic
leader (philanthropists)
AGE – old or tender age of the victim
SEX – females only wahahaha .. take note nay mga
crimes na inherent ni cia na circumstances, rape,
seuction, acts of lasciviousness
Principle: the circumstance of insult or in disregard due
to the offended part can be appreciated only in crimes
against persons or honor. Exn: dwelling
DWELLING - crimes against property or persons,
chastity
Cases for rank: killing of a staff sergeant, murder by a
pupil of his teacher, murder of municipal mayor,
Kailangan ba ang nagpatay mas ubos sa rank sa iyang
gipatay? NO, it’s not required.
(People vs Pimentel): gipahubo ang blouse bago
gipatay. Can aggravating circumstance of disregard of
sex be appreciated just because babae ang gipatay?
NO. It must also especially show that the offender saw
to it that the victim would be a woman. It will not be
sustained by the fact that the victim was a woman
unless it can be established in court that aside from the
unlawful taking of the life, there was, in the commission
of the crime, some specific insult or disrespect shown to
her womanhood.
The aggravating circumstance of disregard of rank, age
or sex is not applicable in:
 Acted with passion or obfuscation – must be
derived from lawful sentiments,
 When there exists the relationship between the
offended party and the offender – example ang
imo asawa taas ug rank, then nag commit kag
adultery sa inyong balay, ma consider ba ang
rank? NO. dwelling? YES
 When the condition of being a woman is
indispensable in the commission of the crime –
seduction, rape, abduction
August 16, 2017 lecture
Under the 24-hour principle, police officers as well as
bombero are considered performing their duties 24
hours a day. Remember that principle. Sila lang ana
others wala na. members of armed forces
PAR 3 – DWELLING
A dwelling is exclusively used for comfort and rest.
Particular place than an individual can exercise his right
to privacy. As long as naa siyay right to privacy, peace
of mind, right to rest, basially that is dwelling. It is not
required in the law na ikaw ang tag-iya sa balay. As long
as naa kay right to enjoy comfort, to rest, to have peace
of mind. You could be a guest
GUEST VS VISITOR
Kung applicable ang dwelling, gamit mo ug guest. Do
not use visitor
Technical definition of dwelling - under the
jurisprudence no, includes dependencies, staircase, etc
(see book), it may include a room in a boarding house
(again the concept of dwelling)..
(Ppl vs magnaye): the structure, the dwelling, was also
used as a market. Nay gi commit na crime. The
aggravating circumstance of dwelling cannot be
appreciated because we consider the dwelling as
EXCLUSIVELY used for rest and comfort.
(People vs lamahang): the place there is a house at the
same time a store. Gina gapit siya for commercial
purposes. In the crime of trespass to dwelling, this
particular structure, this may be considered as a
dwelling. With respect to app of 280 and appreciation of
dwelling as aggravating circumstance.
In aggravating circumstance to dwelling, the accused
transgressed the sanctity due to the privacy, by
commiting the crime therein, thus the victim must
(something) in the dweling. This is the reason why in the
case of magnaye, where the sc did not consider the
house which was also used as a store as it was imbued
to public, nay public character ang balay ba, and tus the
law does not afford the sanctity of the dwelling
People vs Daniel?:
People vs balansi:
Ppl vs ramolete
Transcript 7
Dwelling and treachery – ame basis of aggravation,
Treachery, you are conceptualizing means to weaken
the efense of victim
In dwelling, gigamit nimo ang dwelling para I disrespect
siya. Mag adto ka sa balay, patyon nimo siya, obviously
ma seclude mo, and ang means niya of defending
himself ma weaken.
Gen rule: treachery will absorb dwelling.
Kung ang factual basis niya is separate, basically two
aggravating circumstances will be appreciated.
Example ni adto ka a balay, gusto nimo siya patyon,
pero before nimo siya gipatay, gi tali nimo siya,
giblindfold, diba treacherous na siya. Therefore gen rule,
pero in this instance, una nisulod ka sa balay para ma
seclude mo, pero gi tali pa nimo siya. It will be
appreciated distinctly and separately
Dwelling is not aggravating in the ff circumstances: take
note of the technical description of the dwelling, sulod
sa gate, dili pa.
- (Ppl vs nuguid): when both the offender and
offended party are occupants of the same 🏡
house. Exn: adultery and concubinage.
Exemption to the rule in ppl vs nuguid. (chiz
escudero case lels – jason abalos ang keks sa
iya asawa, nakita sa cctv)
- When the robbery is committed with the use of
force upon things – giguba nimo ang bintana sa
balay, inherent na siya
- Robbery with the use of violence and
intimidation
- In the crime of trespass to dwelling, inherent
siya na element
- When the victim is not the dweller of the house
- When the owner of the dweller of the house
gives provocation
Concept of provocation: the same sa tanan, dapat
sufficient – immediate to the commission of the crime
(automatically mitigating circumstance of provocation
will be appreciated)
PAR 4 ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE AND OBVIOUS
UNGRATEFULNESS
There are 2 aggravating, kung present siya, separately
appreciated siya.
The basis is element of abuse of trust. Naay
establishment of relationship here, kanang gina saligan
naka, personal connection
In obvious ungratefulness, walay element of
relationship, no rapport. It is like naay gibuhat sa imo na
favorable, at the same time, gi violate nimo siya.
Supposed to be under ordinary circumstance,
magpasalamat ka.
(People vs verdad): di daw I apil haha – houseboy, didto
siya nag stay pag buntag, treated as family. Naa
personal connection diri. Later on, gibilin sa iya ang susi
kay naglakaw ang tag iya. Unsa iyang gi buhat,
nagbuhat siyag crime.
In short duha, abuse of confidence, kay naa na establish
na relationship, then, obvious ungratefulness. Kay tung
time na to, gipa skwela pa jud siya. Pero ang sc, gi
appreciate nila as one. Because the leniency of criminal
laws shall be interpreted in favor of the accused. Kung
naay ingana na instance na separate, pwede nimo ni
gamiton na kaso. (in actual imposition of the penalty)
Elements of abuse of confidence:
- abuse of confidence facilitated the commission
of the crime. EXN: theft – here, abuse of
confidence is inherent (qualified), art 62(1)
- offender abused such trust
- offended party trusted the offender, personal ni
siya. Dili ma establish ang trust and confidence
sa 1 week lang, 3 days. Dapat gina ulit2 na cia.
Mura na ciag part sa family. Established na cia.
There are instances whe abuse of confidence is
inherent in a particular crime.
- qualified seduction (ra 7877 na siya karon) –
persons na naay custody sa bata, ex teacher na
naay gibuhat sa student.
PAR 5 CRIME COMMITTEE IN THE PALACE OF
CHIEF EXEC, IN HIS PRSENCE, WHERE PUBLIC
AUTHORITIES ARE ENGAGED IN THE DISCHARGE
IF THEIR DUTIES AND IN A PLACE DEDICATED TO
RELIGIOUS WORSHIP
Are these circumstances counted as 4? No. as one lang
ni cia.
Basis: greater perversity in the place where the crime
was committed should be respected.
Ang target diri kay ang PLACE
1) Place of chief executive
o Kailangan ba na naay public function?
Dili. Ang minimum requirement is na
commit nimo ang crime sa sulod. Maski
sulod sa gate pwede na.
2) In the presence of chief executive
o Knowledge of the presence is
important. Kung wala ka kabalo, dili ni
ma apply. Dili kailangan na naa siyay
public purpose, kahit kumain lang siya
sa carenderia tapos alam mo na nanjan
siya.
3) Place na naay gina perform na public function
o condition sine qua non. The law wants
to protect the offices of public function.
Ddto a opisina sa pag-ibig, sa bir,.. etc..
Requisite: kailangan ba naay gna perform na public
function? Yes. Kung sabado dominggo, dili siya maging
aggravating
DILI NI CIA MA APPRECIATE SA SPUR OF THE
MOMENT SIT., CHANCE ENCOUNTER
Pwede ba ni sa entrance? Wala man gi ingon na inside.
Basta mag cause ka ug disturbance
(PPL VS CANOY): polling precints. Nag binigyanay mo
ddto sa sulod sa compund lang.
Par 2 vs par 5
- in both, public authorities are in the
performance of their function
- in 2, pwede sa labas, offended party kay dili ang
public official
4) place dedicated for rligious worship
o Kailangan ba naay nag misa? No. ex,
malicious mischief, gilabayan nimog
tae ang simbahan, pwede na cia
PAR 6 NIGHTTIME, UNINHABITED PLACE, AND BY
A BAND
Band, at least 4 people (quadrilla)
Basis: time and place and means and ways employed.
Sought after jud nimo na mag commit ug crime.
Absorbed by treachery daw ni.
(Ppl vs Santos): there are 3 distinct aggravating
circumstance in this paragraph.
General rule kung ma absorb, they will be appreciated
as one.
SC: there are tests kung gi unsa pag gamit ani na
aggravating circumstance:
1) It facilitated the commision of the crime- gigamit
nimo siya to execute the crime
2) Offender took advantage thereof for impunity.
Para maka takas
Meaning objective and subjective test.
NIGHTTIME
2 test, as long as ma establish ni, it will be aggravating.
Any of the 2 tests
NOCTURNIDAD – art 13 of civil code
(Us vs dowdel): it is necessary that the commision of the
crime be done and was completed at night time. Kung
dili nimo na complete and crime sa night time, this
cannot be utilized against you.
What if nasugdan before sunset then nahuman mga
2am? Then niikyas ka. Take note na gigamit nimo sa
pagtakas and take note sa tests, isa lang imong pwede
ma prove. In our example, gigamit nimo ang night time
to accord impunity. PWEDE!
Apprciated in separately with dwelling..
UNINHABITED PLACE - layo na lugar.
(Ppl vs laguardia): although the crime was committed in
nighttime, dili automatic na I apply ang aggravating
circumstance. Misnomer ni cia. Dapat silence of the
night ang appropriate
(Ppl vs moran): night time cannot be appreciated if the
crime was committed in a crowded place, or naay street
lights, although at the wee hour. The darkness of the
night is the consideration.
(Ppl vs banhaon)
Kung sa factual basis separate ang night time and
treachery, separate na aggravating circcumstance na
siya.
UNINHABITED PLACE – any place na ma isolate ka, to
eliminate the possibility on the victim’s part to ask for
help. Maski ma dunggan sa mga balay sa seashore,
basta impossible maka hanap ug help, uninhabited
place gihapon na siya (kung sa dagat), pero kung sa
land, dili.
Perversity: isolation of the commission of the crime.
Even if the house is the only house in the place, and the
victims are the only inhabitants of the place, uninhabited
place shall be appreciated.
It facilitates the commission and accords impunity.
To appreciate uninhabited place, it must be proven that
there were no inhabiting house nearby.
The uninhabited character of a place is determined not
by the distance of the nearest house but the scene of
the crime and whether or not there was no possibility for
the victim to seek some help at the scene where the
crime was committed. –concept of isolation
(Ppl vs santos): Jist is to prohibit isolation….
Nature:
BY A BAND
4 armed men.
Ma absorb niya ang superior strength
Art 306, brigandage – punishable by mere conspiracy,
robbery in the highway, kidnapping
Kung 4 mo naa moy firearms, basically, naa ang band.
Necessarily, inherent ang band sa brigandage
Perpetrators – ma absorb ang by a band..
Robbery with violence can be committed by an
individual. Armed men or by a band can be appreciated.
Dili siya inherent sa robbery. 294
We use the men in the general sense as human beings.
Pag qualifying, nagiging inherent siya. Because it is part
of the definition of the crime. Pero nagsugod siya as
qualifying..
PAR 7 in occasion of conflagration, shipwreck, calamity
or other misfortune
Basis: time of the commission. Of the crime.
Why discuss basis? Pwede ma absorb ang isa ka
aggravating circumstance kung lahi pero same ang
basis of aggravation.
Double baded ni siya. Pwede siya mitigating or
aggravating..
Kung dugay na kaayo ang calamity, then wala pajud lain
food, tapos naa pai tindahan na abundant.. nangawat
ka. Analogous circumstance..
Pero kung bago pa, tsunami, daghan pag isda pero
nangawat kag corned beef, there, aggravating
circumstance of calamity..
Naay calamity, tapos naa pd pgka treachery imo
pagpatay? Ma absorb ba ni treachery ang calamity? Dili
siya ma absorb.
Kani, serious physical injury lang, then aggra of
treachery, pwede ma appreciate..then naay calamity.
Ma absorb ba? Noooo.. basis!
Crash of airplane considered calamity? No. dapat
widespread ang effect diri na circumstance. Mga 3
provinces ang affected. Eroplano lng mana. 100+ ramo
kabuok..
SC: thousand of passengers will not make it as a
misfortune as provided here. (shipwreck)
8 AID OF ARMED MEN
Definition – diff. to by a band.
Weapons – anything that could cause injury
Elements:
- The armed men are accomplices to take part in
minor capacity directly or indirectly. There is no
conspiracy here. Dili ma apprciate imputability
doctrine.
- The accused availed himself of the aid. This
circumstance should not be appreciated when
armed men acted in concert during the
commission of the crime
Kailan dili ma appreciate ni?
- When both the offender and the victim were
armed. Ex kami duha ni hamoy, kamo ni quibin.
Kutsilyo inyoha baril amo. No concept of armed
men. Kay concept of rational equivalence.
Unsa man ma appreciate, abuse of superior
strength
- When the accused acted with conspiracy.
Mag apply baa ng armed sa chance encounter?
This aggravating circumstance will be used against the
principal and accomplice. Ngano? Kay kung sa
accomplice lang, mag pantay ang penalty sa principal.
Accomplice na siya. Directly or indirectly nag tabang sa
imoha.
9 REICIDENCIA (RECIDIVISM) vs reiteracion, separate
na cia na aggravating. Dili na sila special. Dili ni siya ma
absorb sa isat isa. Dili pareho ang nature though pareha Next, kung nag commit kag crime, penalty kay prision
ang basis. correccional, then ang next na penalty sa second na
Pero dili pwede sila mag uban. crime kay arresto mayor, reiteracion? No. kaisa palang.
Kung lesser, dapat duha, tawag ana constituent offense.
Requirement: Then… and ika tulo kay arresto menor, take note,
- At the time of his trial for one crime, shall have previously punished
been previously convicted by final judgment of
another crime, embraced in the same title of the SC: what is meant by previously punished: served out
RPC the sentence. Meaning 6 years, then nahuman. Later on
another offense ( pwede ba reiteracion? Pwede ) maski
TERMS: dili the same title

“Trial” – judicial trial. It starts from ARRAIGNMENT.
Ex: na held ka for preliminary investigation, tapos wala
pay judgment sa imong previous case, say murder, next
homicide. Covered by the same title. Tapos na held
liable ka sa homicide tapos gi raise na recidivist ka, later
on na convict ka sa murder. Then pag consideration sa
penalty sa homicide gi appreciate ang recidivism. You
raise the defense na during preliminary investigation,
wala paka na convict for murder.
Tama pag appreciate. Ang term is judicial trial. You
cannot deny the fact that during the arraignment na
convict na ka sa crime for murder, maski sa preliminary
investigation sa homicide wala paka na convict sa
murder.
“By final judgment”, kailangan ba na serve out nimo ang
sentence? NO. basta kay na convict lang ka by final
judgment.
THERE IS NO TIME ELEMENT HERE. MASKI 20 years
pero covered the same title, recidivist ka gihapon.
“serve out sentence” – nag run nawong? Ang service sa
sentence.
Ex. Kung nag ikyas ka, 6 yrs imo penalty, nag tago ka
for 16 years. Jurisprudence interprets it as the same
lang. ang kalisod sa imong pagtago for 15 years, the
same as having served your sentence. ART 92,
prescription of penalties
Tapos nag commit nasad ug 2nd violation – PM, tapos
convicted. Pwede ba reiteracion? YES.
Ex: 6 years, na serve nimo ang 2, ni ikyas ka for 16
years. Naa kai na commit na crime dri, tng pag ikyas
nimo art 157, so 2nd offense na ang pag ikyas nimo.
Tapos nag commit nasad ka ug offense. Q: asa ta
magkuha ug basis for reiteracion? Sa 2 nd? No. wala
paka nag serve out sa sentence sa 2 nd. So sa first ang
gamiton. Take note why? Previously served dapat.
Ang constituent offenses for reiteracion dapat dili
covered sa the same title of the RPC

Procedural: kailangan I allege nimo ang info sa

recidivist. Rule 110 sec 8&9. Pag wala na allege, you
do not have the right to prove that in court. It will violate
the right of the accused to be informed of the allegations
against him.

PARDON DOES NOT EXTINGUISH PENALTY FROM

PREVIOUS CONVICTION

Kung mag grant ug pardon ang president, pag

conditional pardon, dili mag extinguish ang taint of
criminal propensity nimo.

AMNESTY MA EXTINGUISH TANAN

(PEOPLE VS GALANG): if both offenses were

committed on the same day, they shall be considered
as one.

10 REITERACION
Requisites:
- Offender has been previously punished by an
offense to which the law attaches an equal or
greater penalty, or for two or more crimes for
lighter penalty

Ex: ng commit kag crime next then ang penalty kay

greater or equal than sa first nimo na commit.
Reiteracion? Yes.