Sie sind auf Seite 1von 156

CRIMINAL LAW 1

REVIEW NOTES

The states, as part of police power, have a


large measure of discretion in creating and defining
criminal offenses. It is urged that the right to prosecute
CRIMINAL LAW I and punish crimes is an attribute of sovereignty, but by
reason of the principle of territoriality as applied in the
suppression of crimes, such power is delegated to
subordinate government subdivisions such as territories.
I. DEFINITION AND SOURCES The Philippine Legislature by virtue of the Jones Law,
like other territories of the US, has the power to define
and punish crimes. The present government of the
A. DEFINITION Philippines created by the U.S. Congress is autonomous.
It is within the power of the legislature to prescribe the
Criminal law is that branch or division of law form of the criminal complaint as long as the
which defines crimes, treats of their nature, and constitutional provision of the accused to be informed of
provides for their punishment. the nature of the accusation is not violated.

B. STATE AUTHORITY TO PUNISH U.S. v. Pablo


CRIMES 35 Phil 94 (1916)
Facts: Pablo, a policeman, arrested Dato who
1. SOURCES OF PHILIPPINE CRIMINAL LAW was found in a vacant lot where a jueteng game was
(REYES) conducted. He presented a memorandum to his chief
a. The Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815) and its claiming that he saw Malicsi and Rodrigo leaving the
amendments area. However, during the trial, he changed his
statement and claimed that he did not see Malicsi nor
b. Special penal laws passed by the Philippine
Rodrigo leaving the area. As a result, the two accused
Commission, Philippine Assembly, Philippine
were acquitted. Pablo was charged with the crime of
Legislature, National Assembly, the Congress
perjury and was convicted under Act. No. 1697. It was
of the Philippines, and the Batasang
claimed that the Act repealed the provisions of the Penal
Pambansa.
Code relative to perjury, and the last provision of the
c. Penal Presidential Decrees issued during
Administrative Code repealed the Act, thus, there is no
Martial Law.
penal sanction for the crime of false testimony or
perjury.
1987 Constitution Article II, Section 5 Held: Notwithstanding that Act No. 1697 has
Declaration of Principles and State Policies. The been interpreted by this court in its decisions to have
maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, repealed provisions of the Penal Code relating to false
liberty and property, and the promotion of the general testimony, it did not expressly repeal the pertinent
welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the people provisions of the Penal Code. Also, the Administrative
of the blessings of democracy. Code, in totally repealing Act No. 1697, did not
expressly repeal the said articles of the Penal Code.
1987 Constitution Article VI, Section 1 Hence, the provisions of the Penal Code relative to
The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of perjury remain in force. The reason behind such
the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a interpretation is that crimes should not go unpunished
House of Representatives, except to the extent reserved or be freely committed without punishment of any kind.
to the people by the provision on initiative and
referendum. People v. Siton
600 SCRA 476 (2009)
People v. Santiago Facts: Siton and Sagarano were charged with Vagrancy
43 Phil 124 (1922) as defined in Article 202 (2) for “loitering about public or
Facts: Santiago was driving an automobile at a semi-public buildings or places or trampling or
high speed notwithstanding the fact that he had to pass wandering about the country or the streets without
a narrow space between a wagon standing on one side visible means of support;” The accused filed a motion to
of the road and a heap of stones on the other side where quash the information alleging that Article 202(2) is
there were two boys standing. He ran over Parondo who unconstitutional for being vague and overbroad.
was instantly killed as a result of the accident. Santiago
was convicted by the lower court of the crime of Held: Article 202 (2) is a public order law.
homicide by reckless imprudence. The accused appealed These laws were crafted to maintain minimum standards
challenging the validity of Act No. 2886 which amended of decency, morality and civility in human society. These
General Order No. 58 (which provides that all laws may be traced all the way back to ancient times,
prosecutions for public offenses shall be in the name of and today, they have also come to be associated with
the United States against the persons charged with the the struggle to improve the citizens quality of life, which
offenses), claiming that the legislature is not authorized is guaranteed by our Constitution. Criminally, public
to amend the latter because its provisions have the order laws encompass a whole range of acts from public
character of Constitutional Law. Sec. 2 of Act No. 2866 indecencies and immoralities, to public nuisances, to
contains that “all prosecutions for public offenses shall disorderly conduct. The acts punished are made illegal
be in the name of the People of the Philippine Islands by their offensiveness to societys basic sensibilities and
against the person charged with the offense.” their adverse effect on the quality of life of the people of
Held: The procedure in criminal matters is not society. The dangerous streets must surrender to
incorporated in the Constitution of the States, but is left orderly society.
in the hands of the legislature, so it that it falls within It must not be forgotten that police power is
the realm of public statutory law. an inherent attribute of sovereignty. It has been defined

1
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

as the power vested by the Constitution in the 2. LIMITATIONS TO STATE AUTHORITY TO PUNISH
legislature to make, ordain, and establish all manner of CRIMES
wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes and
ordinances, either with penalties or without, not 1987 Constitution, Art. III
repugnant to the Constitution, as they shall judge to be
for the good and welfare of the commonwealth, and for Sec.1. No person shall be deprived of life,
the subjects of the same. The power is plenary and its liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall
scope is vast and pervasive, reaching and justifying any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
measures for public health, public safety, public morals, Sec.14. No person shall be held to answer for
and the general welfare. a criminal offense without due process of law.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall
Quinto v. Andres be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and
453 SCRA 511 (2005) shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel,
Facts: Quinto and Garcia were invited by Andres and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
Pacheco to fish inside a drainage culvert. Quinto went against him, to have a speedy, impartial and public trial,
inside the drainage system with Pacheco and Andres to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have
while Garcia stayed outside. After a while, the dead compulsory process to secure the attendance of
body of Quinto was carried out by Andres. The body of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf.
Quinto was buried without autopsy and no criminal However, after arraignment, trial may proceed
complaint was filed by the deceased’s relatives. The NBI notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided
conducted an investigation and found that Quinto that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear
sustained head injuries and the cause of death was is unjustifiable.
drowning. An information for Homicide was filed against Sec.18. No person shall be detained solely by
Andres and Pacheco. The trial court and the Court of reason of his political beliefs and aspirations.
Appeals held that the accused did not commit the No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist
criminal acts complained of. except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party
shall have been duly convicted.
Issue: Whether or not the accused can still be held Sec.19. Excessive fines shall not be imposed,
civilly liable despite acquittal in the criminal charge. nor cruel degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted.
Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for
Held: Every person criminally liable for a felony is also compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the
civilly liable. The civil liability of such person established Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty
in Articles 100, 102 and 103 of the Revised Penal Code already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
includes restitution, reparation of the damage caused, The employment of physical, psychological, or
and indemnification for consequential damages. When a degrading punishment against any prisoner or detainee
criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the or the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities
recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law.
shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action Sec.20. No person shall be imprisoned for
unless the offended party waives the civil action, debt or non-payment of a poll tax.
reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes Sec.22. No ex post facto law or bill of
the civil action prior to the criminal action. With the attainder shall be enacted.
implied institution of the civil action in the criminal
action, the two actions are merged into one composite
proceeding, with the criminal action predominating the
2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rule 115
civil.
The prime purpose of the criminal action is to punish the
Section 1. Rights of accused at the trial. — In
offender in order to deter him and others from
all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled to
committing the same or similar offense, to isolate him
the following rights:
from society, to reform and rehabilitate him or, in
general, to maintain social order.
(a) To be presumed innocent until the contrary
is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The sole purpose of the civil action is the restitution,
(b) To be informed of the nature and cause of
reparation or indemnification of the private offended
the accusation against him.
party for the damage or injury he sustained by reason of
(c) To be present and defend in person and by
the delictual or felonious act of the accused
counsel at every stage of the proceedings, from
arraignment to promulgation of the judgment. The
The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it
accused may, however, waive his presence at the trial
the extinction of the civil action. However, the civil
pursuant to the stipulations set forth in his bail, unless
action based on delict shall be deemed extinguished if
his presence is specifically ordered by the court for
there is a finding in a final judgment in the civil action
purposes of identification. The absence of the accused
that the act or omission from where the civil liability
without justifiable cause at the trial of which he had
may arise does not exist.
notice shall be considered a waiver of his right to be
present thereat. When an accused under custody
In the present case, we rule that, as held by the trial
escapes, he shall be deemed to have waived his right to
court and the CA, the prosecution failed to adduce
be present on all subsequent trial dates until custody
preponderant evidence to prove the facts on which the
over him is regained. Upon motion, the accused may be
civil liability of the respondents rest, i.e., that the
allowed to defend himself in person when it sufficiently
petitioner has a cause of action against the respondents
appears to the court that he can properly protect his
for damages.
right without the assistance of counsel.

2
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

(d) To testify as a witness in his own behalf but undisputed that none of these unpublished PDs has ever
subject to cross-examination on matters covered by been implemented by the government.
direct examination. His silence shall not in any manner
prejudice him. C. BASIC PRINCIPLES
(e) To be exempt from being compelled to be a
witness against himself. Criminal law has three main characteristics: 1)
(f) To confront and cross-examine the general, 2) territorial, and 3) prospective.
witnesses against him at the trial. Either party may
utilize as part of its evidence the testimony of a witness 1. GENERALITY OF CRIMINAL LAW
who is deceased, out of or cannot with due diligence be
found in the Philippines, unavailable or otherwise unable Civil Code, Article 14
to testify, given in another case or proceeding, judicial Penal laws and those of public security and safety shall
or administrative, involving the same parties and subject be obligatory upon all those who live or sojourn in the
matter, the adverse party having the opportunity to Philippine territory, subject to the principles of public
cross-examine him. international law and to treaty stipulations.
(g) To have compulsory process issued to
secure the attendance of witnesses and production of
The criminal law of the country governs and applies to
other evidence in his behalf.
all persons in Philippine Territory, regardless of
(h) To have speedy, impartial and public trial.
nationality, age, gender or other personal
(i) To appeal in all cases allowed and in the
circumstances.
manner prescribed by law.
Example: An American who visits the Philippines in order
to kill his Filipina girlfriend because of extreme jealousy
is still liable for murder although he is a foreigner.
Civil Code, Article 2
Penal laws and those of public security and safety shall General Rule: The jurisdiction of the civil courts is not
be obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in the affected by the military character of the accused.
Philippine territory, subject to the principles of public
international law and to treaty stipulations. ü Civil courts have concurrent jurisdiction with
general court-martial over soldiers of the
Pesigan v. Angeles Armed Forces of the Philippines even in times
129 SCRA 174 (1984) of war, provided that in the place of the
Facts: Anselmo and Marcelo Pesigan were commission of the crime no hostilities are in
transporting carabaos in the evening of April 2, 1982 progress and civil courts are functioning.
from Camarines Sur to Batangas when the carabaos
were confiscated purportedly in accordance with E.O. ü When the military court takes cognizance of
No. 626-A, which prohibits transportation of carabao and the case involving a person subject to military
carabeef from one province to another. law, the Articles of War apply, not the RPC or
Held: The E.O. should not be enforced against other penal laws.
the Pesigans because it is a penal regulation (because of
its confiscation and forfeiture provision) and was ü The prosecution of an accused before a court-
published only in the Official Gazette on June 14, 1982. martial is a bar to another prosecution of the
Justice and fairness dictate that the public must be accused for the same offense.
informed of that provision by means of publication in the
Gazette before violators of the executive order can be ü Offenders accused of war crimes are triable by
bound thereby. The summary confiscation was not in military commission. A military commission has
order. The carabaos must be returned. However, the jurisdiction even if actual hostilities have
Pesigans cannot transport the carabaos to Batangas ceased as long as a technical state of war
because they are now bound by the said E.O. continues.

Tañada v. Tuvera
136 SCRA 27 (1985) a. Exceptions to the general application of
Facts: The petitioners seek a writ of criminal law
mandamus to compel respondent public officials to
publish or cause the publication of various P.D.’s, E.O.’s, Art. 2, RPC, “Except as provided in the treaties
LOI’s etc. invoking the Constitutional right of the people or laws of preferential application…”
to information on matters of public concern. Art. 14, Civil Code, “…subject to the principles
Held: The publication of all presidential of public international law and to treaty stipulations.”
issuances of a public nature or of general applicability is
mandated by law. It is a requirement of due process. It i. Treaty Stipulations
is a rule of law that before a person may be bound by
law, he must first be officially and specifically informed An example of a treaty or treaty stipulation is the Bases
of its contents. The Court therefore declares that Agreement entered into by the Philippines and the US
presidential issuances of general application which have on March 14, 1947 and expired on Sept. 16, 1991.
not been published shall have no force and effect.
However, the implementation of the PDs prior to its Another example would be the VFA signed on Feb. 10,
publication is an operative fact which may have 1998 where the Philippines agreed that:
consequences which cannot be justly ignored. The past a. US military authorities shall have the
cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration. right to exercise within the Philippines all
From the report submitted by the clerk of court, it is criminal and disciplinary jurisdiction conferred

3
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

on them by the military law of the US over US 1 Phil 18 (1901)


personnel in RP; Facts: Sweet was an employee of the US army
b. US authorities exercise exclusive in the Philippines. He assaulted a prisoner of war for
jurisdiction over US personnel with respect to which he was charged with the crime of physical
offenses, including offenses relating to the injuries. Sweet interposed the defense that the fact that
security of the US punishable under the law of he was an employee of the US military authorities
the US, but not under the laws of RP; deprived the court of the jurisdiction to try and punish
c. US military authorities shall have the him.
primary right to exercise jurisdiction over US Held: The case is open to the application of the
personnel subject to the military law of the US general principle that the jurisdiction of the civil
in relation to: (1) offenses solely against the tribunals is unaffected by the military or other special
property or security of the US or offenses character of the person brought before them for trial,
solely against the property or person of US unless controlled by express legislation to the contrary.
personnel; and (2) offenses arising out of any
act or omission done in performance of official Liang v. People
duty. 355 SCRA 125
Facts: Petitioner is an economist working at
ii. Laws of Preferential Application the Asian Development Bank (ADB). Sometime in 1994,
he was charged before the Metropolitan Trial Court of
Parliamentary Immunity under Section 11, Article Mandaluyong City with two counts of oral defamation for
VI of the Constitution- Members of Congress are allegedly uttering defamatory words against his
immune from arrest for all offenses punishable by not colleague. Thereafter, petitioner was arrested by virtue
more than six years imprisonment while Congress is in of a warrant. After fixing petitioner’s bail, the MeTC
session. judge received an office of protocol from the DFA stating
that petitioner is covered by immunity from legal
An example of a law of preferential application would be processes under Section 45 of the Agreement between
R.A. No. 75, which penalizes acts which would impair ADB and the Philippine Government. As a result, the
the proper observance by the Republic and inhabitants MeTC judge dismissed the criminal case without notice
of the Philippines of the immunities, rights, and to the prosecution.
privileges of duly accredited foreign diplomatic Held: Petitioner is not covered by the
representatives in the Philippines. immunity. Courts cannot blindly adhere to the
communication from the DFA that the petitioner is
R.A. No. 75 exempts from arrest and imprisonment, as covered by any immunity. It has no binding effect in
well as from distrain, seizure or attachment of property, courts. The court needs to protect the right to due
Public Ministers, Ambassadors and Domestic Servants of process not only of the accused but also of the
Ambassadors and Public Ministers except (a) when such prosecution. Secondly, the immunity under Section 45 of
person is a citizen or an inhabitant of the Philippines and the Agreement is not absolute, but subject to the
the writ issued against him is founded upon a debt exception that the acts must be done in “official
contracted before he entered such service; or (b) when capacity.” Slandering a person could not possibly be
said domestic servant is not registered with the DFA. covered by the immunity agreement as the same was
not committed in the performance of petitioner’s official
Warship Rule – a foreign country’s warship is duty.
considered an extension of the territory of the country
that it represents. Similar with an embassy, it cannot be
subject to the laws of another country. (Reyes, p. 30) 2. TERRITORIALITY OF CRIMINAL LAW

iii. Principles of Public International 1987 Constitution, Article I


Law The national territory comprises the Philippine
archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced
Persons exempt from the operation of our criminal laws therein, and all other territories over which the
by virtue of the principles of public international law Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of
(1) Sovereigns and other chiefs of state. its terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domain including the
(2) Ambassadors, ministers, plenipotentiary, territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular
ministers resident, and charges d’affaires. shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters around,
between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago
• a consul is not entitled to the privileges regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of
and immunities of an ambassador or the internal waters of the Philippines.
minister (Schneckenburger v. Moran, 63
Phil. 250).
Art. 2. Application of its provisions. — Except as
• under the Constitution, members of
provided in the treaties and laws of preferential
Congress are not liable for libel or slander
application, the provisions of this Code shall be enforced
in connection with any speech delivered
not only within the Philippine Archipelago, including its
on the floor of the house during regular or
atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone, but
special session.
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
U.S. v. Sweet

4
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

securities issued by the Government of the Philippine ü Philippine courts have no jurisdiction over
Islands; offenses committed on board foreign warships
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the in territorial waters. Warships are always
introduction into these islands of the obligations and reputed to be the territory of the country to
securities mentioned in the presiding number; which they belong and cannot be subjected to
4. While being public officers or employees, the laws of another state (U.S. v. Fowler, 1
should commit an offense in the exercise of their Phil. 614).
functions; or
5. Should commit any of the crimes against • The Philippines subscribes to the
national security and the law of nations, defined in Title Absolute Theory of Aerial Jurisdiction
One of Book Two of this Code. that the subjacent state has complete
jurisdiction only to the innocent passage
The RPC has therefore territorial and extraterritorial by aircraft of a foreign country.
application. The maritime zone extends to three miles
from the outermost coastline. Beyond that is the “high • Under this theory, if the crime is
seas” which is outside the territorial waters of the committed in an aircraft, no matter how
Philippines. high, as long as it can be established it is
within the Philippine atmosphere,
a. Crimes committed aboard merchant Philippine criminal law will govern (See:
vessels (RPC, Art. [1]) R.A. No. 6235 or the Anti-Hijacking law).

ü The RPC is applied to Philippine vessels if the b. When public officers or employees commit
crime is committed while the ship is treading: an offense in the exercise of their
• Philippine waters (intra-territorial functions. (RPC, Art. [3])
application), or
• The High Seas (waters NOT under the ü The Revised Penal Code governs if the crime
jurisdiction of any State) (whether or not in relation to the exercise of
[extraterritorial application] public functions) was committed within the
ü Note: the country of registry determines the Philippine Embassy or within the embassy
nationality of the vessel, not its ownership. grounds in a foreign country. This is because
embassy grounds are considered an extension
• Example: a murder committed by a of sovereignty. Thus, the crime is deemed to
Filipino seaman aboard a Filipino- have been committed in Philippine soil.
owned vessel registered in China
while it is sailing the high seas is not ü Illustration: A Philippine consulate official who
cognizable by Philippine Courts, but is validly married here in the Philippines and
the courts of China. who marries again in a foreign country cannot
be prosecuted here for bigamy because this is
ü There are two rules as to jurisdiction over a crime not connected with his official duties.
crimes committed aboard merchant vessels However, if the second marriage was
while in the territorial waters of another celebrated within the Philippine embassy, he
country: may be prosecuted here since it is as if he
contracted the marriage here in the
• French Rule – It is the flag or nationality Philippines.
of the vessel which determines jurisdiction
unless the crime violates the peace and c. Commit any of the crimes against national
order of the host country. security and the law of nations, defined in
Title One of Book Two of the Revised
• English Rule – The location or situs of Penal Code. (RPC, Art. [4])
the crime determines jurisdiction unless
the crime merely relates to the internal Examples: Piracy, Treason, Espionage.
management of the vessel.
US v. Bull
• The Philippine adheres to the English Rule. 15 Phil 7 (1910)
Facts: Norwegian steamship Standard docked in Manila
ü Disorders which disturb only the peace of the carrying cattle and other animals. It travelled from
ship or those on board are to be dealt with Formosa without providing the animals with adequate
exclusively by the sovereignty of the home of stalls as required by the laws. Instead, the animals were
the ship, but those which disturb the public tied by means of rings passed through their noses
peace may be suppressed, and, if need be, the causing the noses of the animals to be cruelly torn.
offenders punished by the proper authorities of Some animals were tossed about upon the decks of the
the local jurisdiction. vessel wounded, bruised and killed.

ü Smoking opium aboard a foreign vessel in Held: The Philippines has jurisdiction over the offense.
Philippine waters constitutes a breach of public When the vessel came within 3 miles from the coastline
order because it causes such drug to produce embracing Manila Bay, the vessel is within the territorial
its pernicious effects within our territory jurisdiction of the Philippines. It is admitted by the most
(People v. Wong Cheng, G.R. No. L-18924, 19 thoroughgoing asserters of the territoriality of merchant
October 1922). vessels that so soon as the latter enter the ports of a
foreign state they become subject to the local

5
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

jurisdiction on all points in which the interests of the such circumstances are in general triable in the
country are touched. (Hall, Int. Law, p. 263.). The courts of the country within territory they were
Supreme Court of the United States has recently said committed.
that the merchant vessels of one country visiting the
ports of another for the purpose of trade, subject Of this two rules, it is the last one that obtains in this
themselves to the laws which govern the ports they jurisdiction, because at present the theories and
visit, so long as they remain; and this as well in war as jurisprudence prevailing in the United States on this
in peace, unless otherwise provided by treaty. (U. matter are authority in the Philippines which is now a
S. vs. Diekelman, 92 U. S., 520-525.) territory of the United States.

U.S. v. Ah Sing Evangelista v. People


36 Phil 978 (1917) G.R. No. 163267, 5 May 2010
Facts: Defendant is a subject of China who Facts: Accused was charged of the crime of
bought eight cans of opium in Saigon and brought them illegal possession of firearms for bringing unlicensed
on board the steamship Shun Chang during the trip to firearms from Abu Dhabi to the Philippines. He insisted
Cebu. When the steamer anchored in the port of Cebu, that since Dubai is outside the territorial jurisdiction of
the authorities in making the search found the 8 cans of the Philippines, our criminal laws are not applicable.
opium. Defendant admitted being the owner but did not Held: The Supreme Court ruled that in order
confess as to his purpose in buying the opium. for the courts to acquire jurisdiction in criminal cases,
Held: Bringing opium in local territory even if it the offense should have been committed or any one of
is merely for personal use and does not leave the its essential ingredients should have taken place within
foreign merchant vessel anchored in Philippine waters is the territorial jurisdiction of the court. The
subject to local laws particularly under Sec. 4 Act. No. accomplishment by accused of the Customs Declaration
2381 a.k.a. the Opium Law. Under said law, importation Form upon his arrival at the NAIA is “very clear
includes merely bringing the drug from a foreign country evidence” that he was in possession of the subject
to Philippine port even if not landed. firearms when he entered the Philippines. Thus, since he
does not have any license for the firearms which were
Miquiabas v. Commanding General proven to be in his possession when he arrived in the
80 Phil 626 (1948) Philippines, accused Evangelista’s conviction was
Facts: Petitioner is a Filipino citizen and a affirmed.
civilian employee of the US army. He has been charged
with disposing in the Port of Manila area things
belonging to the US army. He is under the custody of 3. PROSPECTIVITY OF CRIMINAL LAW
Commanding General, Philippines-Ryukus command and
an appointed General Court Martial found him guilty and General Rule: Acts or omissions will only be subject to
sentenced him to 15 years imprisonment. a penal law if they are committed AFTER a penal law had
Held: The General Court Martial has no already taken effect.
jurisdiction because the Port of Manila is not a base
under the Bases Agreement entered into by the An act or omission which has been committed before the
Philippines and the US. The Port area is merely a effectivity of a penal law could not be penalized by such
temporary quarters. Also, a civilian employee cannot be penal law because penal laws operate only
considered a member of the US Army as stated in the prospectively.
agreement. Lastly, no waiver of jurisdiction can be made
either by the prosecuting attorney or by the Secretary of Art.21. Penalties that may be imposed. - No felony shall
Justice. be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law prior
to its commission.
People v. Wong Cheng
46 Phil. 729 (1922)
Civil Code, Art. 4
Facts:Wong Cheng smoked opium aboard the English
Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the
merchant vessel Changsa while anchored 2 ½ miles
contrary is provided.
from the shores of Manila. Issue: Whether or not the
Philippines has jurisdiction over the offense
Exception:
Held: The accused committed the offense within the
territorial waters of the Philippines, hence, the Philippine Art. 22. Retroactive effect of penal laws. – Penal laws
Courts had jurisdiction. shall have a retroactive effect in so far as they favor the
person guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal,
There are two fundamental rules on this particular as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this
matter in connection with International Law; to wit, Code, although at the time of the publication of such
1. the French rule, according to which crimes laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the
committed aboard a foreign merchant vessels convict is serving the same.
should not be prosecuted in the courts of the
country within whose territorial jurisdiction Ex-Post Facto Law is prohibited
they were committed, unless their commission Ex post facto law is prohibited. Ex post facto law is one
affects the peace and security of the territory; that is specifically made to retroact to cover acts before
and it became effective to the prejudice of the accused; or to
make a certain crime graver or prescribe a heavier
2. the English rule, based on the territorial penalty for it (The Matter Of The Petition For The
principle and followed in the United States, Declaration Of The Petitioner's Rights And Duties Under
according to which, crimes perpetrated under

6
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

Sec. 8 Of R.A. No. 6132, G.R. No. L-32485, 22 October In Re: Kay Villegas Kami
1970). 35 SCRA 429 (1970)

ü The law does not have any retroactive effect Facts: Petition for declaratory relief challenging the
EXCEPT if it favors the offender unless he is a validity of Sec. 8 of RA 6132 on the ground that it
habitual delinquent or the law otherwise provides. violates due process, right of association, freedom of
expression and that it is an ex post facto law.
ü This is consistent with the general principle that
criminal laws, being a limitation on the rights of the Held: An ex post facto law is one which:
people, should be construed strictly against the 1. makes criminal an act done before the passage
State and liberally in favor of the accused. of the law and which was innocent when done,
and punishes such an act.
Bill of Attainder is prohibited. 2. aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it
A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts was when committed;
punishment without judicial trial (Montenegro v. 3. changes the punishment and inflicts a greater
Castaneda, 91 Phil. 882, G.R. No. L-4211). It is punishment than the law annexed to the crime
essentially a usurpation of judicial power by a legislative when committed;
body (J. Feliciano) 4. alters the legal rules of evidence, and
authorizes conviction upon less or different
Different effects of repeal of penal law. testimony than the law required at the time of
1. If the repeal makes the penalty lighter in the the commission of the offense;
new law, the new law shall be applied, except 5. assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies
when the offender is a habitual delinquent or only, in effect imposes penalty or deprivation
when the new law is made not applicable to of a right for something which when done was
pending action or existing causes of action. lawful; and
2. If the new law imposes a heavier penalty, the 6. deprives a person accused of a crime of some
law in force at the time of the commission of lawful protection to which he has become
the offense shall be applied. entitled, such as the protection of a former
3. If the new law totally repeals the existing law conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of
so that the act which was penalized under the amnesty.
old law is no longer punishable, the crime is The constitutional inhibition refers only to criminal
obliterated. laws which are given retroactive effect. While it is true
that Sec. 18 penalizes a violation of any provision of R.A.
ü When the repeal is absolute the offense ceases to No. 6132 including Sec. 8 thereof, the penalty is
be criminal. imposed only for acts committed after the approval of
the law and not those perpetrated prior thereto.
ü When the new law and the old law penalize the
same offense, the offender can be tried under the
old law. People v. Bracamonte
257 SCRA 380 (1996)
ü When the repealing law fails to penalize the offense Facts: On September 23, 1987, Bracamonte and two
under the old law, the accused cannot be convicted others were seen dashing away from the house of the
under the new law. victims. The mother found her son and their maid dead
inside the house and P1,100 was stolen from them. The
ü A person erroneously accused and convicted under accused were charged with robbery with double
a repealed statute may be punished under the homicide on October 6, 1987. The accused were
repealing statute. convicted of the crime charged in 1990. R.A. 7659
reimposed the death penalty as capital offense in
Gumabon v. Director of Prisons December 31, 1993.
37 SCRA (1971)
Facts: Petitioners who were serving their Held: Although Republic Act No. 7659 reimposed the
sentence of life imprisonment for the complex crime of death penalty for certain heinous crimes, including
rebellion with murder and other crimes seek the robbery with homicide, the capital punishment could not
retroactive application of the Hernandez doctrine which be imposed in the case at bench. The crime here was
was promulgated after their conviction. The Hernandez committed way back in September 23, 1987, while R.A.
ruling negated the existence of the crime charged No. 7659 took effect only on December 31, 1993. To
stating that rebellion cannot be complexed with other impose upon appellant the death penalty would violate
crimes. Thus, the accused in the Hernandez case was the basic rule in criminal law that, if the new law
sentenced only to 10 years of imprisonment. imposes a heavier penalty, the law in force at the time
Held: Both the RPC and the Civil Code allow for of the commission of the offense shall be applied.
the retroactive application of judicial decisions. While
reference in Art. 22 of the Civil Code is made to 4. Nullum Crimen Nulla Poena Sine Lege
legislative acts, it would be merely an exaltation of the
literal to deny its application to a case like the present. Art. 3. Definitions. — Acts and omissions punishable
The Civil Code provides that judicial decisions applying by law are felonies (delitos).
or interpreting the constitution, as well as legislation,
form part of our legal system.
Art. 21. Penalties that may be imposed. — No felony
shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law
prior to its commission.

7
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

ü There is no crime when where is no law punishing Villareal v. People


it. G.R. No. 151258, February 1, 2012
Facts: Several members of the Aquila Legis Fraternity
ü The phrase “punished by law” should be understood were charged of Homicide for the death of their
to mean “punished by the Revised Penal Code”, and neophyte Lenny Villa during the initiation rites.
not by special law.
Held: The accused are guilty of slight physical
injuries to reckless imprudence resulting in homicide.
Bernardo v. People Had the Anti-Hazing Law been in effect then, these five
123 SCRA 365 (1983) accused fraternity members would have all been
Facts: The accused were charged and convicted of the crime of hazing punishable by reclusion
convicted for violating PD No. 772 for possessing and perpetua (life imprisonment). Since there was no law
squatting on a parcel of land owned by Cruz. prohibiting the act of hazing when Lenny died, we are
Held: Conviction is null and void. PD No. 772 constrained to rule according to existing laws at the time
does not apply to pasture lands because its preamble of his death.
shows that it was intended to apply to squatting in
urban communities. It is a basic principle of criminal law
that no person should be brought within the terms of a 5. STRICT CONSTRUCTION of penal laws against
penal statute who is not clearly within them nor should the State
any act be pronounced criminal which is not clearly
made so by the statute. 1987 Constitution, Article III, Sec. 14(2)
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be
People v. Pimentel presumed innocent until the contrary is proved….
288 SCRA 542 (1998)
Facts: Respondent Tujan was charged with Note: The Doctrine of Pro Reo
subversion under R.A. No. 1700. When he was arrested
7 years after he was charged, an unlicensed revolver ü Whenever a penal law is to be construed or
and ammunition was found in his possession. As such, applied and the law admits of two
he was also charged with Illegal Possession of Firearms interpretations – one lenient to the offender
under P.D. No. 1866. and one strict to the offender- the
Held: Tujan was not placed in double jeopardy interpretation which is lenient or
because the issue had not yet arisen for he had not yet favorable to the offender will be adopted
been actually convicted. (Intestate Estate of Manolita Gonzales vda. De
R.A. No. 7636 totally repealed R.A. No. 1700 Carungcong, v. People, G.R. No. 181409, 11
making subversion no longer a crime. Based on Art. 22 February 2010).
of the RPC, this law should be given retroactive effect
since the law is favorable to the accused, and since he is Constitutional Limitations on the Power of the
not a habitual delinquent. The Court convicted Tujan Congress to enact Penal Laws:
with simple illegal possession of firearm and ammunition
but since Tujan’s length of detention is greater than the a. Equal Protection
penalty prescribed, the court ordered his immediate No person or class of persons shall be deprived
release. to the same protection of the laws which is enjoyed by
other persons or other classes in the same place and in
David v. GMA like circumstances. For classification to be reasonable, it
489 SCRA 160, 259 must:
Facts: Sometime in February 2006, President
Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (GMA) issued PP 1017, to be (a) Rest on substantial distinctions;
implemented by G.O. No. 5. These laws aim to suppress (b) Germane to the purpose of the law;
lawlessness and the connivance of extremists to bring (c) Not limited to existing conditions only;
down the government. Pursuant to such laws, GMA (d) Apply equally to all members of the same class
cancelled all plans to celebrate EDSA I and revoked all (Mendoza v. People, G.R. No. 183891, 19 October
permits issued for rallies and other public 2011).
organization/meeting. Notwithstanding the cancellation
of their permit, KMU head Randolf David proceeded to b. Due Process
rally which led to his arrest. Later that day, the Daily In criminal proceedings, due process requires
Tribune was raided by the CIDG, resulting in the that the accused be informed why he is being proceeded
confiscation of its anti-GMA articles and write-ups. against and what charge he has to meet, with his
Another anti-GMA news agency was likewise raided on conviction being made to rest on evidence that is not
the same day. tainted with falsity after full opportunity for him to rebut
Held: PP 1017 is unconstitutional as it grants it and the sentence being imposed in accordance with a
President GMA the authority to promulgate decrees. It is valid law. It is assumed, therefore, that the court that
settled that legislative power is peculiarly within the renders the decision is one of competent jurisdiction
province of the Legislature as stated under Section 1, (Ang Tibay v. CA, 69 Phil. 635).
Article VI of the Constitution. Neither Martial Law, state
of rebellion nor a state of emergency can justify the c. Non-imposition of Cruel and Unusual
President’s exercise of legislative power by issuing Punishment or Excessive Fines
decrees. Thus, PP1017 is void and cannot be enacted.
Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel,
degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall
death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling

8
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress - reasoning by analogy is applied only when
hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already similarities are limited and it is admitted that
imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua significant differences also exist.
(Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 19).

• The imposition of the penalty of death is Pascual v. Board of Medical Examiners


prohibited. Accordingly, R.A. No. 8177 (Act 28 SCRA 344 (1969)
Designating Death by Lethal Injection) is Facts: Pascual was charged in an
repealed. R.A. No. 7659 (Death Penalty Law) administrative case for immorality and was announced
and all other laws, executive orders and by counsel of complainants to be their first witness.
decrees, insofar as they impose the death Held: The Board of Medical examiners cannot,
penalty, are repealed or amended accordingly consistently with the self-incriminating clause, compel
(Sec. 1 of R.A. No. 9346, otherwise known as the person proceeded against to take the witness stand
“An Act Prohibiting The Imposition of Death without his consent. A proceeding for malpractice
Penalty in The Philippines”). possesses a criminal or penal aspect in the sense that
the respondent would suffer the revocation of his license
d. Bill of Attainder as a medical practitioner which is even a greater form of
deprivation than forfeiture of property.
A statute becomes a bill of attainder when it applies While crime should not go unpunished and that
either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable the truth must be revealed, such desirable objective
members of a group inflicting punishment on them should not be accomplished according to means
amounting to a deprivation of any right, civil or political, offensive to high sense of respect accorded to human
without judicial trial. Stated otherwise, the singling out personality. More and more in line with the democratic
of a definite class, the imposition of a burden on it, and creed, the deference accorded to an individual even
a legislative intent, suffice to stigmatize a statute as a those suspected of the most heinous crimes is given due
bill of attainder (Montenegro v. Castañeda, 91 Phil. weight.
882).
D. GENERAL PROVISIONS
e. Ex Post Facto Law
Art. 1 Time when Act takes effect. This Code shall
An Ex Post Facto Law is one which: take effect on the first day of January, Nineteen
• makes criminal an act done before the passage Hundred and Thirty.
of the law and which was innocent when done,
and punishes such an act;
ü The RPC consists of two books: Book One consists
• aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it
of 1) basic principles affecting criminal liability and
was, when committed;
2) the provisions on penalties including criminal and
• changes the punishment and inflicts a greater
civil liability; Book Two defines felonies with the
punishment than the law annexed to the crime
corresponding penalties.
when committed;
• alters the legal rules of evidence, and
ü Two theories in criminal law
authorizes conviction upon less or different
• CLASSICAL
testimony than the law required at the time of
• POSITIVIST
the commission of the offense;
• assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies
ü The RPC is based mainly on principles of old or
only, in effect imposes penalty or deprivation
classical school.
of a right for something which when done was
lawful; and
Characteristics of the classical theory
• deprives a person accused of a crime of some
a. The basis of criminal liability is human free will
lawful protection to which he has become
and the purpose of the penalty is retribution.
entitled, such as the protection of a former
conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of
b. That man is essentially a moral creature with
amnesty disadvantage (In Re Kay Villegas
an absolutely free will to choose between good
Kami, Inc., G.R. No. L-32485, 22 October
and evil thereby placing more stress upon the
1970).
effect or result of the felonious act than upon
the man, the criminal himself.
Rules of Construction of Penal Laws
1. Criminal statutes are liberally construed in favor
c. It has endeavored to establish a mechanical
of the offender. This means that no person shall
and direct proportion between crime and
be brought within their terms of the law who is
penalty.
not clearly within them, nor should any act be
pronounced criminal which is not clearly made so
d. There is a scant regard to the human element.
by statute.
2. The original text in which a penal law is approved
Characteristics of the positivist theory
will govern in case of a conflict with an official
a. That man is subdued occasionally by a strange
translation. Hence, the RPC, which was approved
and morbid phenomenon which constrains him
in Spanish text, is controlling over its English
to do wrong, in spite of or contrary to his
translation.
volition.
3. Interpretation by analogy has no place in criminal
matters.

9
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

b. That crime is essentially a social and natural Elements of Felonies


phenomenon, and as such, it cannot be treated 1. There must be an act or omission;
and checked by the application of abstract 2. That the act or omission must be punishable by
principles of law and jurisprudence nor by the the RPC; and
imposition of a punishment which is fixed and 3. That the act is performed by means of dolo or the
determined a priori; but rather through the omission incurred by means of culpa.
enforcement of individual measures in each
particular case after a thorough, personal and Definition of terms
individual investigation conducted by a ü ACT – must be overt or external (mere
competent body of psychiatrists and social criminal thought or intent is not punishable)
scientists.
Actus Reus/Physical Act
Art. 2. Application of its provisions. — Except as • To be considered as a felony, there must
provided in the treaties and laws of preferential be an act or omission;
application, the provisions of this Code shall be enforced • An act refers to any kind of body
not only within the Philippine Archipelago, including its movement that produces change in
atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone, but the outside world.
also outside of its jurisdiction, against those who: • A mere imagination, no matter how
1. Should commit an offense while on a wrong, does not amount to a felony.
Philippine ship or airship;
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or ü OMISSION – failure to perform a duty
currency note of the Philippine Islands or obligations and required by law, ie. failure to render
securities issued by the Government of the Philippine assistance, failure to issue receipt, non-
Islands; disclosure of knowledge of conspiracy against
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the the government.
introduction into these islands of the obligations and
securities mentioned in the presiding number; A. HOW COMMITTED
4. While being public officers or employees,
should commit an offense in the exercise of their Classification of felonies according to the means by
functions; or which they are committed (IN GENERAL ONLY)
5. Should commit any of the Crimes Against 1. Dolo.
National Security and the Law of Nations, defined in Title 2. Culpa.
One of Book Two of this Code.
1. DOLO

Requisites of dolo or malice


II. FELONIES 1. freedom – that the act or omission was
voluntary and without external
compulsion.
2. intelligence – knowledge needed to
Art. 3. Definitions. — Acts and omissions punishable determine the morality and consequences
by law are felonies (delitos). of an act. The imbecile, insane and minors
Felonies are committed not only be means of have no criminal liability.
deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa). 3. intent – intent to commit the act with
There is deceit when the act is performed with malice, being purely a mental process, is
deliberate intent and there is fault when the wrongful presumed and the presumption arises
act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of from the proof of the commission of the
foresight, or lack of skill. unlawful act (Reyes, pp. 38-39).

Felonies are acts and omissions punishable by the ü The offender, in performing the act or incurring
Revised Penal Code. the omission, has the intention to cause an
injury to another.
Felony v. Offense
Felony Offense ü The word “deceit” in par. 2 of Art. 3 is not the
The term felony is limited A crime punished under a proper translation of the word “dolo”. Dolus is
only to violations of the special law is called a actually equivalent to malice, which is the
Revised Penal Code. statutory offense intent to do an injury to another (Reyes, p.
35).

Misdemeanor v. Crime ü Intent presupposes the exercise of freedom


Misdemeanor Crime and the use of intelligence (Reyes, supra.).
A misdemeanor is minor Whether the wrongdoing
infraction of the law, such is punished under the ü The existence of intent is shown by the overt
as a violation of an Revised Penal Code or acts of a person (Reyes, supra.).
ordinance under a special law, the
generic word “crime” can ü Criminal intent is presumed from the
be used. commission of an unlawful act BUT the
presumption of criminal intent does not arise
from the proof of the commission of an act
which is not unlawful.

10
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

People v. Hassan
Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea 157 SCRA 261 (1988)
“the act itself does not make a man guilty Facts: The accused, an illiterate, 15-year-old
unless his intention were so” pushcart cargador, was convicted of the crime of murder
A crime is not committed if the mind of for the death of Ramon. The lone eyewitness claimed he
the person performing the act complained of be saw the accused stab Ramon only once at the back. He
innocent. identified the accused alone at the funeral parlor without
It must be borne in mind that the act from being placed in a police line-up.
which the presumption of existence of criminal Held: The testimony of witness was weak. It
intent springs must be a criminal act. conflicted with the findings of the medico-legal officer
who identified 2 stab wounds which were inflicted while
Actus me invito factus non est meus actus assailant was in front of the victim. The manner by
“an act done by me against my will is not my which the witness was made to identify the accused was
act” (U.S. v. Ah Chong, 15 Phil. 499) pointedly suggestive and activated visual imagination
when there was none. The method of identification
Presumption of Criminal Intent became just a confrontation and was made in violation
Criminal intent is presumed from the commission of an of the constitutional right of the accused.
unlawful act BUT the presumption of criminal intent does The court noted the total absence of motive
not arise from the proof of the commission of an act, ascribed to the accused for stabbing Ramon who is a
which is not unlawful (Reyes, supra.). complete stranger to him. While as a general rule,
motive is not essential for purposes of complying with
the requirement that a judgment of guilty must stem
from proof beyond reasonable doubt, the lack of motive
on the part of the accused plays a pivotal role towards
INTENT V. MOTIVE his acquittal. This is especially true where there is doubt
as to the identity of the culprit as when the identification
INTENT is the purpose to use a particular is extremely tenuous as in this case.
means to effect such result.
People v. Delos Santos
• There is no felony by dolo if there is no intent. 403 SCRA 153 (2003)
Facts: Delos Santos stabbed Flores with a
MOTIVE is the moving power which impels kitchen knife hitting him on the different parts of his
one to action for a define result. body, inflicting upon him mortal wounds which directly
caused his death. Delos Santos then argues that since
• Motive is not an essential element of a crime, the prosecution witnesses testified that there was no
and, hence need not be proved for purposes of altercation between him and Flores, it follows that no
conviction. (People v. Aposaga, G.R. No. L- motive to kill can be attributed to him.
32477, 30 October 1981). Held: The court held that the argument of
Delos Santos is inconsequential. Proof of motive is not
• Motive is essential only when there is doubt as indispensable for a conviction, particularly where the
to the identity of the assailant. It is immaterial accused is positively identified by an eyewitness and his
when the accused has been positively participation is adequately established. In People vs.
identified. (People v. Gadiana, G.R. No. 92509, Galano, the court ruled that in the crime of murder,
13 March 1991). motive is not an element of the offense. It becomes
material only when the evidence is circumstantial or
• Proof of motive alone is not sufficient to inconclusive and there is some doubt on whether the
support a conviction but lack of motive may be accused had committed it. In this case, the court finds
an aid in showing the innocence of the that no such doubt exist as witnesses De Leon and
accused. (People v. Corput, 107 Phil 44, 49) Tablate positively identified Delos Santos.

People v. Temblor Valenzuela v. People


161 SCRA 623 (1988) 525 SCRA 306 (2007)
Facts: Cagampang and his wife were Facts: A grocery boy was caught trying to
conversing in the store adjacent to their house when abscond a box of Tide Ultrabar laundry soap from the
Temblor arrived and asked to buy cigarettes. Temblor Super Sale Club. The guards apprehended him at the
then shot Cagampang and demanded the wife to bring store parking lot while trying to board a taxi. He claimed
out her husband’s firearm. Months after, the wife was the theft was merely frustrated for he was not able to
summoned to the police station and there she identified dispose of the goods.
the accused. The accused’s defense was alibi and lack of
motive. Held: The determination of whether a crime is frustrated
Held: The knowledge of the accused that or consummated necessitates an initial concession that
Cagampang possessed a firearm was enough motive to all of the acts of execution have been performed by the
kill him as killings were perpetrated by members of the offender. The critical distinction instead is whether the
NPA for the sole purpose of acquiring more arms and felony itself was actually produced by the acts of
ammunition. Their group is prevalent not only in Agusan execution. The determination of whether the felony was
del Norte but elsewhere in the country. It is known as produced after all the acts of execution had been
the NPA’s “agaw armas” campaign. Moreover, proof of performed hinges on the particular statutory definition of
motive is not essential when the culprit has been the felony. It is the statutory definition that generally
positively identified. furnishes the elements of each crime under the Revised
Penal Code, while the elements in turn unravel the

11
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

particular requisite acts of execution and accompanying to put the holder upon inquiry. The essence of good faith
criminal intent. lies in an honest belief in the validity of one’s right,
ignorance of a superior claim, and absence of intention
The long-standing Latin maxim actus non facit reum, nisi to overreach another.
mens sit rea supplies an important characteristic of a In this case, the accused had the intention to
crime, that ordinarily, evil intent must unite with an evade the payment by claiming that the checks were not
unlawful act for there to be a crime, and accordingly, issued as payment for the jewelries issued to her.
there can be no crime when the criminal mind is Therefore, there was intent to defraud the victim.
wanting. Accepted in this jurisdiction as material in
crimes mala in se, mens rea has been defined before as People v. Delim
a guilty mind, a guilty or wrongful purpose or criminal 396 SCRA 386 (2003)
intent, and essential for criminal liability. It follows that Facts: One evening, as Modesto and his family was
the statutory definition of our mala in se crimes must be preparing to have dinner, the Delim brothers forcefully
able to supply what the mens rea of the crime is, and entered the house and hogtied Modesto and took him
indeed the U.S. Supreme Court has comfortably held outside the house. Two other Delims remained in the
that a criminal law that contains no mens house preventing Modesto’s wife and child from asking
rea requirement infringes on constitutionally protected for help. It was only the next day that the attackers left.
rights. The criminal statute must also provide for the The dead body of Modesto was found three days after
overt acts that constitute the crime. For a crime to exist the incident. He sustained several stab wounds and his
in our legal law, it is not enough that mens rea be cause of death was due to a gunshot to the head.
shown; there must also be an actus reus.
Held: The prosecution was burdened to prove the corpus
It is from the actus reus and the mens rea, as they find delicti which consists of two things: first, the criminal act
expression in the criminal statute, that the felony is and second, defendant’s agency in the commission of
produced. In this case, the crime of theft is the act. Wharton says that corpus delicti includes two
consummated when the act unlawful taking was things: first, the objective; second, the subjective
performed regardless whether the perpetrator had the element of crimes. In homicide (by dolo) and in murder
capacity or opportunity to dispose the stolen goods. cases, the prosecution is burdened to prove: (a) the
There is no frustrated theft. death of the party alleged to be dead; (b) that the death
was produced by the criminal act of some other than the
Recuerdo v. People deceased and was not the result of accident, natural
493 SCRA 517 (2006) cause or suicide; and (c) that defendant committed the
Facts: Recuerdo issued several checks to Floro. She did criminal act or was in some way criminally responsible
not pay the amounts due from the closed accounts. In for the act which produced the death. To prove the
her defense, the accused claims good faith in issuing the felony of homicide or murder, there must be
checks. incontrovertible evidence, direct or circumstantial, that
the victim was deliberately killed (with malice); in other
Held: Estafa is a felony committed by dolo (with words, that there was intent to kill. Such evidence may
malice). For one to be criminally liable for estafa under consist inter alia in the use of weapons by the
paragraph (2)(d) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal malefactors, the nature, location and number of wounds
Code, malice and specific intent to defraud are required. sustained by the victim and the words uttered by the
General criminal intent is an element of all malefactors before, at the time or immediately after the
crimes but malice is properly applied only to deliberate killing of the victim. If the victim dies because of a
acts done on purpose and with design. Evil intent must deliberate act of the malefactor, intent to kill is
unite with an unlawful act for there to be a felony. A conclusively presumed.
deliberate and unlawful act gives rise to a presumption The prosecution is burdened to prove corpus
of malice by intent. On the other hand, specific intent is delicti beyond reasonable doubt either by direct
a definite and actual purpose to accomplish some evidence or by circumstantial or presumptive evidence.
particular thing. In this case, the prosecution was able to prove by
The general criminal intent is presumed from circumstantial evidence that the accused killed the
the criminal act and in the absence of any general intent victim. The accused were convicted of homicide since
is relied upon as a defense, such absence must be the circumstances which would have qualified the crime
proved by the accused.Generally, a specific intent is not into murder were not alleged in the information.
presumed. Its existence, as a matter of fact, must be
proved by the State just as any other essential People v. Glenn De Los Santos
element. This may be shown, however, by the nature of 355 SCRA 415 (2001)
the act, the circumstances under which it was Facts: Glenn Delos Santos and his 3 friends
committed, the means employed and the motive of the went to Bukidnon on his Isuzu Elf truck. On their way,
accused they decided to pass by a restaurant where Glenn had 3
There can be no estafa if the accused acted in bottles of beer. From Bukidnon to Cagayan de Oro City,
good faith because good faith negates malice and deceit. Glenn’s truck hit, bumped, seriously wounded and
Good faith is an intangible and abstract quality with no claimed the lives of several members of the PNP who
technical meaning or statutory definition, and it were undergoing an endurance run on a highway
encompasses, among other things, an honest belief, the wearing black shirts and shorts and green combat
absence of malice and the absence of design to defraud shoes. Twelve trainees were killed on the spot, 12 were
or to seek an unconscionable advantage. An individual’s seriously wounded, 1 of whom eventually died and 10
personal good faith is a concept of his own mind, sustained minor injuries. At the time of the occurrence,
therefore, may not conclusively be determined by his the place of the incident was very dark as there was no
protestations alone. It implies honesty of intention and moon. Neither were there lamposts that illuminated the
freedom from knowledge of circumstances which ought highway. The trial court convicted Glenn of the complex

12
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

crime of multiple murder, multiple frustrated murder lacking. In this case, self-defense is not tenable as a
and multiple attempted murder, with the use of motor defense as there was no unlawful aggression but they
vehicle as the qualifying circumstance. may avail of the defense of fulfillment of duty as a
mitigating circumstance.
Held: We are convinced that the incident, tragic though
it was in light of the number of persons killed and ü Criminal intent is replaced by negligence and
seriously injured, was an accident and not an intentional imprudence in felonies committed by means of
felony. It is significant to note that there is no shred of culpa.
evidence that GLENN had an axe to grind against the
police trainees that would drive him into deliberately MISTAKE OF LAW
hitting them with intent to kill. People v. Bitdu
Although proof of motive is not indispensable to a G.R. No. L-38230, November 21, 1933
conviction especially where the assailant is positively Facts: Bitdu was married in accordance with
identified, such proof is, nonetheless, important in Mohammedan rites while her first marriage was still
determining which of two conflicting theories of the subsisting. She was charged and convicted of bigamy. In
incident is more likely to be true her defense, she claims that she already obtained a
Neither is there any showing of a political angle of divorce decree in accordance with the Muslim law,
a leftist-sponsored massacre of police elements therefore, she contracted her second marriage in good
disguised in a vehicular accident. Even if there be such faith.
evidence, i.e., that the motive of the killing was in
furtherance of a rebellion movement, GLENN cannot be Held: It seems to us unnecessary to determine whether
convicted because if such were the case, the proper or not the divorce in question was granted in accordance
charge would be rebellion, and not murder. with the Mohammedan religious practices, as to which
GLENNs offense is in failing to apply the brakes, or there seems to exist considerable uncertainty, because
to swerve his vehicle to the left or to a safe place the in our view of the case a valid divorce can be granted
moment he heard and felt the first bumping thuds. Had only by the courts and for the reasons specified in Act
he done so, many trainees would have been spared. He No. 2710. It is not claimed that the appellant was
committed the complex crime of reckless imprudence divorced from her first husband in accordance with said
resulting in multiple homicide with serious physical Act.
injuries.
With respect to the contention that the appellant acted
in good faith in contracting second marriage, believing
MISTAKE OF FACT that she had been validly divorced from her first
It is a misapprehension of fact on the part of husband, it is sufficient to say that every one is
the person who caused injury to another. He is not, presumed to know the law, and the fact that one does
however, criminally liable, because he did not act with not know that is act constitutes a violation of the law
criminal intent. (Reyes, p. 42). does not exempt him from the consequences thereof.

Requisites: As to the suggestion of the Solicitor-General that


1. That the act done would have been lawful divorces among the Moros according to their religious
had the facts been as the accused practices should be recognized as valid as a matter of
believed them to be. public policy, because in the contrary case, "there would
2. That the intention of the accused in be no end of criminal prosecutions, for polygamy still
performing the act should be lawful abounds among them, and the remarriages of people
3. That the mistake must be without fault or divorced under the Koran are the order of the day," that
carelessness on the part of the accused. is a matter for the consideration of the Legislature and
(Reyes, p. 43). the Governor-General.

In Re: Petition to sign in the roll of Attorneys


U.S. v. Ah Chong Michael M. Medado
15 Phil 488 (1910) B.M. No. 2540, September 24, 2013
A houseboy who stabs his roommate in the Facts: Medado graduated from UP College of Law in
dark, honestly mistaking the latter to be a robber 1979. He passed the bar exams and took the Attorney’s
responsible for a series of break-ins in the area, and Oath in 1980. He practiced law for 30 years before he
after crying out sufficient warnings and believing himself learned that he only signed the attendance sheet and he
to be under attack, cannot be held criminally liable for has not actually signed the Roll of Attorneys. He now
homicide. Stabbing the victim whom the accused appeals to sign the roll of attorneys.
believed to be an intruder showed a mistake of fact on
his part which led him to take the facts as they appear Held: While an honest mistake of fact could be used to
to him and was pressed to take immediate action. excuse a person from the legal consequences of his
acts as it negates malice or evil motive, a mistake of law
People v. Oanis cannot be utilized as a lawful justification, because
74 Phil 257 (1988) everyone is presumed to know the law and its
Police officers who shot a sleeping man in the consequences. Ignorantia facti excusat; ignorantia legis
back mistaking him for a notorious escaped convict neminem excusat.
wanted dead or alive, could still be held liable for the
killing since they did not take reasonable precautionary In this case, Medado was allowed to sign the Roll of
measures. Police officers are still liable because they are Attorneys a year after the resolution of the case. He was
not justified in killing a man whose identity they did not fined for unauthorized practice of law and was barred
ascertain. The third requisite of mistake of fact is from practicing the profession for one year.

13
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

2. CULPA fire making a human torch out of him. They were


arrested the same night and barely a few hours after the
RPC, Art. 365 par. 7 incident gave their written statements.
Reckless imprudence consists in voluntarily,
but without malice, doing or failing to do an act from Held: Having taken the can from under the
which material damage results by reason of inexcusable engine of the ferris wheel and holding it before pouring
lack of precaution on the part of the person performing its contents on the body of the deceased, this accused
or failing to perform such act, taking into consideration knew that the can contained gasoline. The stinging smell
his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence of this flammable liquid could not have escaped his
physical condition and other circumstances regarding notice even before pouring the same. Clearly, he failed
persons, time and place. to exercise all the diligence necessary to avoid every
Simple imprudence consists in the lack of undesirable consequence arising from any act that may
precaution displayed in those cases in which the damage be committed by his companions who at the time were
impending to be the cause is not immediate nor the making fun of the deceased. Thus, he is guilty of
danger clearly manifest. homicide through reckless imprudence.

Requisites of culpa: Villareal v. People


1. freedom G.R. No. 151258, 1 February 2012
2. intelligence Facts: The Court was asked to revisit our
3. imprudence, negligence or lack of Decision in the case involving the death of Leonardo
foresight and lack of skill "Lenny" Villa due to fraternity hazing.

ü In culpable felonies, the injury caused to another Held: The Court is constrained to rule against
should be unintentional, it being simply the incident the trial court’s finding of malicious intent to inflict
of another act performed without malice. (Reyes, p. physical injuries on Lenny Villa, there being no proof
49). beyond reasonable doubt of the existence of malicious
intent to inflict physical injuries x x x. The absence of
ü an act performed without malice but at the same malicious intent does not automatically mean, however,
time punishable though in a lesser degree and with that the accused fraternity members are ultimately
an equal result devoid of criminal liability. The Revised Penal Code also
punishes felonies that are committed by means of fault
• imprudence - lack of precaution to avoid (culpa). According to Article 3 thereof, there is fault
injury, usually involves lack of skill when the wrongful act results from imprudence,
• negligence - failure to foresee impending negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.
danger, usually involves lack of foresight (N.B. This ruling shall be interpreted without prejudice
to the applicability of the Anti-Hazing Law to subsequent
People v. Buan cases.)
22 SCRA 1383 (1968)
Facts: The accused was driving a passenger
bus. Allegedly because of his recklessness, the bus B. CRIMES DEFINED AND PENALIZED BY
collided with a jeep injuring the passengers of the latter. SPECIAL LAWS
A case was filed against the accused for slight physical
injuries through reckless imprudence for which he was There are 3 classes of crimes. The RPC defines and
tried and acquitted. Prior to his acquittal, a case for penalizes the first two classes: 1) intentional and 2)
serious physical injuries and damage to property culpable felonies.
through reckless imprudence was filed. Accused claimed
that he was placed in twice in jeopardy. The third class of crimes is those defined and penalized
by special laws, which include crimes punished by
Held: The second case must be dismissed. municipal or city ordinances.
Once convicted or acquitted of a specific act of reckless
imprudence, the accused may not be prosecuted again ü The provisions of this Code are not applicable
for the same act. For the essence of the quasi-offense to offenses punished by special laws especially
under Art. 365 of the RPC lies in the execution of an those relating to the requisite of criminal
imprudent act which would be punishable as a felony. intent; the stages of commission; and the
The law penalizes the negligent act and not the result. application of penalties.
The gravity of the consequences is only taken into ü However, when the special law is silent, the
account to determine the penalty. It does not qualify the Code can be given suppletory effect.
substance of the offense. ü Dolo is not required in crimes punished by
special laws because these crimes are mala
People v. Pugay prohibita.
167 SCRA 439 ü In those crimes punished by special laws, the
Facts: Miranda and the accused Pugay are act alone, irrespective of motive, constitutes
friends. On the evening of May 19, 1982 a town fiesta the offense.
was held in the public plaza of Rosario Cavite. Sometime ü Good faith and absence of criminal intent are
after midnight accused Pugay and Samson with several not valid defenses in crimes punished by
companions arrived (they were drunk), and they started special laws.
making fun of Bayani Miranda. Pugay after making fun
of the Bayani, took a can of gasoline and poured its
contents on the latter, Gabion (principal witness) told
Pugay not to do the deed. Then Samson set Miranda on

14
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

1. MALA IN SE and MALA PROHIBITA effectively if made in the best of good faith as if made
with the most corrupt intent. The display itself, without
Mala in se - an act, by its very nature, is the intervention of any other factor, is the evil.
inherently and morally wrong; it is committed with
criminal intent. People v. Dela Rosa
Malum prohibitum – an act is wrong only G.R. No. 84857, January 16, 1988
because there is a law punishing it. It is enough that the Facts:Dela Rosa and others were recruited by the New
prohibited act was voluntarily committed and need not People’s Army. Before they could execute their attack,
be committed with malice or criminal intent to be they killed the rebel commander and surrendered to the
punishable. authorities. After they talked to the barangay chairman
and the mayor, the police charged them with illegal
• Note, however, that not all violations of special possession of firearms.
laws are mala prohibita. While intentional
felonies are always mala in se, it does not Held: While mere possession is malum prohibitum, there
follow that prohibited acts done in violation of must be animus possidendi on the part of the accused.
special laws are always mala prohibita. Even if In this case, Dela Rosa intended to surrender to the
the crime is punished under a special law, if authorities. Temporary, incidental, casual or harmless
the act punished is one which is inherently possession is not punishable.
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 2. RELATION OF RPC TO SPECIAL LAWS
product of criminal negligence or culpa
(Arsenia Garcia v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. Art. 10. Offenses not subject to the provisions of this
No.157161, 14 March 2006). Code. — Offenses which are or in the future may be
punishable under special laws are not subject to the
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan provisions of this Code. This Code shall be
369 SCRA 394 (2001) supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should
Facts: Estrada is challenging the plunder law. specially provide the contrary.
One of the issues he raised is whether plunder is a
malum prohibitum or malum in se. Padilla v. Dizon
158 SCRA 127 (1988)
Held: Plunder is a malum in se which requires Facts: Padilla filed an administrative complaint
proof of criminal of criminal intent. Precisely because the against RTC Judge Dizon for rendering a manifestly
constitutive crimes are mala in se the element of mens erroneous decision acquitting Lo Chi Fai of the offense
rea must be proven in a prosecution for plunder. It is charged for smuggling foreign currency out of the
noteworthy that the amended information alleges that country in violation of Central Bank Circular No. 960.
the crime of plunder was committed “willfully, unlawfully The Circular prohibits transmission of foreign currency
and criminally.” It thus alleges guilty knowledge on the out of the Philippines without authorization from the
part of the petitioner. Central Bank. Penal sanction for such violation is
provided in PD No. 1883. Judge Dizon then acquitted
US v. Go Chico accused because of lack of intent to violate and benefit
14 Phil. 128 (1909) from the act alone.
Facts: Go Chico displayed in the window of his store Held: Judge showed gross ignorance of the
medallions with the head of Aguinaldo, the flag and the law. He ought to know that proof of malice or mens rea
banner of the insurrection. He was charged of violation is not essential in offense punished by special laws
of Sec. 1 of Act No. 1696 which punishes any person which are mala prohibita. The judge did not take into
who displays, exposes to public view any material or consideration the admission of the accused that he was
symbol of the Revolution. In his defense, Go Chico a “carrier” of foreign currency for other people but chose
claims that he did not intend to violate the law and that to give credence to the fantastic tale of the accused that
he did not display such objects were not actually used in he and his alleged business associate were using the
the insurrection. money for a particular investment.

Held: It is not necessary that the appellant should have Padilla v. CA


acted with the criminal intent. In many crimes, made 269 SCRA 402 (1997)
such by statutory enactment, the intention of the person Facts: Padilla, driving his Pajero at high speed
who commits the crime is entirely immaterial. This is despite the bad weather, hit a balot vendor. A chase
necessarily so. If it were not, the statute as a deterrent took place and eventually, Padilla’s vehicle was stopped.
influence would be substantially worthless. It would be He was arrested and several firearms were found inside
impossible of execution. In many cases the act his vehicle. He admitted possession claiming he used
complained of is itself that which produces the them for shooting but was not able to produce any
pernicious effect which the statute seeks to avoid. In permit to carry.
those cases the pernicious effect is produced with Held: P.D. No. 1886 provides only 2 requisites
precisely the same force and result whether the to establish crimes involving illegal possession of
intention of the person performing the act is good or firearm: (1) existence of subject firearm and (2) the fact
bad. that the accused who owned or possessed the firearm
does not have the corresponding permit to possess.
The display of a flag or emblem used particularly within Either the testimony of a representative of or a
a recent period, by the enemies of the Government certification from the PNP Firearms and explosives office
tends to incite resistance to governmental functions and would suffice to prove beyond reasonable doubt the
insurrection against governmental authority just as second element of illegal possession.

15
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

PD 1866 is constitutional. To justify suppletorily. The court cited the case of Yu vs. People,
nullification, there must be a clear breach of the where the provision on subsidiary imprisonment under
constitution. The contention that the penalty of simple Article 39 of the RPC to B.P. Blg. 22 was applied
illegal possession is cruel and excessive in contravention suppletorily.
of the constitution does not merit serious consideration. The suppletory application of the principle of
The severity of a penalty does not ipso facto make the conspiracy in this case is analogous to the application of
same cruel and excessive. the provision on principals under Article 17 in U.S. v.
The court cited the People v. Simon doctrine as Ponte. For once conspiracy or action in concert to
to the penalties to be imposed although PD 1866 is a achieve a criminal design is shown, the act of one is the
special law, the penalties therein were taken from the act of all the conspirators, and the precise extent or
RPC, hence, the rules in the said code for graduating by modality of participation of each of them becomes
degrees or determining the proper period should be secondary, since all the conspirators are principals.
applied. The Court in this case however ruled in favor of
Ladonga(wife) as the prosecution failed to prove that
People v. Saley she performed any overt act in furtherance of the
291 SCRA 715 (1998) alleged conspiracy.
Facts: Saley was convicted of 16 cases of
illegal recruitment, one of which was on the large scale. People v. Bustinera
She was also convicted of 11 counts of estafa. She 431 SCRA 284 (2004)
claims that she was not engaged in recruitment but is Facts: Bustinera was convicted by the trial
merely acting as an agent. She also claimed that she Court for qualified theft under Article 310 of the Revised
was merely aiding the processing of the complainant’s Penal Code for the unlawful taking of the taxi cab driven
visas. by him which is owned and operated by Cipriano and
Held: Saley is guilty of illegal recruitment and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
estafa. She has no valid license or authority to engage in perpetua.
placement of workers. There is no double jeopardy in Held: The unlawful taking of motor vehicles is
this case. Conviction under the Labor Code for illegal now covered by the anti-carnapping law (R.A. No. 6539)
recruitment is malum prohibita while estafa under the and not by the provisions on qualified theft or robbery.
RPC is malum in se. The trial court having convicted Bustinera of qualified
theft instead of carnapping, erred in the imposition of
People v. Simon the penalty. While the information alleges that the crime
234 SCRA 555 (1994) was attended with grave abuse of confidence, the same
Facts: The accused was arrested after a buy- cannot be appreciated as the suppletory effect of the
bust operation conducted by the police wherein the Revised Penal Code to special laws, as provided in
accused sold 2 tea-bags of marijuana to a poseur buyer Article 10 of said Code, cannot be invoked when there is
for P40. a legal impossibility of application, either by express
Held: To sustain a conviction for selling provision or by necessary implication.
prohibited drugs under the Dangerous Drugs Act of Moreover, when the penalties under the special
1972, the sale must be clearly established. The law are different from and are without reference or
commission of the offense of illegal sale of prohibited relation to those under the Revised Penal Code, there
drugs requires merely the consummation of the selling can be no suppletory effect of the rules, for the
transaction. application of penalties under the said Code or by other
The court held that in the instant case the relevant statutory provisions are based on or applicable
imposable penalty under R.A. No. 6425 as amended by only to said rules for felonies under the Code.
R.A. No. 7659 is prison correccional to be taken from the The court cited the case of People v. Panida
medium period thereof pursuant to Art. 64 of the RPC, which involved the crime of carnapping and the penalty
there being no aggravating and mitigating circumstance. imposed was the indeterminate sentence of 14 years
Dissent: It is thus clear that an offense is and 8 months, as minimum, to 17 years and 4 months,
punished by the RPC if both its definition and the as maximum, this Court did not apply the provisions of
penalty therefore are found in the special law. That the the Revised Penal Code suppletorily as the anti-
latter imports or borrows from the RPC its nomenclature carnapping law provides for its own penalties which are
of penalties. In short, the mere use by a special law of a distinct and without reference to the said Code.
penalty found in the RPC can by no means make an Bustinera was sentenced to an indeterminate
offense thereunder an offense “punished or punishable” penalty of 14 years and 8 months as minimum, to 17
by the RPC. years and 4 months, as maximum for the crime of
carnapping under R.A. No. 6539, as amended.
Ladonga v People
451 SCRA 673 (2005) Teves v. COMELEC
Facts: Spouses Ladonga were convicted by the G.R. No. 180636, April 28, 2009
RTC for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 (3 counts). The husband
applied for probation while the wife appealed arguing Facts: Petitioner was a candidate for Representative of
that the RTC erred in finding her criminally liable for the 3rd legislative district of Negros. During his tenure as
conspiring with her husband as the principle of a Mayor, he was convicted of violating the Anti-Graft
conspiracy is inapplicable to B.P. Blg. 22 which is a and Corrupt Practices Act and the Local Government
special law. Code for possessing pecuniary or financial interest in a
Held: B.P. Blg. 22 does not expressly prescribe cockpit. A case for disqualification was filed against him
the suppletory application of the provisions of the RPC. alleging that the violation he committed was a crime of
Thus, in the absence of contrary provision in B.P. Blg. moral turpitude.
22, the general provisions of the RPC which, by their
nature, are necessarily applicable, may be applied

16
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

Held: "It (moral turpitude) implies something immoral in The essential elements of the offense of possession of
itself, regardless of the fact that it is punishable by law prohibited interest (Section 3(h) of the Anti-Graft Law)
or not. It must not be merely mala prohibita, but the act for which the petitioner was convicted are:
itself must be inherently immoral. The doing of the act 1. The accused is a public officer;
itself, and not its prohibition by statute fixes the moral 2. He has a direct or indirect financial or
turpitude. Moral turpitude does not, however, include pecuniary interest in any business, contract or
such acts as are not of themselves immoral but whose transaction; and
illegality lies in their being positively prohibited." 3. He is prohibited from having such interest
by the Constitution or any law.
From the perspective of moral turpitude, the third
Suffice it to state that cockfighting, or sabong in the
element is the critical element. This element shows that
local parlance, has a long and storied tradition in our
the holding of interest that the law covers is not a
culture and was prevalent even during the Spanish
conduct clearly contrary to the accepted rules of right
occupation. While it is a form of gambling, the morality
and duty, justice, honesty and good morals; it is illegal
thereof or the wisdom in legalizing it is not a justiciable
solely because of the prohibition that exists in law or in
issue. In Magtajas v. Pryce Properties Corporation, Inc.,
the Constitution. Thus, no depravity immediately leaps
it was held that: The morality of gambling is not a
up or suggests itself based on the elements of the crime
justiciable issue. Gambling is not illegal per se. While it
committed.
is generally considered inimical to the interests of the
people, there is nothing in the Constitution categorically
The Subjective Approach
proscribing or penalizing gambling or, for that matter,
This approach is largely the ponencia’s approach, as it
even mentioning it at all. It is left to Congress to deal
expressly stated that "a determination of all surrounding
with the activity as it sees fit. In the exercise of its own
circumstances of the violation of the statute must be
discretion, the legislature may prohibit gambling
considered." In doing this, the ponencia firstly
altogether or allow it without limitation or it may prohibit
considered that the petitioner did not use his official
some forms of gambling and allow others for whatever
capacity in connection with the interest in the cockpit,
reasons it may consider sufficient.
not that he hid this interest by transferring it to his wife,
as the transfer took effect before the effectivity of the
Brion, J., concurring law prohibiting the possession of interest. The ponencia
The most common definition of moral turpitude is similar significantly noted, too, that the violation was not
to one found in the early editions of Black’s Law intentionally committed in a manner contrary to justice,
Dictionary: modesty, or good morals, but due simply to Teves’ lack
[An] act of baseness, vileness, or the depravity in of awareness or ignorance of the prohibition. This, in my
private and social duties which man owes to his fellow view, is the clinching argument that no moral turpitude
man, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted can be involved as no depravity can be gleaned where
and customary rule of right and duty between man and intent is clearly absent.
man. xxx Act or behavior that gravely violates moral
sentiment or accepted moral standards of community
and is a morally culpable quality held to be present in C. PUNISHABLE CONDUCT
some criminal offenses as distinguished from others. xxx
The quality of a crime involving grave infringement of Art. 4. Criminal liability. — Criminal liability shall be
the moral sentiment of the community as distinguished incurred:
from statutory mala prohibita. 1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although
the wrongful act done be different from that which he
The Approaches Applied to TEVES intended.
2. By any person performing an act which would be an
The Objective Approach offense against persons or property, were it not for the
The crime for which petitioner Teves was convicted inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or an
(possession of pecuniary or financial interest in a account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual
cockpit) is, at its core, related to gambling – an act that means.
by contemporary community standards is not per se
immoral. Other than the ruling heretofore cited on this
point, judicial notice can be taken of state-sponsored
1. WRONGFUL ACT DIFFERENT FROM THAT
gambling activities in the country that, although not
INTENDED
without controversy, is generally regarded to be within
acceptable moral limits. The ponencia correctly noted
ª One who commits an intentional felony is
that prior to the enactment of the Local Government
responsible for all the consequences which may naturally
Code of 1991, mere possession by a public officer of
and logically result therefrom, whether foreseen or
pecuniary interest in a cockpit was not expressly
intended or not.
prohibited. This bit of history alone is an indicator that,
ª Rationale: el que es causa de la causa es
objectively, no essential depravity is involved even from
causa del mal causado
the standards of a holder of a public office. This
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause
reasoning led the ponencia to conclude that "its illegality
of the evil caused”
does not mean that violation thereof . . . makes such
ª When a person has not committed a felony,
possession of interest inherently immoral."
he is not criminally liable for the result which is not
From the Perspective of the Elements of the Crime
intended.
Under this approach, we determine whether a crime
involves moral turpitude based solely on our analysis of
the elements of the crime alone.

17
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

People v. Mananquil Rep. [N.S.] 701, cited in U.S. vs. Valdez, 41 Phil. 4911,
132 SCRA 196 (1984) 500).
Facts: One evening, Valentina went to NAWASA where
her husband works as a security guard. She accuses her Following that rule, is was held that "if a person against
husband of keeping a mistress and burning her clothes. whom a criminal assault is directed reasonably believes
She got into an argument with her husband before she himself to be in danger of death or great bodily harm
poured gasoline on him and set him on fire. Her and in order to escape jumps into the water, impelled by
husband died as a result. She was charged with the instinct of self-preservation, the assailant is
Parricide. In her defense, she claims that the real cause responsible for homicide in case death results by
of death was her husband’s pneumonia and that the drowning" (Syllabus, U.S. vs. Valdez, supra, See People
burns were only secondary causes of death. vs. Buhay, 79 Phil. 371).

Held: The absence of eyewitness-testimony as to the jumping


Appellant's case falls squarely under Art, 4, Par. 1 of the from the train of the four victims already named
Revised Penal Code which provides: precludes the imputation of criminal responsibility to the
Art. 4. Criminal Liability. — Criminal appellants for the ghastly deaths of the said victims.
liability shall be incurred.
1. By any person committing a felony The felony committed must be the proximate
(delito) although the wrongful act cause of the resulting injury.
done be different from that which he
intended. PROXIMATE CAUSE – the cause, which, in
The essential requisites of which are: (a) that an the natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any
intentional felony has been committed; and (b) that the efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and
wrong done to the aggrieved party be the direct, natural without which the result would not have occurred.
and logical consequence of the felony committed by the
offender ª When death is presumed to be the natural
consequence of physical injuries inflicted:
One who inflicts injury on another is deemed guilty of 1. That the victim at the time the physical injuries
homicide if the injury contributes immediately or were inflicted was in normal health.
immediately to the death of such other. The fact that 2. That the death may be expected from the
other causes contribute to the death does not relieve the physical injuries inflicted.
actor of responsibility. He would still be liable "even if 3. That death ensued within a reasonable time.
the deceased might litem recovered if he had taken
proper care of himself, or submitted to surgical The felony committed is not the proximate cause of the
operation, or that unskilled or improper treatment resulting injury when:
aggravated the wound and contributed to the death, or a. There is an active force that intervened
that death was men." caused by a surgical operation between the felony committed and the resulting injury,
rendered necessary by the condition of the wound. and the active force is a distinct act or fact absolutely
foreign from the felonious act of the accused; or
The principle on which this rule is founded is one of b. The resulting injury is due to the intentional
universal application. It lies at the foundation of criminal act of the victim.
jurisprudence. It is that every person is held to
contemplate and be responsible for the natural ª The causes which may produce a result different from
consequences of his own acts. A different doctrine would that which the offender intended are:
tend to give immunity to crime and to take away from a. ERROR IN PERSONAE – mistake in the
human life a salutary and essential safeguard. identity of the victim; injuring one person
mistaken for another (this is a complex crime
People v. Toling under Art. 49)
62 SCRA 17 (1975) b. ABERRATIO ICTUS – mistake in the blow,
Facts: The Toling brothers suddenly started stabbing that is, when the offender intending to do an
their co-passengers in a train going to Bicol. Several injury to one person actually inflicts it on
passengers died of stab wounds from the brothers. Four another; and
persons were found dead near the railroad tracks. c. PRAETER INTENTIONEM – the act exceeds
Apparently they jumped off the train to avoid being the intent, that is, the injurious result is
killed. greater than that intended.

Held: Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code provides that Proximate Cause
"criminal liability shall be incurred by any person Vda. De Bataclan v. Medina
committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act 102 Phil. 181 (1957)
done be different from that which he intended". The Facts: A bus travelling from Cavite to Pasay overturned
presumption is that "a person intends the ordinary to the side of the highway because its front tire burst.
consequences of his voluntary act" (Sec. 5[c], Rule 131, Three of the passengers were stuck behind the driver
Rules of Court). seat. During this time, oil spilled out of the bus. The
people living near the area responded to the calls for
The rule is that "if a man creates in another man's mind help. They carried torches because it was dark as it was
an immediate sense of danger which causes such person already past midnight. Unfortunately, the bus was set
to try to escape, and in so doing he injures himself, the ablaze because the torches ignited the gasoline which
person who creates such a state of mind is responsible leaked and spread around the bus. The bus company
for the injuries which result" (Reg. vs. Halliday 61 L. T. claims that the proximate cause of the death of the

18
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

victims was the torch which triggered the fire and not Efficient Intervening Cause
their negligence. Urbano v. IAC
157 SCRA 1 (1998)
Held: A definition of proximate cause is found in Volume Facts: One morning, Urbano found his palay flooded.
38, pages 695-696 of American jurisprudence, cited by Javier admitted to opening the irrigation canal which
plaintiffs-appellants in their brief. It is as follows: angered Urbano. This led to a heated argument which
ended with Urbano hitting Javier on the palm with a
. . . 'that cause, which, in natural and bolo. The wound was treated but Javier died a month
continuous sequence, unbroken by any later due to tetanus.
efficient intervening cause, produces the
injury, and without which the result would not Held: The proximate cause of the death of Marcelo
have occurred.' And more comprehensively, Javier was due to his own negligence, that Dr. Mario
'the proximate legal cause is that acting first Meneses found no tetanus in the injury, and that Javier
and producing the injury, either immediately or got infected with tetanus when after two weeks he
by setting other events in motion, all returned to his farm and tended his tobacco plants with
constituting a natural and continuous chain of his bare hands exposing the wound to harmful elements
events, each having a close causal connection like tetanus germs.
with its immediate predecessor, the final event
in the chain immediately effecting the injury as The medical findings lead us to a distinct possibility that
a natural and probable result of the cause the infection of the wound by tetanus was an efficient
which first acted, under such circumstances intervening cause later or between the time Javier was
that the person responsible for the first event wounded to the time of his death. The infection was,
should, as an ordinary prudent and intelligent therefore, distinct and foreign to the crime.
person, have reasonable ground to expect at
the moment of his act or default that an injury Error in Personae (mistake in identity)
to some person might probably result People v. Oanis
therefrom. G.R. No. L-47722, July 27, 1943
Facts: Police Officer Oanis and other officers were
In this case, the proximate cause of the death is the instructed to arrest Balagtas, an escaped convict. On the
carrier’s negligence in transporting their passengers. The day of the operation, the police officers were given tips
tires of the bus were not replaced and during the on where to find the convict. When they arrived at a
incident, the driver and the conductor did not do house where Balagtas was believed to be at, Oanis and
anything to prevent the people with the torches from Galanta saw a man sleeping with his back towards the
approaching the overturned bus. door. They shot simultaneously or successively at him
with their .32 and .45 caliber revolvers. As it was found
People v. Iligan later, the man killed was an innocent citizen named
G.R. No. 75369, November 26, 1990 Tecson. In their defense, the accused claims that there
Facts: Before the incident, Quinones and two others got was a mistake in identity.
into an altercation with Ilagan. They were able to run
away from Ilagan. Later on, while the three were Held: The crime committed by appellants is not merely
walking to Quinones’ house, Ilagan suddenly emerged criminal negligence, the killing being intentional and not
and hacked Quinones in the head with a bolo. The blow accidental. In criminal negligence, the injury caused to
caused Quinones to fall on the highway where he was another should be unintentional, it being simply the
ran over by a vehicle causing his death. incident of another act performed without malice. A
deliberate intent to do an unlawful act is essentially
Held: Under these circumstances, we hold that while inconsistent with the idea of reckless imprudence, and
Iligan’s hacking of Quiñones, Jr.’s head might not have where such unlawful act is wilfully done, a mistake in
been the direct cause, it was the proximate cause of the the identity of the intended victim cannot be considered
latter’s death. Proximate legal cause is defined as "that as reckless imprudence to support a plea of mitigated
acting first and producing the injury, either immediately liability. As the deceased was killed while asleep, the
or by setting other events in motion, all constituting a crime committed is murder with the qualifying
natural and continuous chain of events, each having a circumstance of alevosia.
close causal connection with its immediate predecessor,
the final event in the chain immediately effecting the People v. Gona
injury as a natural and probable result of the cause 54 Phil. 605 (1930)
which first acted, under such circumstances that the Facts: A celebration with liberal supply of alcohol was
person responsible for the first event should, as an taking place at a house. The Gona and Dunca got into a
ordinarily prudent and intelligent person, have quarrel. Later on, Dunca left the house with several
reasonable ground to expect at the moment of his act or people. Gona took a bolo and followed the group with
default that an injury to some person might probably the intent to kill Dunca. He hacked someone in the neck
result therefrom." In other words, the sequence of which caused the person’s death. It turns out that the
events from Iligan’s assault on him to the time person hacked was Mapudul. Gona’s defense was that
Quiñones, Jr. was run over by a vehicle is, considering there was error in personae as he really intended to kill
the very short span of time between them, one Dunca and not Mapundul.
unbroken chain of events. Having triggered such events,
Iligan cannot escape liability. Held:Mistake in killing one man instead of another
cannot be considered a mitigating circumstance when it
is proved that he acted maliciously and willfully.

19
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

Aberratio Ictus (Miscarriage in the blow) Praeter Intentionem


People v. Sabalones People v. Cagoco
294 SCRA 751 (1988) 58 Phil. 524 (1933)
Facts: Two vehicles proceeded to the house of Facts: Father and son Yu were standing on the sidewalk
Stephen Lim when Sabalones et. al. fired towards the in Manila. While they were talking, Cagoco was moving
vehicles killing 2 of the passengers and seriously injuring back and forth behind Yu Lon before hitting him at the
3 others. The lower court convicted the accused. back of the head with his fist. Yu died later that night.
Appellants accuse the trial court of engaging in Cagoco claims that he should be convicted only for slight
conjecture in ruling that there was aberratio ictus in this physical injuries instead of murder.
case.
Held: The allegation does not advance the Held: Since the accused struck the deceased from
cause of the appellants. It must be stressed that the behind and without warning, he acted with treachery.
trial court relied on the concept of aberratio ictus to "There is treachery when the offender commits any of
explain why the appellants staged the ambush, not to the crimes against the person, employing means,
prove that appellants did in fact commit the crimes. In methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend
any event, the lower court was not engaging in directly and especially to insure its execution, without
conjecture because the conclusion that the appellants risk to himself arising from the defense which the
killed the wrong persons was based on the extrajudicial offended party might make."
statement of appellant Beronga and the testimony of
one witness. Nonetheless, the fact that they were Paragraph No. 1 of article 4 of the Revised Penal Code
mistaken does not diminish their culpability. Mistake in provide that criminal liability shall be incurred by any
the identity of the victim carries the same gravity as person committing a felony (delito) although the
when the accused zeroes in on his intended victim. wrongful act done be different from that which he
intended; but in order that a person may be criminally
People v. Esteban liable for a felony different from that which he proposed
103 SCRA 520 (1981) to commit, it is indispensable that the two following
Facts: Earlier in the day, Maravilla and Lulu went to the requisites be present, to wit: (a) That a felony was
house of Camaya to collect the balance from a committed; and (b) that the wrong done to the
compromise agreement in the killing of Lulu’s husband. aggrieved person be the direct consequence of the crime
Camaya said that Esteban would pay the balance. Later committed by the offender.
that evening, Maravilla went to the house of Maria
Pascua where there was a drinking session. At around We have seen that under the circumstances of this case
11 in the evening, gunshots were fired at Maravilla and the defendant is liable for the killing of Yu Lon, because
his companions. The owner of the house Maria was his death was the direct consequence of defendant's
found dead while Maravilla was fatally wounded but felonious act of striking him on the head. If the
survived due to timely medical intervention. defendant had not committed the assault in a
treacherous manner. he would nevertheless have been
Held: The fact that Esteban intended to kill Maravilla and guilty of homicide, although he did not intend to kill the
in the course of the assault incidentally killed Maria deceased; and since the defendant did commit the crime
Pascua makes him liable for murder just the same with treachery, he is guilty of murder, because of the
because a person committing a felony is criminally liable presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery.
although the wrongful act done be different from that
which he intended (Art. 4, Revised, Penal Code). This
rule covers aberratio ictus or mistake as to victim. 2. OMISSION
Esteban is guilty of murder of Maria Pascual and
frustrated murder of Maravilla. Art. 116. Misprision of treason. — Every person
owing allegiance to (the United States) the Government
People v. Adriano y Samson of the Philippine Islands, without being a foreigner, and
G.R. No. 205228, July 15, 2015 having knowledge of any conspiracy against them,
Facts: One morning, a Toyota Corolla drove alongside a conceals or does not disclose and make known the
Honda CRV and the passenger of the Corolla shot the same, as soon as possible to the governor or fiscal of
CRV causing it to swerve and fall into a canal. 4 men the province, or the mayor or fiscal of the city in which
alighted the Corolla and started shooting at the driver. A he resides, as the case may be, shall be punished as an
bystander was also killed by a stray bullet. The accused accessory to the crime of treason.
were convicted of two counts of murder.

Held: Although the bystander’s death was by no means


Art. 137. Disloyalty of public officers or
deliberate, we shall adhere to the prevailing
employees. — The penalty of prision correccional in its
jurisprudence pronounced in People v. Flora, where the
minimum period shall be imposed upon public officers or
Court ruled that treachery may be appreciated in
employees who have failed to resist a rebellion by all the
aberratio ictus. In Flora, the accused was convicted of
means in their power, or shall continue to discharge the
two separate counts of murder: for the killing of two
duties of their offices under the control of the rebels or
victims, Emerita, the intended victim, and Ireneo, the
shall accept appointment to office under them.
victim killed by a stray bullet. The Court, due to the
presence of the aggravating circumstance of treachery,
qualified both killings to murder. The material facts in
Flora are similar in the case at bar. Thus, we follow the Art. 208. Prosecution of offenses; negligence and
Flora doctrine. tolerance. — The penalty of prision correccional in its
minimum period and suspension shall be imposed upon
any public officer, or officer of the law, who, in

20
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

dereliction of the duties of his office, shall maliciously P10,000 pesos, and prision correccional and a fine not
refrain from instituting prosecution for the punishment exceeding P5,000 pesos.
of violators of the law, or shall tolerate the commission
of offenses. Art. 136. Conspiracy and proposal to commit coup
d’etat, rebellion or insurrection. — The conspiracy
Art. 223. Conniving with or consenting to evasion. and proposal to commit coup d’etat shall be punished by
— Any public officer who shall consent to the escape of a prision mayor in minimum period and a fine which shall
prisoner in his custody or charge, shall be punished: not exceed eight thousand pesos (P8,000.00).
1. By prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods and temporary special disqualification
in its maximum period to perpetual special Art. 141. Conspiracy to commit sedition. — Persons
disqualification, if the fugitive shall have been sentenced conspiring to commit the crime of sedition shall be
by final judgment to any penalty. punished by prision correccional in its medium period
2. By prision correccional in its minimum and a fine not exceeding 2,000 pesos
period and temporary special disqualification, in case the
fugitive shall not have been finally convicted but only
held as a detention prisoner for any crime or violation of Art. 186. Monopolies and combinations in restraint
law or municipal ordinance. of trade. — The penalty of prision correccional in its
minimum period or a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000
pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon:
Art. 234. Refusal to discharge elective office. — 1. Any person who shall enter into any contract
The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding or agreement or shall take part in any conspiracy or
1,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person combination in the form of a trust or otherwise, in
who, having been elected by popular election to a public restraint of trade or commerce or to prevent by artificial
office, shall refuse without legal motive to be sworn in or means free competition in the market;
to discharge the duties of said office.

Art. 306. Who are brigands; Penalty. — When more


Art. 275. Abandonment of person in danger and than three armed persons form a band of robbers for the
abandonment of one’s own victim. — The penalty of purpose of committing robbery in the highway, or
arresto mayor shall be imposed upon: kidnapping persons for the purpose of extortion or to
1. Any one who shall fail to render assistance to any obtain ransom or for any other purpose to be attained
person whom he shall find in an uninhabited place by means of force and violence, they shall be deemed
wounded or in danger of dying, when he can render highway robbers or brigands.
such assistance without detriment to himself, unless Persons found guilty of this offense shall be
such omission shall constitute a more serious offense. punished by prision mayor in its medium period to
2. Anyone who shall fail to help or render assistance reclusion temporal in its minimum period if the act or
to another whom he has accidentally wounded or acts committed by them are not punishable by higher
injured. penalties, in which case, they shall suffer such high
3. Anyone who, having found an abandoned child penalties.
under seven years of age, shall fail to deliver said child If any of the arms carried by any of said
to the authorities or to his family, or shall fail to take persons be an unlicensed firearm, it shall be presumed
him to a safe place. that said persons are highway robbers or brigands, and
in case of convictions the penalty shall be imposed in
• It is the failure to perform a duty required by the maximum period.
law.
• It is important that there is a law requiring the
Art. 340. Corruption of minors. — Any person who
performance of an act. If there is no positive
shall promote or facilitate the prostitution or corruption
duty, there is no liability
of persons underage to satisfy the lust of another, shall
Examples: failure to render assistance, failure to
be punished by prision mayor, and if the culprit is a
issue receipt or non-disclosure of knowledge of
pubic officer or employee, including those in
conspiracy against the government.
government-owned or controlled corporations, he shall
also suffer the penalty of temporary absolute
3. PROPOSAL AND CONSPIRACY
disqualification.

Art. 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony.


ª Conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony are two
— Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are
different acts or felonies: (1) conspiracy to commit a
punishable only in the cases in which the law specially
felony, and (2) proposal to commit a felony.
provides a penalty therefore.
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons
GENERAL RULE: Conspiracy and proposal to commit a
come to an agreement concerning the commission of a
felony are not punishable
felony and decide to commit it.
EXCEPTION: They are punishable only in the cases in
There is proposal when the person who has
which the law specially provides a penalty therefore.
decided to commit a felony proposes its execution to
RATIONALE: Conspiracy and proposal to commit a
some other person or persons.
crime are only preparatory acts and the law regards
them as innocent or at least permissible except in rare
Art. 115. Conspiracy and proposal to commit and exceptional cases.
treason; Penalty. — The conspiracy or proposal to
commit the crime of treason shall be punished
respectively, by prision mayor and a fine not exceeding

21
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

CONSPIRACY • Conspiracy or combination in restraint of


trade;
- exists when two or more persons come to an • Conspiracy to commit arson;
agreement concerning the commission of a felony and • Conspiracy to commit terrorism; and
decide to commit it. • Conspiracy to commit importation, sale,
trading, administration, dispensation, delivery,
ª The RPC specially provides a penalty for mere distribution, transportation, manufacture,
conspiracy in treason, coup d’etat, rebellion or sedition. cultivation of dangerous drugs and
Treason, coup d’etat, rebellion or sedition must not maintenance of a den, dive or resort where
actually be committed or else conspiracy shall no longer any dangerous drug is used in any form.
be punishable because it is not a separate offense from
the felony itself. U.S. v. Bautista
6 Phil 581 (1906)
ª Criminal liability attaches to persons who participated Facts: Appellants Bautista, Puzon and De
in furtherance of a common design to commit a crime. Guzman were convicted in the Court of First Instance
Regardless of the nature of his participation in the of Manila of the crime of conspiracy to overthrow, put
commission of said crime, said person will be held down, and destroy by force the Government of the
equally liable. United States in the Philippine Islands and the
Government of the Philippine Islands, as defined and
ªINDICATIONS OF CONSPIRACY penalized in section 4 of Act No. 292 of the Philippine
- for a collective responsibility among the Commission.
accused to be established, it is sufficient that at the time Held: Only Bautista and Puzon are guilty of
of the aggression, all of them acted in concert, each conspiracy. In this case, evidence on record shows that
doing his part to fulfill their common design to commit Bautista was fully aware of the purposes of the
the felony. (Reyes, p. 124). meetings he participated in, and even gave an
assurance to the chief of the military forces that he is
ª REQUISITES OF CONSPIRACY making the necessary preparations. On the other hand,
a. That two or more persons came to an Puzon voluntarily accepted his appointment and in
agreement: doing so, assumed all the obligations implied by such
- Agreement presupposes meeting of the acceptance. These are considered evidence of the
minds of two or more persons. criminal connection of the accused.
b. That the agreement concerned the De Guzman, on the other hand, is not guilty
commission of a felony; and of conspiracy. While he might have been helping the
- The agreement must refer to the commission conspirators by accepting bonds in bundles, he was not
of a crime. It must be an agreement to act, to aware of the contents nor did he assume any obligation
effect, to bring about what has already been with respect to these bonds.
conceived and determined.
c. That the execution of the felony be People v. Fabro
decided upon. 325 SCRA 285 (2000)
- The conspirators have made up their minds Facts: Petitioner Fabro together with her
to commit the crime. There must be a common-law husband Pilay and Irene Martin was
determination to commit the crime of charged with the crime of "violation of Section 21 (b)
treason, rebellion or sedition. Art. IV, in relation to Section 4, Art. II of Republic Act
No. 6425 as amended, for selling to PO2 Apduhan, who
PROPOSAL acted as poseur buyer, one kilo of dried marijuana
leaves. Fabro contends that her guilt was not proven
Requisites: beyond reasonable doubt as based on the testimony of
a. That a person has decided to commit a the NBI, the real possessor of the confiscated properties
felony; and was her co-accused Martin.
b. That he proposes its execution to some Held: Fabro’s contention that Martin was the
other person or persons. real curlprit being the source of the contraband does not
in any way absolve her of the crime of selling marijuana.
ª There is no criminal proposal when: While it is true that it was Martin who took the money, it
a. The person who proposes is not determined to was Fabro who negotiated with the poseur buyers,
commit the felony. fetched her co-accused; and carried and handed over
b. There is no decided, concrete and formal the marijuana to Apduhan. The acts of Martin and Fabro
proposal. clearly show a unity of purpose in the consummation of
c. It is not the execution of a felony that is the sale of marijuana.
proposed. (Reyes, p. 128): It is clear that Section 21 (b) of R.A. 6425
punishes the mere conspiracy to commit the offense of
ª It is not necessary that the person to whom the selling, delivering, distributing and transporting of
proposal is made agrees to commit treason or rebellion. dangerous drugs. Conspiracy herein refers to the mere
agreement to commit the said acts and not the actual
Conspiracy and proposal is punishable in the execution thereof. While the rule is that a mere
following cases: conspiracy to commit a crime without doing any overt
• Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason; act is not punishable, the exception is when such is
• Conspiracy and proposal to commit coup specifically penalized by law, as in the case of Section 21
d'etat, rebellion or insurrection; of Republic Act 6425. Conspiracy as crime should be
• Conspiracy to commit sedition; distinguished from conspiracy as a manner of incurring
criminal liability the latter being applicable to the case.

22
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

People v. Bello of conspiracy, which after all, can be consummated in a


428 SCRA 388 (2004) moment’s notice — through a single word of assent to a
Facts: Accused Bello et. al. mapped out a plan proposal or an unambiguous handshake. Yet it is more
to rob a moneychanger. Calling the moneychanger from difficult to presume conspiracy in extemporaneous
a motel room, Bello misrepresented that she came from outbursts of violence; hence, the demand that it be
Japan and would like to convert her 40 pieces of yen to established by positive evidence. A conviction premised
pesos. She requested that the currency conversion be on a finding of conspiracy must be founded on facts, not
made in her room as she did not want to carry around a on mere inferences and presumption.
huge sum of money. During the occasion of the robbery,
Andasan, the messenger who brought the money to People v. Bagano
Bello was killed. The trial court ruled that Bello conspired 375 SCRA 470 (2002)
with the other accused and was found guilty as principal Facts: Jeremias and his wife Merlinda were
for the crime of robbery with homicide. sleeping in their home when they were awakened by
Bello, argued that her alleged conspiracy with someone repeatedly calling Jeremias' name. Jeremias
the other accused was not sufficiently established by went to the window to see who it was and thereafter left
circumstantial evidence as there was no showing that their room to go outside. Merlinda remained in their
she had the same purpose and united with the other room, but peering through the window, she saw Cañete
accused in the execution of the crime. She alleged that suddenly embrace Jeremias as the latter was opening
her mere presence in the crime scene is not per se a the gate. Thereupon, Bagano with ice pick in hand
sufficient indicium of conspiracy. She insists that she stabbed Jeremias on the chest. Jeremias struggled to
acted against her will due to the irresistible force free himself from Cañete's clasp and ran, but Bagano
employed by her co-accused. gave chase. Jeremias died upon arrival at the hospital.
Held: The Court held that Bello conspired with
her co-accused to commit the crime. Records clearly Held: Conspiracy is attendant in the commission of the
reveal that Bello was part of the plan to rob the crime. For conspiracy to exist, it is sufficient that at the
moneychanger. The chain of events and the conduct of time of the commission of the offense the accused had
Bello lead to no other conclusion than that she conspired the same purpose and were united in its execution.
with her co-accused to commit the crime. Proof of an actual planning of the perpetuation of the
Conspiracy exists where the plotters agree, crime is not a condition precedent. From the mode and
expressly or impliedly, to commit the crime and decide manner in which the offense was perpetrated, and as
to pursue it. Conspiracy is predominantly a state of mind can be inferred from their acts, it is evident that Bagano
as it involves the meeting of the minds and intent of the and Cañete were one in their intention to kill Jeremias.
malefactors. Consequently, direct proof is not essential Hence, in accordance with the principle that in
to establish it. The existence of the assent of minds of conspiracy the act of one is the act of all, the fact that it
the co-conspirators may be inferred from proof of facts was Bagano who delivered the fatal blow on Jeremias
and circumstances which, taken together, indicate that and Cañete's participation was limited to a mere
they are parts of the complete plan to commit the crime. embrace is immaterial. Conspiracy bestows upon them
equal liability; hence, they shall suffer the same fate for
Li v. People their acts.
427 SCRA 217 (2001)
Facts: Because of an altercation between People v. Bangcado
Arugay and Li, the latter armed himself with a baseball 346 SCRA 189 (2000)
bat and used the same to hit Arugay on the arm. Arugay Facts: SPO1 Bangcado together with SPO1
armed with a bolo, retaliated by hacking Li on the head Banisa frisked and searched Cogasi, Clemente, Adawan
causing the bat to fall from his hand and leaving him and Lino to see if they were concealing any weapons.
unconscious or semi-unconsious. At this point in time, After making sure that the victims were unarmed,
Sangalang, who was also present stabbed Arugay Bangcado directed the victims to form a line against a
several times which resulted to the latter’s death. The Ford Fierra. Because Bangcado and Banisa were holding
lower court held that there was conspiracy in the handguns, Cogasi and his friends did as they were told
present case and were caught unaware when they were shot by
Held: The existence of conspiracy should be Bangcado. Adawan and Lino died of gunshot wounds in
ruled out. Sangalang was the main actor in stabbing the head, while Cogasi and Clemente sustained head
Arugay to death. As Li was incapacitated or probably wounds. The lower court convicted both Bangcado and
unconscious at the time Sangalang stabbed Arugay, it Banisa for 2 counts of murder and 2 counts of frustrated
cannot be assumed that Sangalang did what he has murder.
done with the knowledge or assent of Li, much more in Held: There being no finding of Conspiracy
coordination with each other. Based on the with Bangcado, the Court acquitted Banisa of all the
circumstances, the Court is hard put to conclude that charges against him. In the absence of any previous
Sangalang and Li had acted in concert to commit the plan or agreement to commit a crime, the criminal
offense. In fact, the stabbing of Arugay could very well responsibility arising from different acts directed against
be construed as a spur-of-the-moment reaction by one and the same person is individual and not collective,
Sangalang upon seeing that his friend Li was struck on and that each of the participants is liable only for his
the head by Arugay. From such a spontaneous reaction, own acts. Consequently, Banisa must be absolved from
a finding of conspiracy cannot arise. criminal responsibility for the assault on the victims. It is
Proving conspiracy is a dicey matter, especially clear that neither the victims nor Banisa could have
difficult in cases such as the present wherein the anticipated Bangcado's act of shooting the victims since
criminal acts arose spontaneously, as opposed to the attack was sudden and without any reason or
instances wherein the participants would have the purpose. Thus, the criminal design of Bangcado had not
opportunity to orchestrate a more deliberate plan. yet been revealed prior to the killings.
Spontaneity alone does not preclude the establishment

23
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

People v. Ramos Joseph, Dionesia, Rommel and Eddie. The RTC convicted
427 SCRA 299 (2004) Charito, together with Rogelio, Eddie Olazo and Miguel.
Facts: The trial court found appellant Eulalia Aggrieved Charito appealed before the CA, along with
San Roque guilty for conspiring and confederating with Eddie Olazo and Miguel. The CA affirmed the decision of
her co-accused for the murder of her live-in-partner the RTC insofar as the conviction of Charito. Charito
Lomida. Lomida was stabbed, shot and burned resulting then filed an Appeal with the Supreme Court claiming
to his death. Appellant argues that the fact of such that the prosecution was unable to prove his guilt
conspiracy has not been satisfactorily proven during the beyond reasonable doubt since his participation in the
trial of the case. She vigorously contends that she did planning stages of the crime was insufficient to sustain
not participate in the killing of the victim. his conviction and the finding of conspiracy between him
Held: In determining the existence of and his co-accused.
conspiracy, it is not necessary to show that all the Held: There is conspiracy when two or more
conspirators actually hit and killed the victim. The persons come to an agreement concerning the
presence of conspiracy among the accused can be commission of a felony and decide to commit it.
proven by their conduct before, during or after the Conspiracy is present when one concurs with the
commission of the crime showing that they acted in criminal design of another, indicated by the performance
unison with each other, evincing a common purpose or of an overt act which produces the crime. In proving
design. There must be a showing that appellant conspiracy, direct evidence is not indispensable as its
cooperated in the commission of the offense, either existence may be inferred from the conduct of the
morally, through advice, encouragement or agreement accused before, during, and after the commission of the
or materially through external acts indicating a manifest crime. In this, Joseph positively identified Charito and
intent of supplying aid in the perpetration of the crime in declared that he saw him during the initial planning of
an efficacious way. In such case, the act of one becomes the commission of the crime and noted Charito’s express
the act of all, and each of the accused will thereby be agreement. He also testified that he saw Charito in the
deemed equally guilty of the crime committed. evening of August 8, 2004, when he brought the
The series of events in this case convincingly accused near the house of spouses Vallecera and again
show that appellant and her co-accused acted in unison upon return to the drop-off area almost an hour later.
and cooperated with each other in killing Lomida. Hence, Charito’s appeal was dismissed.
Appellant was the one who opened the door and allowed
the other accused to enter the house. She joined them People v. Peralta
in bringing the victim to the residence of Ramos, her G.R. No. L-19069, October 29, 1968
brother-in-law. While her co-accused dragged the Facts: A commotion happened inside the New Bilibid
helpless victim, tied him to a santol tree, stabbed him Prison. While members of the Sigue-Sigue gang were
twice by a bladed knife, and shot him 5 to 7 times, preparing to attend a mass at 7:00 a.m., members of
appellant merely watched intensely. She even “turned the OXO gang attacked with improvised weapons killing
her back” as the lifeless body of the victim was being a number of Sigue Sigue members and sympathizers.
burned. And after attaining their purpose, she fled with Peralta was among those identified as an attacker for
the other accused. the OXO.
The above circumstances clearly show the
common purpose and concerted efforts on the part of Held: A conspiracy exists when two or more persons
appellant and her co-accused. come to an agreement concerning the commission of a
felony and decide to commit it. Generally, conspiracy is
People v. Amar not a crime except when the law specifically provides a
G.R. No. 194235 (2016) penalty therefore as in treason, rebellion and sedition.
Each of the accused-appellants had intentional, An agreement to commit a crime is a reprehensible act
direct, and substantial participation in the victim’s from the view-point of morality, but as long as the
kidnapping for ransom. The victim's abduction, his conspirators do not perform overt acts in furtherance of
being taken to and held up in a house in Ilocos Norte their malevolent design, the sovereignty of the State is
under guard, the ransom demand and negotiation, and not outraged and the tranquility of the public remains
finally, the ransom payout, which all happened in a span undisturbed.
of six (6) days, clearly took planning and coordination
among accused-appellants. Accused-appellant Efren Once an express or implied conspiracy is proved, all of
Gascon (“Gascon”), in particular, was among the four the conspirators are liable as co-principals regardless of
(4) men who abducted the victim in Meycauayan, the extent and character of their respective active
Bulacan on October 8, 2002, and kept guard over the participation in the commission of the crime or crimes
victim for six (6) days in Dingras, Ilocos Norte. In view perpetrated in furtherance of the conspiracy because in
thereof, accused-appellant Gascon could not be a mere contemplation of law the act of one is the act of all.
accomplice as his presence at the scene/s of the crime
was definitely more than just to give moral support; his Li v. People
presence and company were indispensable and essential 427 SCRA 217 (2004)
to the perpetration of the kidnapping for ransom. Thus, Facts: At 1:00 a.m., Arugay was watching television
all the accused-appellants, as co-conspirators, were with his sisters and Tan when he heard noises outside
found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of their house. He saw Li and Sangalang taking a bath
kidnapping for ransom. naked. Arugay yelled: Pare bastos kayo, bat kayo
nakahubad? A verbal confrontation ensued. Li, who was
People v. Olazo now wearing briefs, hit Arugay with a baseball bat.
G.R. No. 220761 (2016) Arugay then hit Li with a bolo knocking Li unconscious.
Facts: An Information for the crime of Robbery Sangalang stabbed and killed Arugay It must be pointed
with Homicide was filed with the RTC against Eddie out that Kingstone Li and Eduardo Sangalang were then
Olazo, Miguel and Charito, together with Rogelio,

24
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

in the same house at the same time. Eduardo Sangalang if, at the time of the commission of the offense, the
is the boyfriend of the half-sister of Kingtone Li. accused had the same purpose and were united in its
execution. In this case, the presence of accused-
Issue: Whether or not there was conspiracy between appellant and his colleagues, all of them armed with
housemates Sangalang and Li in killing Arugay. deadly weapons at the locus criminis, indubitably shows
their criminal design to kill the victims.
Held: No. Sangalang stabbed Arugay only after
petitioner had become unconscious. Before that point, People v. Comadre
even as Li struck Arugay with a baseball bat, it was not 431 SCRA 366 (2004)
proven that Li had asked for, or received, any assistance Facts: Antonio Comadre lobbed a grenade that landed
from Sangalang. In fact, the stabbing of Arugay could on the roof of Agbanlog. The explosion killed Robert
very well be construed as a spur-of-the-moment Agbanlog and injured others who were having a drinking
reaction by Sangalang upon seeing that his friend Li was session at the terrace of the house. When the grenade
struck on the head by Arugay. From such a spontaneous was thrown, Antonio was seen with George and Danilo.
reaction, a finding of conspiracy cannot arise. They were all charged as conspirators to complex crime
of murder with multiple attempted murder.
It appears that the fight involved two distinct
phases. The first phase commenced when Li, without Held: A conspiracy must be established by positive and
sufficient provocation, assaulted Arugay with the conclusive evidence. It must be shown to exist as clearly
baseball bat. Lis participation in this phase, albeit as a and convincingly as the commission of the crime
solitary actor, was indubitably established. Sangalangs itself. Mere presence of a person at the scene of the
participation, much less his physical presence during this crime does not make him a conspirator for conspiracy
phase, was not established at all. In the second phase, transcends companionship.
Sangalang was the main actor. Li was incapacitated by
then. Clearly, the existence of conspiracy should be The evidence shows that George Comadre and Danilo
ruled out. Lozano did not have any participation in the commission
of the crime and must therefore be set free. Their mere
People v. Listerio presence at the scene of the crime as well as their close
335 SCRA 40 (2000) relationship with Antonio are insufficient to establish
Facts: One afternoon, the Araque brothers tried to conspiracy considering that they performed no positive
collect a sum of money from one of their debtors in act in furtherance of the crime.
Alabang, After failing to collect anything, the brothers
were attacked by Listerio and company with bladed
weapons and lead pipes. This caused the death of STAGES OF COMMISSION OF A CRIME
Jeonito while Marlon survived due to timely medical
intervention. Listerio and his co-attackers were charged Art. 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted
with murder and frustrated murder. felonies. — Consummated felonies as well as those
which are frustrated and attempted are punishable.
Held: Direct proof of conspiracy is rarely found for A felony is consummated when all the
criminals do not write down their lawless plans and elements necessary for its execution and
plots. Conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accomplishment are present; and it is frustrated when
accused before, during and after the commission of the the offender performs all the acts of execution which
crime which indubitably point to and are indicative of a would produce the felony as a consequence but which,
joint purpose, concert of action and community of nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes
interest independent of the will of the perpetrator.
There is an attempt when the offender
Conspiracy must be shown to exist by direct commences the commission of a felony directly by overt
or circumstantial evidence, as clearly and convincingly acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution
as the crime itself. In the absence of direct proof which should produce the felony by reason of some
thereof, as in the present case, it may be deduced from cause or accident other than this own spontaneous
the mode, method, and manner by which the offense desistance.
was perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the
accused themselves when such acts point to a joint DEVELOPMENT OF A CRIME
purpose and design, concerted action and community of
interest. Hence, it is necessary that a conspirator should a. internal acts – such as mere ideas in the
have performed some overt acts as a direct or mind of a person, are not punishable even if,
indirect contribution in the execution of the crime had they been carried out, they would
planned to be committed. The overt act may consist of constitute a crime
active participation in the actual commission of the b. external acts – cover a) preparatory and b)
crime itself, or it may consist of moral assistance to his acts of execution
co-conspirators by being present at the commission of c. preparatory – acts tending toward the crime;
the crime or by exerting moral ascendancy over the ordinarily not punishable unless specifically
other co-conspirators. provided for; these acts do not yet constitute
even the first stage of the acts of execution;
Conspiracy transcends mere companionship; it denotes intent not yet disclosed
an intentional participation in the transaction with a view d. acts of execution – acts directly connected to
to the furtherance of the common design and the intended crime; varies with the crime and
purpose. Conspiracy to exist does not require an is punishable under the code; usually overt
agreement for an appreciable period prior to the acts with a logical relation to a particular
occurrence. From the legal standpoint, conspiracy exists concrete offense

25
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

FORMAL CRIME OR CRIMES OF EFFECT SUBJECTIVE AND OBJECTIVE PHASES OF A


Felonies whereby a single act of the accused FELONY
consummates the commission thereof. There are no 1. SUBJECTIVE PHASE
stages to its commission. - That portion of the execution of the
crime starting from the point where the offender
MATERIAL CRIMES still has control over his acts.
Crimes that may be committed in stages, i.e., - If the offender reaches the point
attempted, frustrated, and consummated. where he has no more control over is acts, the
subjective phase is passed.
STAGES OF COMMISSION - If it is already passed but the felony is
1. Attempted – there is an attempt when the not produced, it is frustrated.
offender commences the commission of a
felony directly by overt acts, and does not 2. OBJECTIVE PHASE
produce it by reason of some cause or accident - the result of the acts of execution,
other than his own spontaneous desistance. that is, the accomplishment of the crime.
2. Frustrated – it is frustrated when the offender - If the subjective and objective phases
performs all the acts of execution which would are present, there is consummated felony.
produce the felony as a consequence but
which, nevertheless, do not produce it by US v. Eduave
reason of causes independent of the will of the 36 Phil. 209 (1917)
perpetrator. Facts: Eduave struck a girl from behind with a bolo
3. Consummated – a felony is consummated severing muscles and tissues. He threw the victim’s
when all the elements necessary for its body into the bushes. He surrendered himself to the
execution and accomplishment are present. authorities and declared that he killed the victim.
However, the victim was not actually killed.

ATTEMPTED FELONY Held: The crime is frustrated murder.

ELEMENTS: Article 3 of the Penal Code defines a frustrated felony as


1. The offender commences the commission of the follows:
felony directly by overt acts; A felony is frustrated when the offender
2. He does not perform all the acts of execution performs all the acts of execution which should
which should produce the felony; produce the felony as a consequence, but
3. The offender’s act is not stopped by his own which, nevertheless, do not produce it by
spontaneous desistance; reason of causes independent of the will of the
4. The non-performance of all acts of execution was perpetrator.
due to cause or accident other than his own
spontaneous desistance. An attempted felony is defined thus:
There is an attempt when the offender
ª The commission of the felony is deemed commenced commences the commission of the felony
directly by overt acts when 1) there be external acts; 2) directly by overt acts, and does not perform all
such external acts have direct connection with the crime the acts of execution which constitute the
intended to be committed. felony by reason of some cause or accident
other than his own voluntarily desistance.
OVERT ACT – some physical activity or deed, indicating
the intention to commit a particular crime, more than a The essential element which distinguishes attempted
mere planning or preparation, which if carried to its from frustrated felony is that, in the latter, there is no
complete termination following its natural curse, without intervention of a foreign or extraneous cause or agency
being frustrated by external obstacles nor by voluntary between the beginning of the commission of the crime
desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and and the moment when all of the acts have been
necessarily ripen into a concrete offense. performed which should result in the consummated
crime; while in the former there is such intervention and
ª Drawing or trying to draw a pistol or raising a bolo as the offender does not arrive at the point of
if to strike the offended party with it is not an overt act performing all of the acts which should produce the
of homicide. crime. He is stopped short of that point by some cause
apart from his voluntary desistance.
INDETERMINATE OFFENSE – It is one where the
purpose of the offender in performing an act is not In case of an attempt the offender never passes the
certain. Its nature in relation to its objective is subjective phase of the offense. He is interrupted and
ambiguous. compelled to desist by the intervention of outside causes
before the subjective phase is passed. On the other
ª The intention of the accused must be viewed from the hand, in case of frustrated crimes the subjective phase
nature of the acts executed by him, and not from his is completely passed. Subjectively the crime is
admission. complete. Nothing interrupted the offender while he was
passing through the subjective phase. The crime,
however, is not consummated by reason of the
intervention of causes independent of the will of the
offender. He did all that was necessary to commit the
crime. If the crime did not result as a consequence it
was due to something beyond his control.

26
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

People v. Lamahang intact but since in previous Orita ruling, entry into labia
61 Phil 703 (1935) is considered rape even without rupture of hymen and
Facts: The accused was caught in the act of full penetration is not necessary, question arises
making an opening with an iron bar on the wall of a whether what transpired was attempted or
store where the owner was sleeping. The accused had consummated rape.
only succeeded in breaking one board and in unfastening Held: Attempted rape only. Mere touching of
another from the wall, when the policeman showed up, external genitalia by penis is already rape. However,
who instantly arrested him. The trial court convicted him touching should be understood as inherently part of
of attempted robbery. entry of penis into labia and not mere touching of the
Held: The conviction is erroneous. It is the pudendum. There must be clear and convincing proof
opinion of the SC that the attempt to commit an offense that the penis indeed touched the labia and slid into the
which the Penal code punishes is that which has a logical female organ and NOT MERELY STROKED THE
relation to a particular, concrete offense; that, which is EXTERNAL SURFACE. Some degree of penetration
the beginning of the execution of the offense by overt beneath the surface must be achieved and the labia
acts of the perpetrator, leading directly to its realization majora must be entered. Prosecution did not prove that
and consummation. What we have here is an attempt to the Campuhan’s penis was able to penetrate victim’s
commit an indeterminate offense. vagina because the kneeling position of the accused
There is no doubt that it was the intention of obstructed the mother’s view of the alleged sexual
the accused to enter the store by means of violence, contact. The testimony of the victim herself claimed that
passing through the opening which he had started to penis grazed but did not penetrate her organ.
make on the wall, but it is not sufficient, for the purpose There was only a shelling of the castle but no
of imposing penal sanction to make an assumption that bombardment of the drawbridge yet.
the act was in preparation for the commission of
robbery. There is no logical and natural relation between People v. Listerio
the act of entering and robbery. Thus, he should be 335 SCRA 40 (2000)
guilty of attempted trespass to dwelling. Facts: Brothers Jeonito and Marlon were
passing by Tramo, Muntinlupa when a group composed
of Agapito Listerio, Samson, George, and Marlon, all
People v. Dio surnamed Dela Torre and Bonifacio Bancaya blocked
130 SCRA 151 (1984) their path and attacked them with lead pipes and bladed
Facts: The appellant and his companion tried weapons. Listerio, Marlon and George, who were armed
to divest Crispulo of his Seiko wrist watch but Crispulo with bladed weapons, stabbed Jeonito from behind.
resisted their attempt and fought the robbers. The Jeonito’s brother, Marlon, was hit on the head by
victim was stabbed and later died. The Seiko watch was Samson and Bancaya with lead pipes and momentarily
still strapped to his wrist. The lower court convicted the lost consciousness. When he regained his senses, he
appellant of the special complex crime of robbery with saw that Jeonito was already dead. Their assailants then
homicide. fled after the incident. Marlon who sustained injuries in
Held: The decision of the lower court was the arm and back, was thereafter brought to a hospital
erroneous. The accused were unsuccessful in their for treatment. The lower court found Listerio guilty for
criminal venture since the watch was still securely the “attempt” to kill Marlon.
strapped to the victim’s wrist. The crime of robbery was Held: The SC held that the crime is a
therefore not consummated. The killing may be frustrated felony not an attempted offense considering
considered as merely incidental to the plan to carry out that after being stabbed and clubbed twice in the head
the robbery. The accused must be convicted of as a result of which he lost consciousness and fell, Marlo
attempted robbery with homicide. n's attackers apparently thought he was already dead
and fled.
People v. Trinidad A crime cannot be held to be attempted unless
169 SCRA 51 (1989) the offender, after beginning the commission of the
Facts: Deceased Soriano and Laroa together crime by overt acts, is prevented, against his will, by
with Tan were inside a Ford Fierra when Trinidad asked some outside cause from performing all of the acts
for a ride. The accused shot the two deceased. Tan got which should produce the crime. In other words, to be
off the Fierra and rode a jeepney which just passed by. an attempted crime the purpose of the offender must be
When he saw the accused riding at the back of the jeep, thwarted by a foreign force or agency which intervenes
he tried to run but when the jeep started driving away, and compels him to stop prior to the moment when he
he clung to its side. The accused fired two shots at Tan, has performed all of the acts which should produce the
one hitting him on his thigh. The lower court convicted crime as a consequence, which acts it is his intention to
him of frustrated murder. perform. If he has performed all the acts which should
Held: The accused can only be convicted of result in the consummation of the crime and voluntarily
Attempted Murder because the accused was unable to desists from proceeding further, it cannot be an
perform all acts of execution which would have produced attempt.
the murder. The victim’s wound in the right thigh was
not fatal and the doctrinal rule is that where the wound Valenzuela v. People (2007)
is inflicted on the victim is not sufficient to cause his Facts: A grocery boy was caught trying to
death, the crime is only attempted murder. abscond a box of Tide Ultrabar laundry soap from the
Super Sale Club. The guards apprehended him at the
People v. Campuhan store parking lot while trying to board a taxi. He claimed
329 SCRA 270 (2000) the theft was merely frustrated for he was not able to
Facts: The mother of the 4-year-old victim dispose of the goods.
caught the houseboy Campuhan in the act of almost
raping her daughter. The hymen of the victim was still

27
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

Held: The Revised Penal Code provisions on showing that the wound inflicted was sufficient to cause
theft have not been designed in such fashion as to the victims death without timely medical intervention.
accommodate the Adiao, Dino and Empelis rulings. When nothing in the evidence shows that the wound
Again, there is no language in Article 308 that expressly would be fatal without medical intervention, the
or impliedly allows that the “free disposition of the items character of the wound enters the realm of doubt; under
stolen” is in any way determinative of whether the crime this situation, the doubt created by the lack of evidence
of theft has been produced. We thus conclude that should be resolved in favor of the petitioner. Thus, the
under the Revised Penal Code, there is no crime of crime committed should be attempted,
frustrated theft. not frustrated, homicide.

People v. Pareja
G.R. No. 188979, September 5, 2012 FRUSTRATED FELONY
Facts: According to the testimony of the victim, Pareja
removed her clothes and tried to insert his penis but ELEMENTS:
wasn’t able to penetrate as he stopped when the 1. The offender performs all the acts of
victim’s cries got louder. The lower courts convicted execution;
Pareja of rape. 2. All the acts performed would produce the
felony as a consequence;
Held: Pareja committed Attempted Rape. According to 3. But the felony is not produced;
the victim’s testimony, the accused was able to touch 4. By reason of causes independent of the
the mons pubis, the rounded eminence which becomes will of the perpetrator.
hairy around the vagina. However, Pareja was not able
to penetrate the labia majora or the outer lips of the ª In frustrated felony, the offender must perform all the
vagina. In rape cases, the penetration of the labias acts of execution. Nothing more is left to be done by the
consummates the rape. offender, because he has performed the last act
necessary to produce the crime.
People v. Borinaga
55 Phil. 433 (1930) FRUSTRATED FELONY VS. ATTEMPTED FELONY
Facts: A misunderstanding regarding the payment for 1. In both, the offender has not accomplished his
the construction of Mr. Mooney’s fish corral angered criminal purpose.
Borinaga, an associate to the said project. That evening, 2. While in frustrated felony, the offender has
while Mooney was sitting in a neighbor’s store with his performed all the acts of execution which would
back facing the window, Borinaga tried to stab Mooney produce the felony as a consequence, in
with a knife. However, the knife hit the back of the chair attempted felony, the offender merely
and Mooney was unharmed. commences the commission of a felony directly
by overt acts and does not perform all the acts of
Held: The crime was frustrated murder. The essential execution.
condition of a frustrated crime, that the author performs
all the acts of execution, attended the attack. Nothing ATTEMPTED OR IMPOSSIBLE CRIME
remained to be done to accomplish the work of the FRUSTRATED
assailant completely. The cause resulting in the failure of
The evil intent of the offender is not accomplished
the attack arose by reason of forces independent of the
The evil intent of the The evil intent of the
will of the perpetrator.
offender is possible of offender cannot be
accomplishment accomplished
Serrano v. People
The evil intent cannot be The evil intent of the
G.R. No. 175023, July 5, 2010
accomplished because of offender cannot be
Facts: Anthony Galang was stabbed in the stomach with
the intervention of certain accomplished because it is
a bladed weapon during a rumble between two groups in
cause or accident in which inherently impossible of
UP Diliman. Galang was ganged up by members of the
the offender had no accomplishment or
opposing group when he was stabbed while being held.
participation. because the means
The petitioner, Gener and Orieta thereafter continued to
employed by the offender
beat and stone the victim until he fell into a nearby
is inadequate or
creek. The petitioner and his group left him there. The
ineffectual.
RTC held that it was frustrated homicide while the CA
held that the wounds were not fatal, therefore, the
crime was attempted homicide. People v. Eriña
50 Phil 998 (1927)
Held: The following factors to determine the presence of Facts: The victim of the crime was a child of 3
an intent to kill: (1) the means used by the malefactors; years and 11 months. There are doubts whether the
(2) the nature, location, and number of wounds accused succeeded in penetrating the vagina before
sustained by the victim; (3) the conduct of the being disturbed in the timely intervention of the mother
malefactors before, at the time, or immediately after the and sister. The physician found a slight inflammation of
killing of the victim; and (4) the circumstances under the exterior parts of the organ, indicating an effort had
which the crime was committed and the motives of the been made to enter the vagina but it is doubtful whether
accused. We also consider motive and the the entry had been effected.
words uttered by the offender at the time he inflicted Held: Though complete penetration is not
injuries on the victim as additional determinative factors necessary, penetration of the labia is sufficient.
However, since there is no sufficient evidence of such
The crucial point to consider is the nature of the wound penetration, the act is merely frustrated.
inflicted which must be supported by independent proof Dissent: It is consummated rape.

28
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

People v. Orita CONSUMMATED FELONY


184 SCRA 105 (1990)
Facts: The victim was a 19-year old college Requisites:
student. She arrived at her boarding house early 1. All the acts of execution are present
morning coming from a late-night party. The accused 2. The result is achieved.
suddenly held her and poked a knife to her neck. They
entered a room and the victim was ordered to lie down. ª Every crime has its own elements which must all be
The accused made the victim hold his penis and insert it present to constitute a culpable violation of a precept of
in her vagina. Because of their position, the accused law.
cannot fully penetrate her. Only a small part of his penis
inserted her vagina. The victim was able to escape and How to determine whether the felony is
report to the police what happened. The lower court attempted, frustrated or consummated?
convicted the accused of frustrated rape.
Held: Perfect penetration is not essential for 1. the nature of the offense
the consummation of rape. Entry of the labia or lips of ex. In arson, it is not necessary that the property is
the female organ without rupture of the hymen or totally destroyed by fire. The crime of arson is
laceration of the vagina is sufficient to warrant therefore consummated even if only a portion of the
conviction. Clearly, in the crime of rape, from the wall or any other part of the house is burned.
moment the offender has carnal knowledge of his victim,
he actually attains his purpose and, from that moment 2. the elements constituting the felony
also all the essential elements of the offense have been ex. In theft, the mere removal of the personal
accomplished. Nothing more is left to be done by the property belonging to another with intent to gain is
offender, because he has performed the last act sufficient to consummate the offense. In estafa, the
necessary to produce the crime. Thus, the felony is offended party must actually be prejudiced or
consummated rape. damaged. (Adiao case v. Domiguez case)
Taking into account the nature, elements and
manner of execution of the crime of rape and 3. the manner of committing the crime
jurisprudence on the matter, it is hardly conceivable how
the frustrated stage in rape can ever be consummated. a. formal crimes – those which are consummated
by a single act (ex. Slander, adultery)
People v. Caballero • There can be no ATTEMPT in a formal crime.
400 SCRA 424 (2003) b. crimes consummated by mere attempt (ex.
Facts: As Eugene walked by the gate of the Attempt to flee to an enemy country, treason)
Mondragon Compound, Armando Caballero suddenly • There is not ATTEMPTED crime because the
grabbed Eugene towards the compound. Eugene overt act in itself consummates the crime.
resisted. Spontaneously, Armando’s brothers Ricardo,
Marciano, Jr., and Robito joined Armando and assaulted c. felonies by omission
Eugene. Armando took the wooden pole supporting the • There can be no attempted stage because the
clothesline and hit Eugene with it. Eugene’s sister, offender does not execute acts. He omits to
Myrna, saw the Caballero brothers assaulting Eugene perform an act which the law requires him to do.
and shouted for help. Arnold saw the commotion and
rushed to the scene to pacify the protagonists. However, d. crimes committed by mere agreement
Ricardo accosted Arnold and stabbed the latter on the - The offer made by one of the parties to the other
left side of his body. Forthwith, Robito, Marciano, Jr. and constitutes attempted felony, if the offer is
Armando ganged up on Arnold. Two of them stabbed rejected.
Arnold on his forearm. Arnold fled for his life and hid - In view of this rule, it would seem that there is
under the house of a neighbor. Leonilo, who likewise no frustrated bribery but in People v. Diego Quin,
rushed to the scene was stabbed by Robito. Eugene and SC ruled that if the public officer returned the
Leonilo eventually died from the stab wounds they money given by the defendant, there is
sustained. Dr. Quisumbing, who attended to and frustrated bribery.
operated on Arnold, testified that the stab wound
sustained by Arnold on the left side of his body was e. material crimes
mortal and could have caused his death were it not for - There are three stages of consummation:
the timely and effective medical intervention: attempted, frustrated and consummated.
Held: A crime is frustrated when the offender
has performed all the acts of execution which should U.S. v. Adiao (1955)
result in the consummation of the crime. The offender Facts: Adiao is a customs inspector. He
has passed the subjective phase in the commission of abstracted a leather belt from the luggage of a Japanese
the crime. Subjectively, the crime is complete. Nothing and secreted the belt under his desk in the Customs
interrupted the offender while passing through the House where it was found by other customs employees.
subjective phase. He did all that is necessary to Adiao was convicted of frustrated theft.
consummate the crime. However, the crime is not Held: Since the defendant performed all the
consummated by reason of the intervention of causes acts of execution necessary for the accomplishment of
independent of the will of the offender. In homicide the felony, he is guilty of consummated crime of theft.
cases, the offender is said to have performed all the acts The fact that he was under observation during the entire
of execution if the wound inflicted on the victim is mortal transaction and was unable to get the merchandise out
and could cause the death of the victim barring medical of the Customs House is not decisive; all the elements of
intervention or attendance. the completed crime of theft are present.

29
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

People v. Hernandez (1925) D. CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES


Facts: The accused, a 70-year-old man was
convicted by the trial court of frustrated rape for having Art. 9. Grave felonies, less grave felonies and light
intercourse with his granddaughter who was at that time felonies. — Grave felonies are those to which the law
only 9 years of age. The lower court claimed that there attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in
can be no consummated rape without a complete any of their periods are afflictive, in accordance with Art.
penetration of the hymen. 25 of this Code.
Held: Finding the hymen intact is not always Less grave felonies are those which the law
proof that no rape has been committed. The law may punishes with penalties which in their maximum period
now indeed be considered as settled that while the are correctional, in accordance with the above-
rupturing of the hymen is not indispensable to a mentioned Art.
conviction, there must be proof of some degree of
entrance of the male organ within the labia of
ª Art. 9 classifies felonies according to their gravity.
pudendum. In the present case, the physician found the
a. GRAVE FELONIES – those in which the law
labia and the opening of the vagina inflamed together
attaches a capital punishment or afflictive
with an abundance of semen. Child even testified that
penalty.
defendant succeeded partial penetration. The accused is
guilty of consummated rape.
ª Capital punishment is death penalty
Valenzuela v. People
ª The afflictive penalties in accordance with Art.
525 SCRA 306 (2007)
25 of this code are:
Facts: A grocery boy was caught trying to
reclusion perpetua
abscond a box of Tide Ultrabar laundry soap from the
reclusion temporal
Super Sale Club. The guards apprehended him at the
perpetual or temporary absolute
store parking lot while trying to board a taxi. He claimed
disqualification
the theft was merely frustrated for he was not able to
perpetual or temporary special
dispose of the goods.
disqualification
prision mayor
Held: The determination of whether a crime is frustrated
or consummated necessitates an initial concession that
b. LESS GRAVE FELONIES – those in which
all of the acts of execution have been performed by the
their maximum period are correctional
offender. The critical distinction instead is whether the
felony itself was actually produced by the acts of
ª When the penalty prescribed for the offense is
execution. The determination of whether the felony was
composed of two or more distinct penalties, the
produced after all the acts of execution had been
higher or highest of the penalties must be a
performed hinges on the particular statutory definition of
correctional penalty.
the felony. It is the statutory definition that generally
furnishes the elements of each crime under the Revised
ª The following are correctional penalties
Penal Code, while the elements in turn unravel the
prision correccional
particular requisite acts of execution and accompanying
arresto mayor
criminal intent.
suspension
destierro
The long-standing Latin maxim actus non facit reum, nisi
mens sit rea supplies an important characteristic of a
c. LIGHT FELONIES – those infractions of law in
crime, that ordinarily, evil intent must unite with an
which the penalty is arresto menor or a fine not
unlawful act for there to be a crime, and accordingly,
exceeding P200 or both.
there can be no crime when the criminal mind is
wanting. Accepted in this jurisdiction as material in
ª A felony punishable by a fine not exceeding
crimes mala in se, mens rea has been defined before as
P200 and censure is a light felony, because public
a guilty mind, a guilty or wrongful purpose or criminal
censure, like arresto menor, is a light felony.
intent, and essential for criminal liability. It follows that
the statutory definition of our mala in se crimes must be
able to supply what the mens rea of the crime is, and Art. 7. When light felonies are punishable. — Light
indeed the U.S. Supreme Court has comfortably held felonies are punishable only when they have been
that a criminal law that contains no mens consummated, with the exception of those committed
rea requirement infringes on constitutionally protected against person or property.
rights. The criminal statute must also provide for the Light felonies are those infractions of law for the
overt acts that constitute the crime. For a crime to exist commission of which a penalty of arresto menor or a
in our legal law, it is not enough that mens rea be fine not exceeding 200 pesos or both is provided.
shown; there must also be an actus reus.
ª This should be seen in the light of articles prescribing
It is from the actus reus and the mens rea, as they find penalties for crimes in their different stages of
expression in the criminal statute, that the felony is commission. This means that light felonies which are
produced. In this case, the crime of theft is only attempted or frustrated are not punishable by law.
consummated when the act unlawful taking was
performed regardless whether the perpetrator had the ª However, in the commission of crimes against persons
capacity or opportunity to dispose the stolen goods. and property, every stage of execution is punishable but
There is no frustrated theft. only the principals and accomplices are liable in light
felonies, the accessories are not.

30
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

ª Rationale: Light felonies produce such slight or § Efficient Intervening Cause - there is an efficient
insignificant moral and material injuries that public supervening event if the event breaks the sequence
conscience is assuaged even if the acts punished only leading from the cause of the ultimate result. [Allied
when consummated. Banking Corp. v. Wan, et al, G.R. No. 13319]

ª The causes which may produce a result different from


that which the offender intended are:
a. ERROR IN PERSONAE - mistake in the
III. CRIMINAL LIABILITY identity of the victim; injuring one person
mistaken for another (this is a complex
crime under Art. 49)
A. HOW INCURRED b. ABERRATIO ICTUS - mistake in the
blow, that is, when the offender intending
Art. 4. Criminal liability. — Criminal liability shall be to do an injury to one person actually
incurred: inflicts it on another; and
1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although c. PRAETER INTENTIONEM – the act
the wrongful act done be different from that which he exceeds the intent, that is, the injurious
intended. result is greater than that intended.
2. By any person performing an act which would be an
offense against persons or property, were it not for the * RPC, Art. 13 Mitigating circumstance –
inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or an That the offender had no intention to commit
account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual so grave a wrong as that committed.
means.
2. By any person performing an act which would
§ This article has no reference to the manner criminal be an offense against persons or property, were it
liability is incurred. The manner incurring criminal not for the inherent impossibility of its
liability under the RPC is stated under Art. 3, that is, accomplishment or an account of the employment
performing or failing to do an act, when either is of inadequate or ineffectual means.
punished b law, by means of deceit or fault.
3. Impossible Crimes
§ Art. 4 merely states that criminal liability is incurred
by those mentioned by the said article. Requisites:

1. By any person committing a felony although the 1. That the act performed would be an offense
wrongful act done be different from that which he against persons or property.
intended Felonies Against Persons are:
a. Murder
Requisites: b. Homicide
a. That an intentional felony has been c. Infanticide
committed; and d. Abortion
b. That the wrong done to the aggrieved e. Duel
party be the direct and natural and logical f. Physical Injuries
consequence of the felony. g. Rape
Felonies Against Property:
§ Any person who creates in another’s mind an a. Robbery
immediate sense of danger, which causes the latter to b. Brigandage
do something resulting in the latter’s injuries, is liable c. Theft
for the resulting injuries. d. Usurpation
e. Culpable Insolvency
§ Wrong done must be the direct, natural and logical f. Swindling and other deceits
consequence of the felony committed. g. Chattel Mortgage
- where it clearly appears that the injury would h. Arson and other crimes involving
not have cased death, in the ordinary course of events, destruction
but would have healed in so many days and where it is i. Malicious Mischief
shown beyond all doubt that the death was due to the
malicious or careless acts of the injured person or a
third person, the accused is not liable for homicide. 2. That the act was done with evil intent.
The offender must have intent to do injury to
§ The offended party is not obliged to submit to a another.
surgical operation to relieve the accused from the
natural and ordinary results of his crime. 3. That its accomplishment is inherently
§ The felony committed must be the proximate cause of impossible, or that the means employed is
the resulting injury. either inadequate or ineffectual.
In impossible crime, the act performed by the
§ Proximate Cause - that cause, which, in natural and offender cannot produce an offense against persons
continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient or property because:
intervening cause, produces the injury, and without
which the result would not have occurred. [Bataclan v. a. the commission of the offense is
Medina, 102 Phil. 181, 186] inherently impossible of accomplishment

31
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

- The act intended by the offender is by its Held: The accused is guilty of an impossible
nature one of impossible accomplishment. crime. The factual situation in the case presents a
- There must either 1) LEGAL IMPOSSIBILITY – physical impossibility which rendered the intended crime
when completed intended acts do not amount to a impossible of performance.
crime, or 2) PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY – when
extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor Quinto v. Andres
prevent the consummation of the intended crime. 453 SCRA 511 (2005)
- examples: 1) when one tries to kill another Facts: Garcia, a Grade 4 elementary school
by putting in his substance which he believes to be pupil, and his playmate, Wilson Quinto, who was about
arsenic when in fact it is common salt; 2) when one 11 yrs old saw Andres and Pacheco who invited them to
tries to murder a corpse. go fishing inside a drainage culvert. Wilson assented but
Garcia seeing that it was dark inside opted to remain
b. the means employed is either inadequate seated in a grassy area about 2 meters from the
or ineffectual entrance of the drainage system. Pacheco, Andres and
- example: when one tries to poison another but Quinto, entered the drainage system which was covered
the quantity of arsenic added in his substance was by concrete culvert about a meter high and a meter
not sufficient to kill a person wide, with water about a foot deep. After a while,
- but where the means employed is adequate respondent Pacheco, who was holding a fish, came out
and the result expected is not produced, it is not an of the drainage system and left without saying a word.
impossible crime, but a frustrated felony. Andres also came out, went back inside, and emerged
again, this time, carrying Wilson who was already dead.
4. That the act performed should not Andres laid the boy's lifeless body down in the grassy
constitute a violation of another provision of area. Shocked at the sudden turn of events, Garcia fled
the RPC from the scene. For his part, Andres went to the house
- example: A pointed a gun at B to rob the latter of petitioner Melba Quinto, Wilson's mother, and
of a watch but B was not wearing a watch. It is informed her that her son had died. Melba Quinto rushed
not an impossible crime because A’s pointing his to the drainage culvert while respondent Andres followed
gun at B already constituted at least the crime of her.
grave threats. Held: The court ruled that respondents cannot
be held criminally nor civilly liable for the death of
Why is an impossible crime punishable? Wilson. In this case, the petitioner failed to adduce proof
of any ill-motive on the part of either respondent to kill
It is punishable in order to suppress criminal the deceased before or after the latter was invited to
tendencies. Objectively, the offender has not committed join them in fishing. Indeed, the petitioner testified that
a felony, but subjectively, he is a criminal. respondent Andres used to go to their house and play
with her son before the latter's death. When the
Urbano v. IAC petitioner's son died inside the drainage culvert, it was
157 SCRA 1 (1998) respondent Andres who brought out the deceased. He
Facts: Urbano went to his rice field and found then informed the petitioner of her son's death. Even
his palay flooded with water. Urbano found out that it after informing the petitioner of the death of her son,
was Javier who was responsible for the opening of the respondent Andres followed the petitioner on her way to
irrigation canal. He got angry and tried to hack Javier the grassy area where the deceased was.
but the latter tried to parry the attack and in the
process, a two-inch incised wound was inflicted on the People v. Valledor,
right palm of Javier’s hand. The wound was treated and 383 SCRA 653 (2002)
incapacitation was diagnosed to be from 7-9 days. 22 Accused should be held liable only for
days after, Javier was rushed to the hospital in a very attempted murder and not frustrated murder. The
serious condition caused by tetanus toxin. Javier died wound sustained by Roger Cabiguen on his right forearm
the next day. Urbano was convicted of homicide. was not fatal. The settled rule is that where the wound
inflicted on the victim is not sufficient to cause his
Held: Urbano is acquitted because the infection death, the crime is only attempted murder, since the
was distinct and foreign to the crime. The proximate accused did not perform all the acts of execution that
cause of Javier’s death was due to his own negligence as would have brought about death.
he went back to work even if his wound had not yet
healed properly. The evidence on record also shows that
the wound inflicted by Urbano did not exhibit any signs
of being infected with tetanus; at most, it was only
infected with a mild form of tetanus and not the severe B. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL
form that killed him LIABILITY
Intod v. CA
215 SCRA 52 (1992)
IMPUTABILITY RESPONSIBILITY
Facts: Intod et al. went to Palangpangan’s
Quality by which an act Obligation of suffering the
house, all armed with firearms. They went to the
may be ascribed to a consequences of the
bedroom and began firing their weapons. However,
person as its author or crime.
Palangpangan was in another city and her home was
owner.
occupied by her son-in-law and his family. No one was
Implies that a deed may Implies that the person
in the room when the accused fired their weapons. RTC
be imputed to a person. must take the
convicted the accused of attempted murder.
consequence of such deed.

32
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

1. JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES of his rights, that is, those rights the enjoyment of which
is protected by law.
• Includes Right to Honor and Defense of
• Those where the act of a person is said to be
Property Rights.
in accordance with law, so that such person is deemed
not to have transgressed the law and is free from both
Requisites:
criminal and civil liability.
a. There must be unlawful aggression
• The law recognizes the non-existence of a
crime by expressly stating in the opening sentence of
• This is an indispensable requisite.
Art. 11 that the person therein mentioned “DO NOT
• If there is no unlawful aggression, there is
INCUR CRIMINAL LIABILITY.”
nothing to prevent or repel.
• Unlawful aggression is equivalent to assault or at
least threatened assault of an immediate and
Art. 11. Justifying circumstances. — The following do imminent kind.
not incur any criminal liability: • There must be an ACTUAL PHYSICAL assault upon
a person, or at least a THREAT to inflict real injury.
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or • When there is no peril to one’s life, limb or right,
rights, provided that the following circumstances concur; there is no unlawful aggression.
First. Unlawful aggression
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means PERIL TO ONE’S LIFE
employed to prevent or repel it.
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the 1. ACTUAL – that the danger must be present, that
part of the person defending himself. is, actually in existence.

2. Any one who acts in defense of the person 2. IMMINENT- that the danger is on the point of
or rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or happening. It is not required that the attack already
legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or his begins, for it may be too late.
relatives by affinity in the same degrees and those
consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, provided • A slap on the face constitutes unlawful aggression
that the first and second requisites prescribed in the since the face represents a person and his dignity.
next preceding circumstance are present, and the Slapping it is a serious personal attack.
further requisite, in case the provocation was given by
the person attacked, that the one making defense had • Retaliation is different from an act of self-defense.
no part therein. In retaliation, the aggression that was begun by the
injured party already ceased to exist when the
3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person accused attacked him. In self-defense, the
or rights of a stranger, provided that the first and aggression was still existing when the aggressor was
second requisites mentioned in the first circumstance of injured or disabled by the person making a defense.
this Article are present and that the person defending be
not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil • In self-defense, the person must have no time nor
motive. occasion for deliberation and cool thinking.

4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or • The unlawful aggression must come from the
injury, does an act which causes damage, provided that person who was attacked by the accused.
the following requisites are present:
• There is no unlawful aggression when there is
First. That the evil sought to be avoided agreement to fight because where the fight has been
actually exists. agreed upon, each of the protagonists is at once
Second. That the injury feared be greater assailant and assaulted. But when the aggression is
than that done to avoid it; ahead of the stipulated time and place, it is unlawful.
Third. That there be no other practical and
less harmful means of preventing it. • The rule now is STAND GROUND WHEN IN THE
RIGHT. So, where the accused is where he has the
5. Any person who acts in fulfillment of a duty right to be, the law does not require him to retreat
or in the lawful exercise of a right or office. when his assailant is rapidly advancing upon him with
a deadly weapon.
6. Any person who acts in obedience to an
order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose. • The belief of the person may be considered in
determining the existence of unlawful aggression.
Ex. If the aggressor used a toy pistol but the
• Article 11 recognizes the acts of such persons as accused believed it was a real gun, he may claim self-
justified. Such persons are not criminals, as there is no defense.
crime committed.
b. Reasonable necessity of the means employed
Par. 1 – SELF-DEFENSE to prevent or repel it

• Self-defense includes not only the defense • The second requisite presupposes the existence of
of the person or body of the one assaulted but also that unlawful aggression.

33
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

• The law protects not only the person who repels • Relatives by affinity, because of marriage, are parents-
an aggression (meaning actual), but even the person in-law, son or daughter-in-law, and brothers or sisters-
who tries to prevent an aggression that is expected in-law.
(meaning imminent).
• Death of the spouse terminates the relationship by
• The reasonableness of the necessity depends affinity; unless the marriage has resulted in issue who is
upon the circumstances particularly the time and still living, in which case the relationship of affinity
location where the aggression took place. continues.

• The means employed by the person making a • Consanguinity refers to blood relatives. Brothers and
defense must be rationally necessary to prevent or sisters are within the second civil degree; uncle and
repel an unlawful aggression. niece or aunt and nephew are within the third civil
degree; and first cousins are within the fourth civil
• The reasonableness of the means used will depend degree.
upon the NATURE and QUALITY of the weapon used
by the aggressor, his PHYSICAL CONDITION, SIZE REQUISITES OF DEFENSE OF RELATIVES:
and other circumstances, and those of the person
defending himself, and also the place and occasion of 1. Unlawful aggression;
the assault. • Unlawful aggression may not exist as a
matter of fact, it can be made to depend upon the
*** THE FIRST TWO REQUISITES ARE COMMON TO honest belief of the one making a defense. Ex. The
THREE KINDS OF LEGITIMATE DEFENSE: 1) SELF- sons of A honestly believed that their father was the
DEFENSE, 2) DEFENSE OF A RELATIVE AND 3) victim of an unlawful aggression when in fact it was
DEFENSE OF A STRANGER. their father who attacked B. If they killed B under
such circumstance, they are justified.
c. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of
the person defending himself 2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed
to prevent or repel it;
• The third requisite of self-defense is present: • The gauge of reasonable necessity of the means
1. When no provocation at all was given to the employed to repel the aggression as against one’s
aggressor by the person defending himself; or self or in defense of a relative is to be found in the
2. When, even if a provocation was giver, it situation as IT APPEARS TO THE PERSON
was not sufficient; or REPELLING THE AGGRESSION (the defender).
3. When, even if the provocation was
sufficient, it was not given by the person defending 3. In case the provocation was given by the
himself; or person attacked, the one making a defense
4. When, even if a provocation was given by had no part therein.
the person defending himself, it was not proximate and • There is still legitimate defense of relative even if
immediate to the act of aggression. the relative being defended has given provocation,
provided that the one defending such relative has
no part in the provocation.
BATTERED WOMAN DEFENSE-R.A. 9262 (27 March
2004) Sections 3 & 26 in relation to People v. • Reason for the rule: Although the provocation
Genosa, 419 SCRA 537 (2004) prejudices the person who gave it, its effects do not
reach the defender who took no part therein,
• Battered Woman Syndrome as a because the latter was prompted by some noble or
Defense generous sentiment in protecting and saving a
Victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be relative.
suffering from battered woman syndrome do not
incur any criminal and civil liability notwithstanding Par. 3 – DEFENSE OF STRANGER
the absence of any of the elements for justifying
circumstances of self-defense under the Revised Requisites:
Penal Code. 1. Unlawful aggression;
2. Reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel it;
3. The person defending be not induced by
revenge, resentment or other evil motive.
Par. 2 – DEFENSE OF RELATIVES
Who are deemed strangers?
RELATIVES THAT CAN BE DEFENDED Any person not included in the enumeration of
1. Spouse relatives mentioned in paragraph 2 of this article, is
2. Ascendants considered stranger for the purpose of paragraph 3.
3. Descendants
4. Legitimate, natural or adopted BASIS: What one may do in his defense, another may
brothers and sisters, or relatives by do for him. The ordinary man would not stand idly by
affinity in the same degrees. and see his companion killed without attempting to save
5. Relatives by consanguinity within the his life.
fourth civil degree.

34
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

People v. Narvaez People v. Alconga


121 SCRA 389 (1983) 78 Phil 366 (1947)
Facts: Narvaez was taking his rest inside his Facts: The deceased Barion was the banker in
house when he heard that the wall of his house was the game of black jack. Raposo played the game while
being chiseled. He saw that Fleischer and Rubia, the accused posted himself behind Barion acting as a
together with their laborers, were fencing the land of the spotter of the cards of the latter and communicating it
father of the deceased Fleischer. If the fencing would go to his partner Raposo. When Barion learned about what
on, Narvaez would be prevented from getting into his Raposo and Alconga were doing, an exchange of words
house and the bodega of his rice mill so he asked the ensued. One morning, when Alconga was in the
group to stop but they refused. The accused got mad so guardhouse, Barion arrived and swung his pingahan at
he got his shotgun and shot Fleischer. Rubia ran towards the former but the accused was able to avoid the blow.
the jeep and knowing there is a gun on the jeep, the In a crawling position, Alconga avoided the following
accused fired at Rubia as well. Narvaez claimed he acted blows and was able to draw his revolver and shoot
in defense of his person and rights. Barion. He was able to crawl out of the guardhouse and
Held: The court took into consideration the fact a hand-to-hand fight ensued. Having sustained several
that the 2 deceased were accompanied with three wounds, Barion ran away but was followed by the
laborers and that the were using tools which could be accused and another fight took place. Alconga then
lethal weapons such as nail and hammer, bolo, etc. and slashed Barion’s head with a bolo which caused the
that the jeep the deceased used contained a gun leaning latter’s death. The accused pleaded self-defense.
near the steering wheel. There was aggression on the Held: An accused was no longer acting in self-
part of the victims not on the person of the accused but defense when he pursued and killed a fleeing adversary,
on his property rights when Fleischer angrily ordered the though originally the unlawful aggressor, there being no
continuance of the fencing. more aggression to defend against, the same having
The third element of self-defense is also ceased from the moment the deceased took to his heels.
present because there was no sufficient provocation on
the part of Narvaez since he was sleeping when the People v. Sumicad
deceased where fencing. 56 Phil 643 (1932)
However, the second element was lacking. Facts: Sumicad was hauling logs when Cubol
Shooting the victims from the window of his house is suddenly struck him with his fist. Sumicad tried to
disproportionate to the physical aggression by the escape but Cubol continued to strike him with his fists.
victims. Thus, there is incomplete self-defense and the Sumicad receded until he found himself cornered by a
accused is entitled to a penalty lower by one or two pile of logs which prevented him from further retreat. As
degrees. Cubol advanced towards him, Sumicad drew out his bolo
Dissent: Defense of property is not of such and struck him. Cubol tried to wrest the bolo from
importance as the right to life and defense of property Sumicad and to prevent this, the latter struck him again
can only be invoked when it is coupled with some form twice which broke Cubol’s cranium resulting to his
of attack on the person of one entrusted with said death.
property. In this case before us, there is no evidence Held: As a general rule, a man is not justified
that an attack was attempted. The utterance, “no, in killing an assailant who is not armed with any
gaddemit, proceed, go ahead,” is not unlawful dangerous weapon. This rule applies only when the
aggression which entitles him neither to a plea of self- contending parties are in the open and the person
defense nor to a mitigating circumstance of incomplete assaulted can escape. However, where one has no
self-defense. means of escaping, the one who is assaulted can use a
weapon in any way reasonably necessary to his
People v. Boholst-Caballero protection against the aggressor.
61 SCRA 180 (1974) The deceased here is a bully of known violent
Facts: Boholst (wife) and Caballero (husband) character and although unarmed, he attempted to take
are married to each other. But since their marriage was from the accused a bolo which is the only means of
an unhappy one, they separated. One evening, the wife defense possessed by the latter. It would have been an
went caroling with her friends and she was seen by her act of suicide on the part of the accused to allow the
husband standing in a corner of the yard of Barabad. He bolo to pass into the hands of his antagonist.
accused her of prostituting and threatened to kill her as
he held her by the hair, slapped her face until her nose People v. Luague
bled. He, then, choked her and at the same time 62 Phil 504 (1935)
continuously saying that he will kill her. The wife then Facts: The deceased tried to rape the accused
pulled out the knife of her husband tucked inside the while her husband was away. The deceased threatened
belt line and stabbed him. When she was released, she the accused with a knife to compel her to have sex with
ran home. The wife is claiming self-defense. him. As the deceased was preparing to lie down with
Held: The wife who being strangled and choked her, he placed the knife on the floor and so the accused
by a furious aggressor had no other recourse but to get took advantage of the situation by getting the knife and
hold of any weapon within her reach to save herself. The stabbing the deceased with it.
claim that it was not proper for the wife to be standing Held: An attempt to rape is a sufficient
in the middle of the night outside a yard giving the aggression for a legitimate claim of self-defense. We
impression that she is prostituting herself, is not have the right to HONOR. Woman’s honor is a right as
sufficient provocation. All that the accused did was to precious as her very existence because chastity once
provoke an imaginary commission of a wrong in the defiled cannot be restored.
mind of her husband which is not a sufficient
provocation under the law of self-defense.

35
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

People v. Dela Cruz when he heard stones being hurled at the roof of the
61 Phil 344 (1935) house. Ricky saw Toledo stoning their house and asked
Facts: Accused was found guilty of homicide him why he was doing the same. Toledo did not answer
for stabbing and killing Rivera. Prosecution claimed that but met Ricky at the doorstep of his house and without
Dela Cruz and Rivera had a relationship and that the warning stabbed Ricky on the abdomen with a bolo
accused was madly in love with the deceased and was which resulted to his death. In the lower court, Toledo
extremely jealous of another woman with whom Rivera defended himself by alleging that his bolo accidentally
also had a relationship. Dela Cruz claimed, on the other hit the stomach of the victim and that he was able to
hand, that on her way home one evening, Rivera prove all the essential elements of self-defense.
followed her, embraced and kissed her and touched her Held: The Court ruled that it is an aberration
private parts. She didn’t know that it was Rivera and for Toledo to invoke the two defenses at the same time
that she was unable to resist the strength of Rivera so because the said defenses are intrinsically antithetical.
she got a knife from her pocket and stabbed him in There is no such defense as accidental self-defense in
defense of her honor. the realm of criminal law.
Held: She is justified in using the pocketknife The court further ruled that Toledo was not
in repelling what she believed to be an attack upon her justified in stabbing Ricky. There was no imminent
honor. It was a dark night and she could not have threat to his life necessitating his assault. Records reveal
identified Rivera. There being no other means of self- that there is no unlawful aggression, a condition sine
defense. qua non for the justifying circumstance of self-defense,
on the part of Ricky. Ricky arrived at Toledo’s house
People v. Jaurigue unarmed. With no weapon to attack Toledo or defend
76 Phil. 174 (1946 himself, no sign of hostility may be deduced from him.
Facts: Amado (deceased) has been courting
the accused Avelina in vain. On the day of the crime, People vs. Enfectana
Avelina and Amado were in Church. Amado sat beside 381 SCRA 359 (2002)
Avelina and placed his hand on her thigh. Thereafter, Facts: While Adelaida and her husband Leo
Avelina took out her knife and stabbed Amado in the were on their way home, they were sideswiped by a
neck, causing the death of Amado. tricycle driven by appellant Erwin with Efren both
Held: Although the defense of one’s honor surnamed Enfectana as passenger. As a result, her
exempts one from criminal liability, it must be proved husband fell in a crouching position. When he was about
that there is actual danger of being raped. In this case, to get up, Eusebio also surnamed Enfectana came from
1) the church was well-lit, 2) there were several people behind to stab him. Then Erwin and Efren took turns in
in the church, including the father of the accused and stabbing Leo. He died as a result. In court, Eusebio
other town officials. In light of these circumstances, Enfectana admitted that he killed Leo. He, however,
accused could not have possibly been raped. The means alleged that he acted in self-defense
employed in defense of her honor was evidently Held: It is an established principle that once
excessive. this justifying circumstance is raised, the burden of
proving the elements of the claim shifts to him who
U.S. v. Bumaglang invokes it. The elements of self-defense are: (1) that the
14 Phil 644 (1909) victim has committed unlawful aggression amounting to
Facts: Bumanglang was missing 40 bundles of actual or imminent threat to the life and limb of the
palay. Later, accompanied by his co-defendants, he person claiming self-defense; (2) that there be
awaited the culprit and caught Ribis so they confronted reasonable necessity in the means employed to prevent
him assaulted him with sticks and other cutting and or repel the unlawful aggression; and (3) that there be
stabbing weapons. As a result, Ribis died. Defendants lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
declared that during the fight they only beat the claiming self-defense or, at least, that any provocation
deceased with sticks and Ribis unsheathed his bolo. executed by the person claiming self-defense be not the
Bumanglang et al were convicted of homicide. proximate and immediate cause of the victim's
Held: The bolo of the deceased was sheathed aggression. The condition of unlawful aggression is a
when the body was discovered. There was no unlawful sine qua non; otherwise stated, there can be no self-
aggression on the part of Ribis. Thus, there can be no defense, complete or incomplete, unless the victim has
claim of self-defense. committed unlawful aggression against the person
Separate Opinion: A man who ambushed one defending himself.
he suspects to be a thief can claim defense of property. Given the fact that the relationship between
Not only was there unlawful aggression against the parties had been marred by ill will and animosities,
Bumanglag, there was also a wrongful invasion of his and pursuant to the rule on the burden of evidence
habitat and attempt to commit a felony against his imposed by law on the party invoking self-defense, the
property. With the imminence of danger to his life, he admission of Eusebio that he killed Leo made it
realized that he had to ask assistance from his friends, incumbent upon appellant to convincingly prove that
considering Ribis’ criminal record, character and unusual there was unlawful aggression on the part of the victim
strength. which necessitated the use of deadly force by Eusebio.
Unfortunately, Eusebio miserably failed to prove the
Toledo v. People existence of unlawful aggression on the part of the
439 SCRA 94 (2004) victim. Eusebio is guilty of murder.
Facts: Toledo saw his nephew, Ricky, and the
latter's friends about 5 m away from his house, having a Cano v. People
drinking spree. He ordered them not to make loud 413 SCRA 92 (2003)
noises, and they obliged. He then went to his house and Facts: Conrado and his deceased brother were
went to sleep. After some time, Ricky and his friends rivals in the Rush ID Photo business and had booths
also went to sleep. They had not laid down for long along the sidewalk of Rizal Avenue, Sta. Cruz, Manila.

36
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

Condrado borrowed the permit of the deceased and had Further, the natural impulse of any person who has
it photocopied without the latter’s permission. The killed someone in defense of his person or relative is to
deceased confonted Conrado and tried to stab him with bring himself to the authorities and try to dispel any
a fan knife. The latter locked himself in the dark room of suspicion of guilt that the authorities might have against
his booth to protect himself but was followed by the him. Ricardo failed to do the same. With the exception
deceased and they ended up attacking each other. of his self-serving allegations, there is nothing on record
During the scuffle, the scissors which Orlando was able that would justify his killing of Senando.
to grab fell from his hands. He then grabbed the knife
of the deceased who in turn picked the scissors. They People v. Dijan
again attacked each other which resulted to the death of 383 SCRA 15 (2002)
the other. Facts: Silvestre and Hilario were at a store to
Held: Conrado’s act of killilng his brother was buy some cigarettes when they saw the group of Dijan,
attended by a justifying circumstance of self-defense. It Paglinawan and Lizardo, passing by the store.
was the deceased who purposely sought and initially Paglinawan suddenly confronted Hilario for purportedly
attacked Orlando with a knife. The act of a person giving him a "bad stare." Silvestre apologized and
armed with a bladed weapon pursuing another explained that it was the natural way Hilario gazed at
constitutes unlawful aggression because it signifies the people. Dijan, Paglinawan and Lizardo then left the place
pursuers intent to commit an assault with his weapon. while Silvestre and Hilario proceeded home. While
There was also lack of sufficient provocation on the part Silvestre and Hilario were walking, the 3 accused,
of Condrado. His act of photocopying the permit of his ganged up on, and took turns in stabbing, Hilario. At
brother without the latter’s permission can hardly be that point, Hilario, who was walking slightly ahead of
considered as provocation to merit so deadly an assault Silvestre, cried out and told the latter to flee. Silvestre
with a bladed weapon. ran away until he was able to cling to a passing
passenger jeepney. Hilario was found to have sustained
Balunueco v. CA several stab wounds, punctured and incised wounds,
401 SCRA 76 and abrasion in various parts of the body which caused
Facts: Amelia was coddling her youngest child his death. Appealing his conviction in court, Dijan
in front of her house when she saw accused Reynaldo, invoked the justifying circumstance of “defense of a
his father Juanito, brothers Ricardo and Ramon, all stranger.”
surnamed Balunueco, and one Flores chasing her Held: In order to successfully put up this
brother-in-law Servando. With the 5 individuals in hot defense an accused must show the existence of unlawful
pursuit, Servando scampered into the safety of Amelia's aggression on the part of the victim. The unlawful
house. Meanwhile, Senando, who was then cooking aggression must be a continuing circumstance or must
supper, went out of the house unaware of the have been existing at the time the defense is made.
commotion going on outside. Upon seeing Senando, Once unlawful aggression is found to have ceased, the
Reynaldo turned his attention on him and gave chase. one making the defense of a stranger would likewise
Senando instinctively fled towards the fields but he was cease to have any justification for killing, or even just
met by Armando who hit him with a stone, causing wounding, the former aggressor. From the defense
Senando to feel dizzy. Reynaldo, Ricardo, and Armando account, it would appear that Hilario was already
cornered their quarry near a canal and ganged up on disarmed and the unlawful aggression by Hilario (if
him. Armando placed a can on top of Senando's head indeed he was the aggressor) to have by then been
and Ricardo repeatedly struck Senando with an ax on abated, when Dijan still delivered the fatal thrusts on
the head, shoulder, and hand. At one point, Ricardo lost the victim.
his hold on the ax, but somebody tossed him a bolo and The number of wounds sustained by the victim
then he continued hacking the victim who fell on his would itself likewise negate Dijan’s claim of defense of a
knees. To shield him from further violence, Amelia put stranger. The autopsy conducted on the corpse would
her arms around her husband but it was not enough to show that the deceased sustained 14 injuries consisting
detract Ricardo from his murderous frenzy. Amelia was of 9 stab wounds, 3 punctured wounds, an incised
also hit on the leg. The RTC and CA convicted Ricardo of wound and an abrasion. Certainly, the nature and
Homicide. He now imputes errors to the CA in not taking number of wounds inflicted by an accused on the victim
into consideration the fact that if indeed he participated, should be significant indicia in determining the
he had acted in defense of his relatives. plausibility of the defense plea.
Held: Of the three (3) requisites of defense of
relatives, unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua People v. Nestor Roxas
non, for without it any defense is not possible or G.R. No. 218396, 10 February 2016
justified. In order to consider that an unlawful Facts: In the evening of October 25, 1995, Severino
aggression was actually committed, it is necessary that Manalo (victim) and Vicente were talking to each other
an attack or material aggression, an offensive act in front of the house of Alfredo Asi (Alfredo). Then,
positively determining the intent of the aggressor to Vicente saw the accused-appellant approach Severino
cause an injury shall have been made; a mere from behind and suddenly stab the latter thrice with a
threatening or intimidating attitude is not sufficient to white sharp bladed weapon. The three successive stab
justify the commission of an act which is punishable per blows landed on Severino's back, his stomach and on his
se, and allow a claim of exemption from liability on the side. Vicente testified that Severino was caught off
ground that it was committed in self-defense or defense guard when he was stabbed by the accused-appellant as
of a relative. the victim was facing the former while they were talking.
In the case at bar, petitioner Ricardo utterly Immediately after Severino was stabbed, the accused-
failed to adduce sufficient proof of the existence of a appellant fled from the place of the incident. For fear
positively strong act of real aggression on the part of the that he might also be attacked, Vicente scampered away
deceased Senando. It was he and his kin who had to a safer distance until he reached his place where he
initiated the unlawful aggression and not Senando. called for help. Vicente, together with some people,

37
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

returned to the crime scene where they found Severino Espejo in the head. The officer claims self defense as
sprawled on the ground already dead. there was unlawful aggression on the part of the victim.
Accused raised self-defense as an excuse.
Held: After taking into account the location and the Held: Unlawful aggression is an indispensable element of
number of stab wounds sustained by the victim, the self-defense. Without unlawful aggression, self-defense
accused-appellant's claim of self-defense further will not have a leg to stand on and this justifying
crumbles. To reiterate, the first stab blow hit Severino's circumstance cannot and will not be appreciated, even if
back jibing with Vicente's assertion that the former was the other elements are present. It would presuppose an
stabbed from behind. Then, when the victim was totally actual, sudden and unexpected attack or imminent
caught by surprise with the initial attack, the second and danger on the life and limb of a personnot a mere
third stab blows were delivered. Additionally, the threatening or intimidating attitude but most
number of wounds suffered by Severino invalidates the importantly, at the time the defensive action was taken
accused-appellant's allegation that he was only against the aggressor. x x x There is aggression in
defending himself for the number of wounds inflicted are contemplation of the law only when the one attacked
rather demonstrative of deliberate and criminal intent to faces real and immediate threat to ones life. The peril
end the life of the victim. Likewise weakening accused sought to be avoided must be imminent and actual, not
appellant's contention that he acted in self-defense was just speculative.
his behavior immediately after the incident. In the case
at bar, the accused-appellant himself admitted that upon In this case, a police officer is trained to shoot quickly
seeing the victim lying on the ground, he boarded a jeep and accurately. There is reasonable basis to presume
to go to his sister's place in San Pascual, Batangas that the appellant indeed felt his life was actually
before moving to Bicol where he hid from the authorities threatened. It would have been fatal for the appellant to
for several years. The accused-appellant's flight negates have waited for SPO1 Espejo to point his gun before the
his plea of self-defense and indicates his guilt. appellant fires back. Also, the lone gunshot was a
reasonable means to repeal the attack. There was also
Espinosa v. People lack of provocation as the accused gave a lawful order
G.R. No. 181701, March 15, 2010 and fired a warning shot before shooting the armed and
Facts: Merto has a grudge against Espinosa. One drunk victim.
evening, Merto went to the house of Espinosa shouting
violent threats and challenging Espinosa to a fight. When
Espinosa went outside, Merto threw stones at him. Par. 4 – AVOIDANCE OF A GREATER EVIL
Espinosa retaliated by hitting Merto in the left leg with a
bolo until someone restrained him. As a result, Merto § Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury,
sustained two fractures. In his defense, Espinosa claims does an act which causes damage to another.
that he only acted in self defense.
DAMAGE TO ANOTHER – the term covers
Held: It is settled that reasonable necessity of the injury to persons and damage to property. Damage done
means employed does not imply material deliberately to avoid a greater evil.
commensurability between the means of attack and
defense. What the law requires is rational equivalence, Requisites:
in the consideration of which will enter the principal 1. That the evil sought to be avoided actually
factors the emergency, the imminent danger to which exists;
the person attacked is exposed, and the instinct, more - The evil must actually exist and not
than the reason, that moves or impels the defense, and merely expected or anticipated or may happen
the proportionateness thereof does not depend upon the in the future.
harm done, but rests upon the imminent danger of such
injury. 2. That the injury feared is greater than that
done to avoid it;
After petitioner was successful in taking down private Note: The instinct of self-preservation
complainant Merto—the former continued to hack the will always make one feel that his own safety is
latter, who was, by then, already neutralized by the of greater importance than that of another.
blow. The petitioner continuously hacked the private - The greater evil should not be brought
complainant with the bolo scabbard, even as the latter about by the negligence or imprudence of the
lay almost motionless upon the muddy ground. Clearly, actor.
this "continuous hacking" by the petitioner constitutes - The evil which brought about the greater
force beyond what is reasonably required to repel the evil must not result from a violation of law by
private complainant’s attack—and is therefore the actor.
unjustified.
3. That there be no other practical and less
Nacnac v. People harmful means of preventing it.
G.R. No. 191913, March 21, 2012
Facts: One evening, SPO1 Espejo tried to take the police General rule: No liability in justifying
station’s tricycle saying that he needs to settle a circumstances because there is no crime.
disagreement with someone in Laoag City. SPO2
Nacnac, the officer of the day, refused because Espejo Exception: There is CIVIL LIABILITY under
was drunk and they were on duty until the next this paragraph. It is borne by the persons benefited by
morning. Their argument led Espejo cursing Nacnac and the act. They shall be liable in proportion to the benefit
he tried to draw his pistol. Nacnac saw this and fired a which they may have received.
warning shot and ordered Espejo to stop. However,
Espejo still drew his gun. SPO2 Nacnac shot SPO1

38
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

People v. Ricohermoso People v. Retubado


56 SCRA 431 (1974) 417 SCRA 393 (2003)
Facts: The land Ricohermoso cultivated Facts: Before the killing, someone played a joke on
belonged to Geminiano. When the latter went to the Jesse Retubado’s bbrother who was mentally ill by
house of the former, as if by pre-arrangement, placing a firecracker in his cigarette box. Emmanuel Jr.
Ricohermoso unsheathed his bolo and approached was the suspect but the barangay investigation held that
Geminiano from the left while Severo (Rico’s father-in- Emmanuel Jr. was not the culprit. Days later, Jesse
law) got an axe and approached from the right. Rico followed Emmanuel Senior who was a pedicab driver.
stabbed Geminiano first and while in a helpless position, When Emmanuel Senior got home, he asked Jesse why
the latter was hacked on the back by Severo. he was being followed. Jesse said that he wanted to talk
At that same place and time while the killing of to Emmanuel Jr. Emmanuel Sr. said that Jr. was already
Geminiano was taking place, Juan (son of Severo) asleep. Jesse pulled out a gun and shot Emmanuel Sr. in
suddenly embraced Marianito (son of Geminiano), who the head. In his defense, Jesse claims he acted under a
had a gun slung on his shoulder, from behind. They state of necessity as Senior allegedly tried to wrestle the
grappled and rolled downhill towards the camote patch. gun from him.
Marianito passed out and when he regained
consciousness, his rifle was gone. He walked uphill and Held: It is indispensable that the state of necessity must
saw his father. Geminiano died later. Juan invoked the not be brought about by the intentional provocation of
justifying circumstance of greater necessity in explaining the party invoking the same. The defense of a state of
his act of preventing Marianito from shooting Rico and necessity is a justifying circumstance under Article 12,
Severo. paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code. It is an
Held: The act of Juan was designed to insure affirmative defense that must be proved by the accused
the killing of Geminiano without any risk to his with clear and convincing evidence. In this case, the
assailants. Juan was not avoiding any evil but his lower courts held that it was Jesse Retubado who was
malicious intention was to forestall any interference in the attacker. He is not entitled to the justifying
the felonious assault. He acted in conspiracy with Rico circumstance of state of necessity.
and Severo.

Ty v. People Par. 5 – FULFILLMENT OF A DUTY OR LAWFUL


439 SCRA 220 (2004) EXERCISE OF RIGHT OR OFFICE.
Facts: Ty's mother Chua Lao So Un was
confined at the Manila Doctors' Hospital from October REQUISITES:
1990 until June 1992. Being the patient's daughter, Ty 1. That the accused acted in the
signed the "Acknowledgment of Responsibility for performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of
Payment" in the Contract of Admission. Ty's sister, Judy a right or office
Chua, was also confined at the same hospital. The total
hospital bills of the two patients amounted to
Art. 429. Civil Code. The owner or lawful
P1,075,592.95. Ty executed a promissory note wherein
possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person
she assumed payment of the obligation in installments.
from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this
To assure payment of the obligation, she drew 7
purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonably
postdated checks against Metrobank payable to the
necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened
hospital which were all dishonored by the drawee bank
unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his property.
and returned unpaid to the hospital due to insufficiency
of funds. For her defense, Ty claimed that she issued the
checks because of “an uncontrollable fear of a greater § If in protecting his possession of the
injury.” She averred that she was forced to issue the property he injured (not seriously) the one trying to get
checks to obtain release for her mother who was being it from him, he is justified.
inhumanely and harshly treated by the hospital. She
alleged that her mother has contemplated suicide if she § The actual invasion of property may consist
would not be discharged from the hospital. Ty was found of a mere disturbance of possession or of a real
guilty by the lower courts of 7 counts of violation of dispossession.
BP22.
Held: The court sustained the findings of the 2. That the injury caused or the offense
lower courts. The evil sought to be avoided is merely committed be the necessary consequence of the
expected or anticipated. If the evil sought to be avoided due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of
is merely expected or anticipated or may happen in the such right or office.
future, the defense of an uncontrollable fear of a greater
injury” is not applicable. Ty could have taken advantage § Shooting an offender who refused to surrender is
of an available option to avoid committing a crime. By justified but shooting a thief who refused to be arrested
her own admission, she had the choice to give jewelry or is not justified.
other forms of security instead of postdated checks to
secure her obligation. People v. Delima
Moreover, for the defense of state of necessity 46 Phil 738 (1922)
to be availing, the greater injury feared should not have Facts: Napilon escaped from the jail where he
been brought about by the negligence or imprudence, was serving sentence. Some days afterwards the
more so, the willful inaction of the actor. In this case, policeman, Delima, who was looking for him found him
the issuance of the bounced checks was brought about in the house of Alegria, armed with a pointed piece of
by Ty's own failure to pay her mother's hospital bills. 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

39
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

did not hit him. The criminal ran away and Delima went admonition to the victim to lay down his weapon or he
after him and fired again his revolver this time hitting would be shot. As a police officer, it is to be expected
and killing him. that accused-appellant would stand his ground. Up to
Held: The killing was done in the performance that point, his decision to respond with a barrage of
of a duty. The deceased was under the obligation to gunfire to halt the victim's further advance was justified
surrender and had no right, after evading service of his under the circumstances. After all, a police officer is not
sentence, to commit assault and disobedience with a required to afford the victim the opportunity to fight
weapon in his hand, which compelled the policeman to back. Neither is he expected – when hard pressed and in
resort to such extreme means, which, although it proved the heat of such an encounter at close quarters – to
to be fatal, was justified by the circumstance. pause for a long moment and reflect coolly at his peril,
or to wait after each blow to determine the effects
People v. Oanis thereof.
74 Phil 257 (1943) However, he cannot be exonerated from
Although an officer in making a lawful arrest is overdoing his duty during the second stage of the
justified in using such force as is reasonably necessary incident — when he fatally shot the victim in the head,
to secure and detain the offender, overcome his even after the latter slumped to the ground due to
resistance, prevent his escape, recapture him if he multiple gunshot wounds sustained while charging at the
escapes, and protect himself from bodily harm, yet he is police officers. Sound discretion and restraint dictated
never justified in using unnecessary force or in treating that accused-appellant, a veteran policeman, should
him with wanton violence or in resorting to dangerous have ceased firing at the victim the moment he saw the
means when the arrest could be effected otherwise. latter fall to the ground. The victim at that point no
longer posed a threat and was already incapable of
Pomoy v. People mounting an aggression against the police officers.
439 SCRA 439 (2004) Shooting him in the head was obviously unnecessary.
The law does not clothe police officers with
:
Fats Police sergeant Pomoy, went near the
authority to arbitrarily judge the necessity to kill- it must
door of the jail where Balboa was detained for robbery be stressed that their judgment and discretion as police
and directed the latter to come out, purportedly for officers in the performance of their duties must be
tactical interrogation at the investigation room. At that exercised neither capriciously nor oppressively, but
time, petitioner had a gun, a .45 caliber pistol, tucked in within reasonable limits.
a holster which was hanging by the side of his belt. The
gun was fully embedded in its holster, with only the Cabanlig v. Sandiganbayan
handle of the gun protruding from the holster. Balboa 464 SCRA 324 (2005)
tried to remove Pomoy’s gun and the two grappled for Facts: A robbery occurred a few days earlier. The police
possession of the gun. Thereafter, 2 gunshots were officers were able to recover most of the items except
heard. When the source of the shots was verified, for a flower vase and a small radio. The officers went to
petitioner was seen still holding a .45 caliber pistol, the area with Valino, one of the suspects on a pickup.
facing Balboa, who was lying in a pool of blood. Pomoy Valino was seated between officers Cabanlig and
invoked the defense of accident for his defense. Mercado. When he saw an opportunity, Valino grabbed
Held: Pomoy is acquitted. At the time of the officer Mercado’s M-16 and jumped out of the jeep.
incident, petitioner was a member — specifically, one of Valino was shot to the head by Cabanlig. In his defense,
the investigators — of the Philippine National Police the officer claims that he was acting in fulfillment of
(PNP) stationed at the Iloilo Provincial Mobile Force duty.
Company. Thus, he was in the lawful performance of his
duties as investigating officer that, under the
instructions of his superior, he fetched the victim from Held: Policeman in the performance of duty is justified
the latter's cell for a routine interrogation.
The participation of petitioner, if any, in the in using such force as is reasonably necessary to secure
victim's death was limited only to acts committed in the and detain the offender, overcome his resistance,
course of the lawful performance of his duties as an prevent his escape, recapture him if he escapes, and
enforcer of the law. The removal of the gun from its protect himself from bodily harm. In case injury or death
holster, the release of the safety lock, and the firing of results from the policeman’s exercise of such force, the
the two successive shots — all of which led to the death policeman could be justified in inflicting the injury or
of the victim — were sufficiently demonstrated to have causing the death of the offender if the policeman had
been consequences of circumstances beyond the control used necessary force. Since a policeman’s duty requires
of petitioner. At the very least, these factual him to overcome the offender, the force exerted by the
circumstances create serious doubt on Pomoy’s policeman may therefore differ from that which
culpability. ordinarily may be offered in self-defense. However, a
policeman is never justified in using unnecessary force
People v. Ulep or in treating the offender with wanton violence, or in
340 SCRA 688 (2000) resorting to dangerous means when the arrest could be
Accused-appellant and the other police officers affected otherwise.Unlike in self-defense where unlawful
involved originally set out to perform a legal duty: to aggression is an element, in performance of duty,
render police assistance, and restore peace and order at unlawful aggression from the victim is not a requisite.
Mundog Subdivision where the victim was then running
amuck. There were two (2) stages of the incident at In this case, Valino was committing an offense in the
Mundog Subdivision. During the first stage, the victim presence of the policemen when Valino grabbed the M16
threatened the safety of the police officers by Armalite from Mercado and jumped from the jeep to
menacingly advancing towards them, notwithstanding escape. The policemen would have been justified in
accused-appellant's previous warning shot and verbal shooting Valino if the use of force was absolutely
necessary to prevent his escape. But Valino was not only

40
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

an escaping detainee. Valino had also stolen the M16 Held: There is nothing wrong in the creation and
Armalite of a policeman. The policemen had the duty not deployment of special operation teams to counter the
only to recapture Valino but also to recover the loose resurgence of criminality, as there is nothing wrong in
firearm. By grabbing Mercados M16 Armalite, which is a the formation by the police of special teams/squads to
formidable firearm, Valino had placed the lives of the prevent the proliferation of vices, prostitution, drug
policemen in grave danger. addiction, pornography and the like. That is the basic
job of the police. It is the alleged use of violence in the
Yapyuco v. Sandiganbayan implementation of the objectives of the special squads
G.R. Nos. 120744-46, June 25, 2012 that the court is concerned about.
Facts: A jeepney containing several people who
attended a fiesta was fired at by 6 men who were PNP What is bad is if kill these "criminals" because then they
officers and barangay officials. One of the passengers are not only law enforcers but also the prosecutors. the
was killed and others were severely wounded. The judges and the executioners. Due process of law
accused officers claim that the vehicle refused to stop at requires that the accused must be heard in court of
a checkpoint and they only were acting in the fulfillment competent jurisdiction, proceeded against under the
of duties. orderly process of law, and only punished after inquiry
and investigation, upon notice to him. with an
Held: Lawlessness is to be dealt with according to the opportunity to be heard, and a judgment awarded within
law. Only absolute necessity justifies the use of force, the authority of a constitutional law.
and it is incumbent on herein petitioners to prove such
necessity. We find, however, that petitioners failed in Thus, when a person is killed by another the burden of
that respect. Although the employment of powerful proving self-defense is on the assailant. It becomes his
firearms does not necessarily connote unnecessary duty to establish this justifying circumstance by
force, petitioners in this case do not seem to have been evidence clear and convincing. He must rely on the
confronted with the rational necessity to open fire at the strength of his own evidence. It matters not that the
moving jeepney occupied by the victims. People's evidence is weak. He must show that (1) he is
not the unlawful aggressor; (2) there was lack of
The Sandiganbayan declared that the shootout which sufficient provocation on his part; and, (3) he employed
caused injuries to Villanueva and which brought the reasonable means to prevent or repel the aggression.
eventual death of Licup has been committed by
petitioners herein willfully under the guise of maintaining
peace and order; that the acts performed by them Par. 6 – OBEDIENCE TO AN ORDER ISSUED FOR
preparatory to the shooting, which ensured the SOME LAWFUL PURPOSE
execution of their evil plan without risk to themselves,
demonstrate a clear intent to kill the occupants of the Requisites:
subject vehicle; that the fact they had by collective 1. That an order has been issued by a superior.
action deliberately and consciously intended to inflict 2. That such order must be for some lawful
harm and injury and had voluntarily performed those purpose.
acts negates their defense of lawful performance of 3. That the means used by the subordinate to
official duty. carry out said order is lawful.

Lacanilao v. CA § When the order is not for a lawful purpose,


162 SCRA 563 (1988) the subordinate who obeyed it is criminally liable.
Issue: When the decision finds in favor of the accused § The subordinate is not liable for carrying out
the circumstance of incomplete fulfillment of duty or an illegal order of his superior, if he is not aware of the
lawful exercise of a right, would Article 69 of the Revised illegality of the order and he is not negligent.
Penal Code apply, thereby resulting in the lowering of
the penalty by one or two degrees? People v. Beronilla
96 Phil 566(1955)
Held: Yes. Article 69 is applicable, for the requirement Facts: Borjal was the elected mayor of La Paz,
"that the majority of such conditions be present" is Abra at the outbreak of war and continued to serve as
immaterial since there are only two conditions in order Mayor during Japanese occupation. Beronilla was
that the circumstance in No. 5 of Article 11 may be appointed later as Military Mayor. Later, while the
taken into account. Basic is the rule that penal laws in operations for the liberation of Abra was in progress,
favor of the accused should be given liberal construction Beronilla, pursuant to his instructions, placed Borjal in
without, of course, going beyond the obvious intention his custody and asked the residents to file charges of
of the legislature. Article 69 is, obviously, in favor of the espionage, aiding the enemy, and abuse of authority
accused as it provides for a penalty lower than that against him. After trial, Borjal’s execution took place.
prescribed by law when the crime committed is not Later, Beronilla, together with a priest, executioner,
wholly justifiable, the intention of the legislature being grave digger, etc. were indicted for murder. The
to mitigate the penalty by reason of the diminution of prosecution claimed that Col. Volkmann transmitted a
either freedom of action, intelligence, or intent, or of the radiogram message stating that the jury system
lesser perversity of the offender. organized by the municipality is illegal and cannot order
execution of Borjal.
Hildawa v. Enrile Held: There is no proof that Beronilla was able
G.R. No. L-67766, August 14, 1985 to receive the radiogram message. The records are
Facts: Petitioner alleges that in response to the rising ample to sustain the claim of the accused that the
criminality in Metro Manila, the police deployed secret arrest, prosecution and trial were done pursuant to
marshals given the authority to kill thieves, robbers, express orders of the 15th Infantry HQ. Where the
pickpockets and other criminal elements. accused acted upon orders of superior officers that the

41
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

military subordinates, could not question, and obeyed in 3. A person over nine years of age and under
good faith, without being aware of their illegality, fifteen, unless he has acted with discernment, in which
without any fault or negligence on their part, the act is case, such minor shall be proceeded against in
not accompanied by criminal intent. A crime is not accordance with the provisions of Art. 80 of this Code.
committed if the mind of the person performing the act When such minor is adjudged to be criminally
be innocent. irresponsible, the court, in conformably with the
provisions of this and the preceding paragraph, shall
Tabuena v. Sandiganbayan commit him to the care and custody of his family who
268 SCRA 332 (1997) shall be charged with his surveillance and education
Facts: Pres. Marcos instructed Tabuena over otherwise, he shall be committed to the care of some
the phone to pay directly to the Office of the President in institution or person mentioned in said Art. 80.
cash what MIAA owes the Phil. National Construction 4. Any person who, while performing a lawful
Corporation (PNCC) which later was reiterated in writing. act with due care, causes an injury by mere accident
The Marcos’ memo indicated the amount of P55m for without fault or intention of causing it.
partial payment of the obligation to PNCC as mentioned 5. Any person who act under the compulsion of
in Ongpin’s memo. In obedience to Marcos’ instruction, irresistible force.
the accused withdrew the amount by means of 3 6. Any person who acts under the impulse of
separate issuances of manager’s check and encashment an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.
in 3 separate dates as well. The money withdrawn were 7. Any person who fails to perform an act
placed in peerless boxes and duffle bags and delivered required by law, when prevented by some lawful
to the private secretary of Marcos also in 3 separate insuperable cause.
days. According to the accused, the disbursement was
not in the normal procedure since it is paid in cold cash, • One who acts by virtue of any of the exempting
there were no vouchers supporting it and no receipt circumstances commits a crime, although by the
from PNCC. complete absence of any of the conditions which
Tabuena and Peralta were convicted by the constitute free will or voluntariness of the act, no
Sandiganbayan of malversation as defined in Art. 217, criminal liability arise.
RPC for misappropriating funds of Manila International
Airport Authority (MIAA) worth P55M. Par. 1 – AN IMBECILE OR INSANE PERSON,
Held: The accused are acquitted. The accused UNLESS THE LATTER HAS ACTED DURING A LUCID
is entitled to the justifying circumstance of obedience to INTERVAL
an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose.
Sandiganbayan claimed that are Marcos’ memo was
IMBECILE
unlawful because it orders disbursement of P55M when
- one who, while advanced in age, has a
the Ongpin memo reveals that the liability is only 34.5M.
mental development comparable to that of children
Granting this to be true, it will not affect Tabuena’s good
between 2 and 7 years of age.
faith as to make him criminally liable. Thus, even if the
– one who is deprived completely of reason or
order is illegal if it is patently legal and the subordinate
discernment and freedom of the will at the time of
is not aware of its illegality, the subordinate is not liable,
committing the crime.
for then there would only be a mistake of fact
- exempt in all cases from criminal liability
committed in good faith.
INSANE
2. EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES there is a complete deprivation of intelligence in
committing the act but capable of having lucid intervals.
§ Exempting circumstances (non-imputability) During a lucid interval, the insane acts with intelligence
are those grounds for exemption from punishment and thus, not exempt from criminal liability.
because there is wanting in the agent of the crime any - Cognition Test – complete deprivation of
of the condition which make the act voluntary or intelligence.
negligent. While the act is criminal, the actor is not - Volition Test – complete deprivation of will.
liable. There is, however, civil liability.
PROCEDURE WHEN AN IMBECILE OR INSANE
§ The exemption from punishment is based on COMMITTED A FELONY
the COMPLETE ABSENCE of intelligence, freedom of - The court shall order his confinement in one
action, or intent, or on the absence of negligence on the of the hospitals or asylums established for persons
part of the accused. afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to leave
without first obtaining the permission of the court. The
Art. 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal court must obtain the opinion of the Director of Health
liability. — the following are exempt from criminal before permitting his release.
liability:
• When the person is sane at the time of the commission
1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the
of the crime but he becomes insane at the time of the
latter has acted during a lucid interval.
trial, he is liable criminally. The trial, however, shall be
When the imbecile or an insane person has
suspended until mental capacity of the accused be
committed an act which the law defines as a felony
restored to afford him a fair trial.
(delito), the court shall order his confinement in one of
the hospitals or asylums established for persons thus
• Evidence of insanity must refer to the time preceding
afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to leave
the act under prosecution or to the very moment of its
without first obtaining the permission of the same court.
execution. If the evidence points to insanity subsequent
2. A person under nine years of age.
to the commission of the crime, the accused cannot be
acquitted.

42
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

institution where it was found that he was inflicted with


• Feeblemindedness is not imbecility because a feeble- schizophrenia. He was submitted to treatment for 2
minded person can distinguish right from wrong. years, after which, he faced the charges against him.
• Cases covered under this article: Held: The accused failed to prove that he was
a. Dementia praecox completely deprived of intelligence in committing the
b. Kleptomania – if found by a competent act. He did not show any signs of insanity prior to and
psychiatrist as irresistible immediately after the act. He was only diagnosed of
c. Epilepsy schizophrenia months after the incident. Also, schizos
d. Somnambulism – sleep-walking have lucid intervals.
e. Malignant malaria – which affects the
nervous system People v. Bonoan
64 Phil 87 (1937)
People v. Mejaro Roa A person suffering from dementia praecox
G.R. No. 225599, 22 March 2017 pleaded insanity as a defense for committing murder. In
Facts: Eliseo was approached from behind by dementia praecox, the crime is usually preceded by
accused who suddenly stabbed him on the left lower much complaining and planning. In these people,
back with a bolo. The accused surrendered voluntarily. homicide attacks are common because of delusions that
Accused is known to have suffered mental disorder prior they are being interfered with sexually or that their
to his commission of the crime charged. The RTC found property is being taken. During period of excitement,
the accused guilty of the offense of Murder. The CA such person has no control whatever of his acts. An
affirmed the finding of conviction by the trial court. irresistible homicide impulse was considered embraced
Held: Insanity as an exempting circumstance is in the term of “insanity”.
not easily available to the accused as a successful
defense. It is an exception rather than the rule on the People v. Taneo
human condition. Anyone who pleads insanity as an 58 Phil 87(1933)
exempting circumstance bears the burden of proving it Facts: A fiesta was being celebrated in the
with clear and convincing evidence. The testimony or barrio and visitors were being entertained at the house
proof of an accused's insanity must relate to the time of Taneo and his wife. That afternoon, Taneo went to
immediately preceding or simultaneous with the sleep and while sleeping, he suddenly got up, left the
commission of the offense with which he is charged. room with a bolo in his hand. He wounded his wife who
Accused further argues that the presumption of sanity was pregnant at that time in the abdomen when she
must not be applied in his case, because of the rule that tried to stop him. He attacked two of his visitors and his
a person who has been committed to a hospital or to an father, after which, he wounded himself. 5 days later,
asylum for the insane is presumed to continue to be his wife died because of the wound. He was charged of
insane. In this case, however, it is noteworthy that while parricide.
accused was confined in a mental institution in 2001, he Held: The accused acted while in a dream and
was properly discharged therefrom in 2002. This proper his acts, with which he is charged, were not voluntary in
discharge from his confinement clearly indicates an the sense of entailing criminal liability.
improvement in his mental condition; otherwise, his
doctors would not have allowed his discharge from People v. Formigones
confinement. Absent any contrary evidence, then, the 87 Phil 658(1950)
presumption of sanity resumes and must prevail. Held: One day, the accused stabbed his wife
from the back who was sitting at the top of the stairs in
People v. Tubogoca their house. Accused admitted the killing and that he
285 SCRA 312(1998) was jealous and had suspicions that his wife and his
Facts: Jacqueline, together with her sisters, brother were having a relationship. Counsel for accused
lived with their father after their mother died. One night, interposed the defense of insanity stating that in prison,
she was roused by her father who asked her to scratch the accused behaved like an insane person, would go
his back but later she was forced to have intercourse stark naked in the presence of his fellow inmates,
with him. Her sister Jinky also experienced the same remain indifferent to his surroundings and sang chorus
with his father 2 years after. When their grandmother with inmates or by himself.
found out about the incident, they filed charges against Held: At most, the accused is found to be
the accused. The accused claim that he cannot feeble-minded but this does not exempt him from
remember anything because he often drinks liquor at liability but may serve as a mitigating circumstance. The
home. accused admitted to his motive for the killing which is
Held: The law presumes every man to be sane. jealousy so he must know what he was doing at that
The accused failed to overthrow the presumption of time. His actions immediately after he struck his wife
sanity. Failure to remember is in itself no proof of the and his behavior in prison may only be due to remorse
mental condition of the accused when the crime was at having killed his wife due to his feeblemindedness.
performed. His charade of amnesia is a desperate
gambit for exculpation. People v. Valledor (supra)
Facts: Roger was in his house working on a
People v. Madarang lettering job inside his bedroom together with his first
332 SCRA 99(2000) cousin, Elsa and his friends, Simplicio and Antonio. All
Facts: Fernando and his wife quarreled. In the of a sudden, Valledor entered the room uttered Roger's
heat of the fight, the accused stabbed his wife causing nickname ("Jer") and immediately attacked him with a
her death. The accused declared that he had no knife. Valledor then stabbed Elsa on the chest and said,
recollection of the stabbing incident. Further, he alleges "Ako akabales den, Elsa." (I had my revenge, Elsa).
that he did not know where he was that day. Court Thereafter, Valledor fled, leaving Simplicio and Antonio
ordered the accused’s confinement in a mental unharmed. Roger and Elsa were immediately brought to

43
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

the hospital. On their way out, Antonio noticed a DISCERNMENT INTENT


commotion and saw that Ricardo, a neighbor of the Moral significance that a Desired act of the person
victim, who was likewise stabbed by Valledor was person ascribes to the said
wounded. Elsa was declared dead on arrival. Roger on act
the other hand was treated for the 5-centimeter wound
sustained by him on his right forearm. Valledor invoked • Discernment may be shown by 1) the manner the
the defense of insanity. crime was committed or 2) the conduct of the offender
Held: Valledor failed to discharge the burden of after its commission.
overcoming the presumption of sanity at the time of the
commission of the crime. R.A. 9344, Sec. 6 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare
Judging from his acts, Valledor was clearly Act of 2006)
aware and in control of what he was doing as he in fact
purposely chose to stab only the two victims. Two other A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the
people were also inside the room, but Valledor went for time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt
the victims. His obvious motive of revenge against the from criminal liability. However, the child shall be
victims was accentuated by calling out their names and subjected to an intervention program.
uttering the words, "I had my revenge" after stabbing
them. Finally, his act of immediately fleeing from the A child above fifteen (15) years but below
scene after the incident indicates that he was aware of eighteen (18) years of age shall likewise be exempt
the wrong he has done and the consequence thereof. from criminal liability and be subjected to an
As consistently held by this Court, "A man may intervention program, unless he/she has acted with
act crazy but it does not necessarily and conclusively discernment, in which case, such child shall be
prove that he is legally so. Then, too, the medical subjected to appropriate proceedings.
findings showing that Valledor was suffering from a
mental disorder after the commission of the crime, has The exemption from criminal liability does not
no bearing on his liability. What is decisive is his mental include exemption from civil liability.
condition at the time of the perpetration of the offense.
Failing to discharge the burden of proving that he was Note: A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at
legally insane when he stabbed the victims, he should the time of the commission of the offense shall be
be held liable for his felonious acts. exempt from criminal liability. A child is deemed to be
fifteen (15) years of age on the day of the fifteenth
Par. 2. – A PERSON UNDER NINE YEARS OF AGE anniversary of his/her birthdate (R.A. No. 10630,
amending Section 6 o R.A. No. 9344).
• FIFTEEN YEARS OR LESS – presumed to be incapable
of committing a crime, and this presumption is an Serious Crimes committed by Children who are
Exempt from Criminal Responsibility (R.A. No.
absolute one which cannot be overcome by any
10630, amending Section 20 of R.A. No. 9344)
evidence. (R.A. No. 9334)
A child who is above twelve (12) years of age
• Senility, although said to be the second childhood, is
up to fifteen (15) years of age and who commits
only mitigating.
parricide, murder, infanticide, kidnapping and serious
illegal detention where the victim is killed or raped,
4 PERIODS OF THE LIFE OF A HUMAN BEING
robbery, with homicide or rape, destructive arson,
a. 15 years and below –
rape, or carnapping where the driver or occupant is
AGE OF ABSOLUTE IRRESPONSIBILITY
killed or raped or offenses under Republic Act No. 9165
b. between 15 and 18 years -
(Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002)
AGE OF CONDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
punishable by more than twelve (12) years of
c. 18 or over to 70 years -
imprisonment, shall be deemed a neglected child under
AGE OF FULL RESPONSIBILITY
P.D. No. 603 (The Child and Youth Welfare Code), as
d. over 70 years of age – AGE OF MITIGATED
amended, and shall be mandatorily placed in a special
RESPONSIBILITY.
facility within the youth care faculty or ‘Bahay Pag-asa’
called the Intensive Juvenile Intervention and Support
Par. 3. – A PERSON OVER 9 YEARS OF AGE AND
Center (IJISC) (Sec. 20-A of R.A. No. 9344, as
UNDER 15 UNLESS HE HAS ACTED WITH
amended).
DISCERNMENT, IN WHICH CASE, SUCH MINOR
SHALL BE PROCEEDED AGAINST IN COORDANCE
Repetition of Offenses (R.A. No. 10630, amending
WITH THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 80 OF THIS
Section 20 of R.A. No. 9344)
CODE.
A child who is above twelve (12) years of age
• A minor over 15 and under 18 years of age must have up to fifteen (15) years of age and who commits an
acted without discernment to be exempted from criminal offense for the second time or oftener shall be deemed
liability. a neglected child under P.D. No. 603, as amended, and
shall undergo an intensive intervention program
DISCERNMENT – means the mental capacity of a minor supervised by the local social welfare and development
between 15 and 18 years of age to fully appreciate the officer, provided that:
consequences of his lawful act.
1. the child was previously subjected to
a community-based intervention program;
2. if the best interest of the child
requires that he/she be placed in a youth care facility

44
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

or ‘Bahay Pag-asa’, the child’s parents or guardians the morality of human acts to distinguish a licit from an
shall execute a written authorization for the voluntary illicit act. On the other hand, discernment is the mental
commitment of the child; and capacity to understand the difference between right and
3. if the child has no parents or wrong. The prosecution is burdened to prove that the
guardians or if they refuse or fail to execute the written accused acted with discernment by evidence of physical
authorization for voluntary commitment, the proper appearance, attitude or deportment not only before and
petition for involuntary commitment shall be during the commission of the act, but also after and
immediately filed by the DSWD or the LSWDO pursuant during the trial. The surrounding circumstances must
to P.D. No. 603, as amended (Sec. 20-B of R.A. No. demonstrate that the minor knew what he was doing
9344, as amended). and that it was wrong. Such circumstance includes the
gruesome nature of the crime and the minor’s cunning
Note: In the following cases the minor offenders are and shrewdness.
under 15 years of age when they committed the crime. In the present case, the petitioner, with
They are thus exempt from criminal liabilities. methodical fashion, dragged the resisting victim behind
the pile of hollow blocks near the vacant house to insure
People v. Doquena that passersby would not be able to discover his
68 Phil 580 (1939) dastardly acts. When he was discovered by Teofisto
A 13-year old student stabs the school bully, Bucud who shouted at him, the petitioner hastily fled
and is convicted for having shown discernment through from the scene to escape arrest. Upon the prodding of
his responsible demeanor and school performance. his father and her mother, he hid in his grandmother’s
Doquena’s discernment is gleaned from his academic house to avoid being arrested by policemen and
records, leadership qualities and demeanor while remained thereat until barangay tanods arrived and took
testifying in court. him into custody.
The discernment that constitutes an exception
to the exemption from criminal liability of a minor under • When the minor is adjudged criminally irresponsible –
fifteen years of age but over nine, is his mental capacity duty of court is to commit him to custody of his family or
to understand the difference between right and wrong, some institution.
and such capacity may be known by taking into
consideration all the facts and circumstances afforded by • The allegation of “with intent to kill” in the information
the records in each case, the very appearance, the very is sufficient allegation of discernment.
attitude of said minor not only before and during the
commission of the act but also after and even during Guevarra v. Almodovar
trial. 169 SCRA 476 (1989)
Facts: John Philip Guevarra and Teodoro Almine, both
Jose v. People 11 years of age, were target shooting a bottle cap
448 SCRA 116 (2005) (tansan) using a pellet gun. Teodoro was hit on his left
Facts: Jose, 13 years old was in a car with his collar bone which caused his death. The minor was
cousin Zarraga, when the latter inquired from the poseur charged of Homicide through reckless imprudence.
buyer SPO1 Guevarra if he could afford to buy shabu.
Guevarra replied in the affirmative afterwhich Zarraga Held: The discernment that constitutes an exception to
called the petitioner to bring out and hand over the the exemption from criminal liability of a minor under
shabu wrapped in plastic and white soft paper. Jose fifteen years of age but over nine, who commits an act
handed over the plastic containing the shabu to Zarraga prohibited by law, is his mental capacity to understand
who handed the same to Guevarra. The trial court the difference between right and wrong. The terms
rendered judgment convicting both Jose and Zarraga. "intent" and "discernment" convey two distinct thoughts.
Held: Jose is acquitted. The prosecution failed While both are products of the mental processes within a
to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he acted with person, the former refers to the desired of one's act
discernment relative to the sale of shabu. Aside from while the latter relates to the moral significance that
bringing out and handing over the plastic bag to person ascribes to the said act.
Zarraga, Jose merely sat in the car and had no other
participation in the transaction between his cousin and The basic reason behind the enactment of the
the poseur buyer. There is no evidence that Jose knew exempting circumstances embodied in Article 12 of the
what was inside the plastic and soft white paper before RPC; the complete absence of intelligence, freedom of
and at the time he handed the same to Zarraga. action, or intent, or on the absence of negligence on the
part of the accused. In expounding on intelligence as
Llave v. People the second element of dolus, Albert has stated:
488 SCRA 376 (2006)
Facts: A 12 year old honor student was The second element
charged with raping his seven year old neighbor. When of dolus is intelligence; without this
caught, the accused ran away and hid for a few days at power, necessary to determine the
his grandparent’s house. He claimed that he acted morality of human acts to distinguish
without discernment. a licit from an illicit act, no crime can
Held: Article 12, paragraph 3 of the Revised exist, and because ... the
Penal Code provides that a person over nine years of infant (has) no intelligence, the law
age and under fifteen is exempt from criminal liability, exempts (him) from criminal liability.
unless he acted with discernment. The basic reason
behind the exempting circumstance is complete absence lt is for this reason, therefore, why minors nine years of
of intelligence, freedom of action of the offender which is age and below are not capable of performing a criminal
an essential element of a felony either by dolo or by act. On the other hand, minors above nine years of
culpa. Intelligence is the power necessary to determine appeal but below fifteen are not absolutely exempt.

45
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

However, they are presumed to be without criminal The provisions of Article 80 of the Revised Penal
capacity, but which presumption may be rebutted if it Code shall be deemed modified by the provisions of this
could be proven that they were "capable of appreciating Chapter.
the nature and criminality of the act, that is, that (they)
acted with discernment. Article 190. Physical and Mental
Examination. - It shall be the duty of the law-enforcement
agency concerned to take the youthful offender, immediately
In evaluating felonies committed by means of culpa,
after his apprehension, to the proper medical or health
three (3) elements are indispensable, namely,
officer for a thorough physical and mental examination.
intelligence, freedom of action, and negligence. Whenever treatment for any physical or mental defect is
Obviously, intent is wanting in such felonies. However, indicated, steps shall be immediately undertaken to provide
intelligence remains as an essential element, hence, it is the same.
necessary that a minor above nine but below fifteen The examination and treatment papers shall form
years of age be possessed with intelligence in part of the record of the case of the youthful offender.
committing a negligent act which results in a quasi-
offense. For him to be criminally liable, he must discern Article 191. Care of Youthful Offender Held
the rightness or wrongness of the effects of his negligent for Examination or Trial. - A youthful offender held for
act. Indeed, a minor over nine years of age but below physical and mental examination or trial or pending appeal,
fifteen may be held liable for a quasi-offense under if unable to furnish bail, shall from the time of his arrest be
Article 365 of the RPC. The case was remanded for trial committed to the care of the Department of Social Welfare
or the local rehabilitation center or a detention home in the
on the merits.
province or city which shall be responsible for his
appearance in court whenever required: Provided, That in
People v. Henry Arpon the absence of any such center or agency within a
G.R. No. 183563, December 14, 2011 reasonable distance from the venue of the trial, the
Facts:Henry Arpon was accused of 8 counts of rape provincial, city and municipal jail shall provide quarters for
committed against his niece. The first incident happened youthful offenders separate from other detainees. The court
when Henry was only 13 years old and the victim was 8 may, in its discretion, upon recommendation of the
years old. The others were committed when Henry was Department of Social Welfare or other agency or agencies
already 17 years old. He even threatened the victim that authorized by the Court, release a youthful offender on
he will kill the victim’s mother if she tells anybody about recognizance, to the custody of his parents or other suitable
the rape. person who shall be responsible for his appearance
whenever required.
Held: Henry is exempted from criminal liability for the
1st incident when he was still 13 years old. For the Article 192. Suspension of Sentence and
subsequent acts committed when he was already 17 Commitment of Youthful Offender. - If after hearing the
evidence in the proper proceedings, the court should find
years old, he already acted with discernment.
that the youthful offender has committed the acts charged
against him the court shall determine the imposable penalty,
R.A. 9344 sec. 6 provides: including any civil liability chargeable against him. However,
instead of pronouncing judgment of conviction, the court
A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of shall suspend all further proceedings and shall commit such
the commission of the offense shall be exempt from minor to the custody or care of the Department of Social
criminal liability. However, the child shall be subjected Welfare, or to any training institution operated by the
to an intervention program. government, or duly licensed agencies or any other
responsible person, until he shall have reached twenty-one
A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age or, for a shorter period as the court may deem
years of age shall likewise be exempt from criminal proper, after considering the reports and recommendations
liability and be subjected to an intervention program, of the Department of Social Welfare or the agency or
unless he/she has acted with discernment, in which responsible individual under whose care he has been
committed.
case, such child shall be subjected to the appropriate
The youthful offender shall be subject to visitation
proceedings…
and supervision by a representative of the Department of
Social Welfare or any duly licensed agency or such other
The exemption from criminal liability herein established officer as the Court may designate subject to such conditions
does not include exemption from civil liability, which as it may prescribe.
shall be enforced in accordance with existing laws.
Article 193. Appeal. - The youthful offender
Presidential Decree No. 603 whose sentence is suspended can appeal from the order of
THE CHILD AND YOUTH WELFARE CODE the court in the same manner as appeals in criminal cases.

Article 189. Youthful Offender Defined. - A youthful Article 194. Care and Maintenance of
offender is one who is over nine years but under twenty-one Youthful Offender. - The expenses for the care and
years of age at the time of the commission of the offense. maintenance of the youthful offender whose sentence has
A child nine years of age or under at the time of been suspended shall be borne by his parents or those
the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability and shall persons liable to support him: Provided, That in case his
be committed to the care of his or her father or mother, or parents or those persons liable to support him can not pay
nearest relative or family friend in the discretion of the court all or part of said expenses, the municipality in which the
and subject to its supervision. The same shall be done for a offense was committed shall pay one-third of said expenses
child over nine years and under fifteen years of age at the or part thereof; the province to which the municipality
time of the commission of the offense, unless he acted with belongs shall pay one-third; and the remaining one-third
discernment, in which case he shall be proceeded against in shall be borne by the National Government. Chartered cities
accordance with Article 192. shall pay two-thirds of said expenses; and in case a
chartered city cannot pay said expenses, part of the internal

46
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

revenue allotments applicable to the unpaid portion shall be not be held under any provision of law, to be guilty of
withheld and applied to the settlement of said indebtedness. perjury or of concealment or misrepresentation by reason of
All city and provincial governments must exert his failure to acknowledge the case or recite any fact related
efforts for the immediate establishment of local detention thereto in response to any inquiry made of him for any
homes for youthful offenders. purpose.
"Records" within the meaning of this article shall
Article 195. Report on Conduct of Child. - The include those which may be in the files of the National
Department of Social Welfare or its representative or duly Bureau of Investigation and with any police department, or
licensed agency or individual under whose care the youthful any other government agency which may have been
offender has been committed shall submit to the court every involved in the case.
four months or oftener as may be required in special cases,
a written report on the conduct of said youthful offender as Article 201. Civil Liability of Youthful
well as the intellectual, physical, moral, social and emotional Offenders. - The civil liability for acts committed by a
progress made by him. youthful offender shall devolve upon the offender's father
and, in case of his death or incapacity, upon the mother, or
Article 196. Dismissal of the Case. - If it is in case of her death or incapacity, upon the guardian. Civil
shown to the satisfaction of the court that the youthful liability may also be voluntarily assumed by a relative or
offender whose sentence has been suspended, has behaved family friend of the youthful offender.
properly and has shown his capability to be a useful member Article 202. Rehabilitation Centers. - The
of the community, even before reaching the age of majority, Department of Social Welfare shall establish regional
upon recommendation of the Department of Social Welfare, rehabilitation centers for youthful offenders. The local
it shall dismiss the case and order his final discharge. government and other non-governmental entities shall
collaborate and contribute their support for the
Article 197. Return of the Youth Offender to establishment and maintenance of these facilities.
Court. - Whenever the youthful offender has been found Article 203. Detention Homes. - The
incorrigible or has wilfully failed to comply with the Department of Local Government and Community
conditions of his rehabilitation programs, or should his Development shall establish detention homes in cities and
continued stay in the training institution be inadvisable, he provinces distinct and separate from jails pending the
shall be returned to the committing court for the disposition of cases of juvenile offenders.
pronouncement of judgment. Article 204. Liability of Parents or Guardian
When the youthful offender has reached the age or Any Person in the Commission of Delinquent Acts
of twenty-one while in commitment, the court shall by Their Children or Wards. - A person whether the
determine whether to dismiss the case in accordance with parent or guardian of the child or not, who knowingly or
the next preceding article or to pronounce the judgment of wilfully,
conviction. 1. Aids, causes, abets or connives with the
In any case covered by this article, the youthful commission by a child of a delinquency, or
offender shall be credited in the service of his sentence with 2. Does any act producing, promoting, or
the full time spent in actual commitment and detention contributing to a child's being or becoming a juvenile
effected under the provisions of this Chapter. delinquent, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five
hundred pesos or to imprisonment for a period not
Article 198. Effect of Release of Child Based exceeding two years, or both such fine and imprisonment, at
on Good Conduct. - The final release of a child pursuant to the discretion of the court.
the provisions of this Chapter shall not obliterate his civil
liability for damages. Such release shall be without prejudice
to the right for a writ of execution for the recovery of civil
damages. EN BANC
[A.M. No. 02-1-19-SC. February 28, 2002.]
Article 199. Living Quarters for Youthful RE: PROPOSED RULE ON COMMITMENT OF
Offenders Sentence. - When a judgment of conviction is CHILDREN
pronounced in accordance with the provisions of Article 197, RESOLUTION
and at the time of said pronouncement the youthful offender Acting on the letter of the Chairman of the
is still under twenty-one, he shall be committed to the Committee on Revision of the Rules of Court submitting
proper penal institution to serve the remaining period of his for this Court's consideration and approval the Proposed
sentence: Provided, That penal institutions shall provide
Rule on Commitment Of Children, the Court Resolved to
youthful offenders with separate quarters and, as far as
APPROVE the same.
practicable, group them according to appropriate age levels
or other criteria as will insure their speedy rehabilitation: The Rule shall take effect on April 15, 2002 following its
Provided, further, That the Bureau of Prisons shall maintain publication in a newspaper of general circulation not
agricultural and forestry camps where youthful offenders later than March 15, 2002.
may serve their sentence in lieu of confinement in regular February 28, 2002.
penitentiaries.
RULE ON COMMITMENT OF CHILDREN
Article 200. Records of Proceedings. - Where
a youthful offender has been charged before any city or SECTION 1. Objective. — The objective
provincial fiscal or before any municipal judge and the of this Rule is to ensure that every effort is exerted to
charges have been ordered dropped, all the records of the promote the child's welfare and enhance his
case shall be destroyed immediately thereafter. opportunities for a useful and happy life. Toward this
Where a youthful offender has been charged and end, this Rule seeks to protect the child from all forms of
the court acquits him, or dismisses the case or commits him
neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation and other conditions
to an institution and subsequently releases him pursuant to
prejudicial to his development.
this Chapter, all the records of his case shall be destroyed
immediately after such acquittal, dismissal or release, unless
civil liability has also been imposed in the criminal action, in SECTION 2. Interpretation. — The
which case such records shall be destroyed after satisfaction best interests of the child shall be the paramount
of such civil liability. The youthful offender concerned shall consideration in all actions concerning him, whether

47
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

undertaken by public or private social welfare placement or child-caring agency or individual in


institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities and accordance with Section 3 herein.
legislative bodies consistent with the United Nations (p) "Child-placing or child-placement agency"
Convention on the Rights of the Child. refers to a private non-profit or charitable institution or
government agency duly licensed, and accredited by the
SECTION 3. Definition of Terms. — Department to provide comprehensive child welfare
(a) "Child" is a person below eighteen years of services, including but not limited to, receiving
age. applications for adoption or foster care, evaluating the
(b) "Department" refers to the Department of prospective adoptive or foster parents and preparing the
Social Welfare and Development. home study report.
(c) "Dependent child" is one who is without a (q) "Child-caring agency" refers to a private non-
parent, guardian or custodian, or one whose parents, profit or charitable institution or government agency
guardian or other custodian for good cause desires to be duly licensed and accredited by the Department that
relieved of his care and custody, and is dependent upon provides twenty-four hour residential care services for
the public for support. abandoned, orphaned, neglected, involuntarily or
(d) "Abandoned child" is one who has no proper voluntarily committed children.
parental care or guardianship, or whose parents or (r) "Guardian ad litem" is a person appointed by
guardian has deserted him for a period of at least six (6) the court where the case is pending for a child sought to
continuous months. be committed to protect his best interests.
(e) "Neglected child" is one whose basic needs (s) "Case Study Report" is a written report of the
have been deliberately unattended to or inadequately result of an investigation conducted by a social worker
attended to, physically or emotionally, by his parents or as to the socio-cultural, economic and legal status or
guardian. condition of the child sought to be committed. It shall
(f) "Physical neglect" occurs when the child is include among others his developmental age,
malnourished, ill-clad and without proper shelter. educational attainment, family and social relationships,
(g) "Emotional neglect" occurs when a child is the quality of his peer group, his family's strengths and
raped, seduced, maltreated, exploited, overworked or weaknesses and parental control over him. The report is
made to work under conditions not conducive to good submitted to the Family Court to aid it in its evaluation
health; made to beg in the streets or public places, or of whether the child ought to be committed to the care
when placed in moral danger, or exposed to drugs, of the Department or any duly licensed child-placement
alcohol, gambling, prostitution and other vices. or child-caring agency or individual.
(h) "Disabled child" includes mentally retarded,
physically handicapped, emotionally disturbed and SECTION 4. Petition for Involuntary
mentally ill children, children with cerebral palsy and Commitment of a Child. —
those with similar afflictions. (a) Who may file. — The Secretary of the
(i) "Mentally retarded child" is one who is (1) Department or his authorized representative or any duly
socially incompetent, that is, socially inadequate, licensed child-placement or child-caring agency having
occupationally incompetent and unable to manage his knowledge of a child who appears to be dependent,
own affairs; (2) mentally subnormal; (3) intellectually abandoned or neglected, may file a verified petition for
retarded from birth or early age; (4) retarded at involuntary commitment of said child to the care of any
maturity; (5) mentally deficient as a result of duly licensed child-placement or child-caring agency or
constitutional origin through heredity or diseases or (6) individual.
essentially incurable. (b) Venue. — The petition shall be filed with the
(j) "Physically handicapped child" is one who is Family Court of the province or city in which the parent
crippled, deaf-mute, blind, or otherwise suffers from a or guardian resides or where the child is found.
defect which restricts his means of action or (c) Contents of Verified Petition. — The petition
communication with others. must state:
(k) "Emotionally disturbed child" is one who, (1) The names of the parents or guardian
although not afflicted with insanity or mental defect, is and their place of residence. If the child's parents
unable to maintain normal social relations with others are unknown, petitioner must allege that diligent
and the community in general due to emotional efforts have been exerted to locate them. If said
problems or complexes, parents are deceased, petitioner shall attach a
(l) "Mentally ill child" is one with any behavioral certified true copy of their death certificate;
disorder, whether functional or organic, which is of such (2) The facts showing that the child is
a degree of severity as to require professional help or dependent, abandoned, or neglected;
hospitalization. (3) The facts showing who has custody of
(m) "Commitment" or "surrender of a child" is the the child at the time of the filing of the petition; and
legal act of entrusting a child to the care of the (4) The name, address and written
Department or any duly licensed child-placement or consent of the Department or duly licensed child-
child-caring agency or individual by the court, parent or placement or child-caring agency or individual to
guardian or any interested party. whose care the commitment of the child is sought
(n) "Involuntarily committed child" is one whose to be entrusted.
parents have been permanently and judicially deprived (d) Summons; Court to Set Time for Hearing. — If
of parental authority due to abandonment; substantial, the court is satisfied that the petition is sufficient in form
continuous, or repeated neglect; abuse; or and substance, it shall direct the clerk of court to
incompetence to discharge parental responsibilities in immediately issue summons which shall be served
accordance with Section 4 herein. together with a copy of the petition and a notice of
(o) "Voluntarily committed child" is one whose hearing, upon the parents or guardian of the child and
parents knowingly and willingly relinquished parental the office of the public prosecutor not less than five (5)
authority to the Department or any duly licensed child- days before the date of the hearing. The office of the

48
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

public prosecutor shall be directed to immediately both, to determine whether the welfare and interests of
transmit the summons to the prosecutor assigned to the the child are being served.
Family Court concerned. (l) Report of Person or Institution. — Any duly
If it appears from the petition that both parents of licensed child-placement or child-caring agency or
the child are dead or that neither parent can be found in individual to whom a child has been committed by
the province or city where the court is located and the judicial order may at any time be required by the court
child has no guardian residing therein, summons may to submit a report, containing all necessary information
not be issued and the court shall thereupon appoint a for determining whether the welfare of the child is being
guardian ad litem pursuant to Sub-section (f) below and served.
proceed with the hearing of the case with due notice to (m) Temporary Custody of Child. — The duly
the provincial or city prosecutor, licensed child-placement or child-caring agency or
(e) Social Worker. — After the court sets the individual to whom a child has been committed may file
petition for hearing in accordance with Sub-section (d) a verified motion with the court which granted the
above, it shall direct the social worker to submit, before petition for involuntary commitment of a child to place
the hearing, a case study report of the child to aid it in him in the care of any suitable person, upon the latter's
evaluating whether said child should be committed to request, for a period not exceeding one month at a time.
the care of the Department or any duly licensed child- The court may order the social worker to submit a case
placement or child-caring agency or individual. The study report to aid it in evaluating whether such
report shall bear the signature of the social worker on temporary custody shall be for the best interests of the
every page. child. The period of temporary custody of the child may
(f) Guardian Ad Litem of Child. — If neither of the be extended by the court for a period not exceeding one
parents nor the guardian of the child can be located or month at a time upon motion of the duly licensed child-
does not appear in court despite due notice, or if the placement or child-caring agency or individual to which
court finds them incompetent to protect the best the child has been committed.
interests of the child, it shall be the duty of the court to The court, motu proprio, or upon request of the
appoint a suitable person as guardian ad litem to child assisted by his guardian ad litem, or at the
represent the child. In making the appointment, the instance of the agency or person to whom the child was
court shall consider the background of the guardian ad committed, after due notice and hearing, shall
litem and his familiarity with the judicial process, social discontinue the temporary custody of the child if it
service programs and child development. A member of appears that he is not being given proper care.
the Philippine Bar may be appointed guardian ad litem. After one month from the date temporary custody
(g) Child's Right to Counsel. — The court, upon of the child was given to another suitable person, the
request of the child capable of forming his own views or agency or individual shall submit to the court a verified
upon request of his guardian ad litem, shall appoint a report on whether the temporary custody of the child
lawyer to represent him in the proceedings. has promoted his best interests.
(h) Duty of Public Prosecutor. — The provincial or (n) Change of Custody. — If the child is committed
city prosecutor shall appear for the State and ascertain if to the Department, it shall have the authority to change
there has been due notice to all parties concerned and the custody of a child it had placed with any duly
that there is justification for the declaration of licensed child-placement or child-caring agency or
dependency, abandonment or neglect. individual if it appears that such change is for the best
(i) Hearing. — The court shall direct the person or interests of the child. The Department shall notify the
agency which has custody of the child to bring the latter court of any change in custody of the child.
to the court on the date of the hearing of the petition When conflicting interests arise among child-
and shall ascertain the facts and determine whether the placement or child-caring agencies, the court which
child is dependent, abandoned, or neglected, and if so, granted the involuntary commitment of the child, upon
the cause and circumstances of such condition. motion of the Department or any of the agencies
(j) Judgment. — If, after the hearing, the court concerned, shall order the change of commitment of the
shall find the child to be dependent, abandoned, or child.
neglected, it shall render judgment committing him to (o) Removal of Custody. — A motion to remove
the care and custody of the Department or any duly custody of a child may be filed by an authorized
licensed child-placement or child-caring agency or representative of the Department with knowledge of the
individual until he reaches the age of eighteen (18). The facts against a child-placement or child-caring agency or
judgment shall likewise make proper provisions for the individual to whose custody a child has been committed
custody of the property or money belonging to the by the court on the ground of neglect of such child as
committed child. defined in Section 3 (e) of this Rule. The court shall set
If the child is committed to the Department, it shall the motion for hearing with notice to the public
notify the court within thirty (30) days from the order of prosecutor and the court-designated social worker. If
commitment, the name and address of the duly licensed the court finds after hearing that the allegations of the
and accredited child-placement or child-caring agency or motion have been established and that it is for the best
individual where the child shall be placed. interests and welfare of the child, the court shall issue
However, if the court finds that the abandonment or an order removing him from the custody of the person
neglect of the child may be remedied, the child may be or agency, as the case may be, and committing him to
allowed to stay in his own home under the care and the custody of another duly licensed child-placement or
control of his parents or guardian, subject to supervision child-caring agency or individual.
and direction of the Department. In the same proceeding, the court may suspend or
(k) Visitation or Inspection. — Any duly licensed revoke the license of the agency or individual found
child-placement or child-caring agency or individual to guilty of such neglect depending upon the gravity or
whom a child has been committed by the court shall be frequency of the offense.
subject to visitation or inspection by a representative of (p) Restoration of Parental Authority After
the court or of the Department, as the case may be or of Involuntary Commitment. —

49
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

(i) Who may file; Ground. — The parents (i) Who may file; Ground. — The parents
or guardian of a child committed to the care of a or guardian who voluntarily committed the child, or
person, agency or institution by judicial order in their absence or failure, any person with
may file a verified motion for the restoration of knowledge of the facts, may file a verified petition
his rights over the child with the court which to remove custody of the child against the child-
granted the involuntary commitment on the placement or child-caring agency or individual to
ground that he is now able to take proper care whose custody the child has been voluntarily
and custody of said child, provided, however, committed on the ground of neglect of such child as
that the child has not yet been adopted. defined in Section 3 (e) of this Rule. A child may
HDATSI also be removed from the custody of the child-
(ii) Notice of Hearing. — The court shall placement or child-caring agency or individual on
fix the time and date for the hearing of the the ground that the voluntary commitment of the
motion, which shall not be earlier than thirty (30) child was unjustified.
days nor later than sixty (60) days from the date (ii) Venue. — The petition shall be filed
of the filing of said motion and cause notice of with the Family Court of the province or city where
the hearing to be sent to the person, agency or the child-placement or child-caring agency to which
institution to which the child has been the child has been voluntarily committed is located
committed, the public prosecutor and the court- or where the child may be found.
designated social worker, at least five (5) days (iii) Contents of Verified Petition — The
before the date of hearing. petition must state:
(iii) Hearing. — At the hearing, any (1) The name and address of the child-
person may be allowed to intervene at the placement or child-caring agency or individual
discretion of the court to contest the right to the to whose custody the child has been voluntarily
relief demanded. Witnesses may be called and committed; SEIDAC
examined by the parties or by the court motu (2) The facts showing that the child has
proprio. been neglected by the agency or in cases
(iv) Resolution. — If it is found that the where the voluntary commitment was
cause for the commitment of the child no longer unjustified, that the parents of the child are
exists and that the movant is already able to take actually capable of taking care and custody of
proper care and custody of the child, the court, the child;
after taking into consideration the best interests (3) The name, address and written
and the welfare of the child, shall issue a consent of the duly licensed child-placement or
resolution terminating the parental authority of child-caring agency or individual to whose care
the person, agency or institution to whom the the child may be transferred.
child was committed by judicial order and (4) The facts showing that petitioner has
restoring parental authority to the movant. exhausted the administrative remedies
q) Jurisdiction for Prosecution of Punishable Acts. available to him.
— The Family Court which granted the involuntary (iv) Notice of Hearing. — If the petition is
commitment shall have jurisdiction over the prosecution sufficient in form and substance, the court shall set
of a child who left without prior permission from the the same for hearing with notice to the
person or institution to which he has been judicially Department, the public prosecutor, the court-
committed or the person under whose custody he has designated social worker, the agency or individual
been judicially committed in accordance with Subsection to whom the child has been committed and in
(m) of Section 4 of this Rule. It shall likewise have appropriate cases, the parents of the child.
jurisdiction over the person who induced the child to (v) Judgment. — If after hearing the
leave such person or institution, except in case of actual court finds that the allegations of the petition have
or imminent grave physical or moral danger to the child. been established and that it is for the best interests
The Family Court which granted the involuntary and welfare of the child, it shall issue an order
commitment shall also have jurisdiction over the removing the child from the custody of the person
prosecution of parents or guardians of the child who or agency concerned, and committing him to the
may be held liable under Articles 59 and 60 of P.D. No. custody of another duly licensed child-placement or
603 and Sections 9, 10 and 31 of R.A. No. 7610. child-caring agency or individual.
The court, in the same proceeding may, after
SECTION 5. Voluntary Commitment hearing the comment or recommendation of the
of a Child to an Institution or Individual. — The Department, suspend or revoke the license of the
parent or guardian of a dependent, abandoned or agency or individual found guilty of such neglect
neglected child may voluntarily commit him to the depending upon the gravity or frequency of the offense.
Department or any duly licensed child-placement or (b) Restoration of Parental Authority After
child-caring agency or individual subject to the rules of Voluntary Commitment. — The restoration of rights of
the Department. However, no child shall be committed the parent or guardian over the child who has been
unless he is surrendered in writing by his parents or voluntarily committed shall be governed by the rules of
guardian stating such voluntary commitment and the Department, provided, however, that the petition for
specifically naming the office, agency, or individual to restoration is filed within six (6) months from the date of
whose custody the child is to be committed. Such voluntary commitment. In case the Department refuses
written instrument should be notarized and signed in the to grant legal custody and parental authority to the
presence of an authorized representative of the parent or guardian over the child who has been
Department after counseling and other services have voluntarily committed to an agency or individual, the
been made available to encourage the child's parents to parent or guardian may file a petition in court for
keep the child. restoration of parental authority in accordance with
(a) Petition for removal of Custody. — Section 4 (p) of this Rule.

50
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

(c) Jurisdiction for Prosecution of Punishable Acts. (e) Hearing and Judgment. — If the court finds
— The Family Court of the place where the child may be that the allegations of the petition have been established
found or where the duly licensed child-placement or and that institutional care of the child is for his best
child-caring agency or individual is located shall have interests or the public welfare and that his parents, or
jurisdiction over the prosecution of a child who left guardian or relatives are unable for any reason
without prior permission from the person or institution whatsoever to take proper care of him, the court shall
to which he has been voluntarily committed. It shall order his commitment to the proper institution for
likewise have jurisdiction over the person who induced disabled children. The court shall likewise make proper
the child to leave such person or institution, except in provisions for the custody of the property or money
case of grave actual or imminent physical or moral belonging to the committed child.
danger, to the child. The same Family Court shall also The expense of maintaining a disabled child in the
have jurisdiction over the prosecution of parents or institution to which he has been committed shall be
guardians of the child who may be held liable under borne primarily by the parents or guardian and
Articles 59 and 60 of P.D. No. 603 and Sections 9, 10 secondarily, by such disabled child, if he has property of
and 31 of R.A. No. 7610. his own.
In all cases where the expenses for the
SECTION 6. Petition for Commitment maintenance of the disabled child cannot be paid in
of a Disabled Child. — accordance with the immediately preceding paragraph,
(a) Who may file. — Where a child appears to be the Department shall bear the expenses or such part
mentally retarded, physically handicapped, emotionally thereof as may remain unpaid.
disturbed, mentally ill, with cerebral palsy or with similar The court shall furnish the institution to which the
afflictions and needs institutional care but his parents or child has been committed with a copy of its judgment,
guardians are opposed thereto, the Department, or any together with all the reports and other data pertinent to
duly licensed child-placement or child-caring agency or the case.
individual may file a verified petition for commitment of (f) Discharge of Judicially Committed Disabled
the said child to any reputable institution providing care, Child. — Upon motion of the parent, guardian or
training and rehabilitation for disabled children. institution to which the child has been judicially
The parents or guardian of the child may file a similar committed under this rule, the court, after hearing, shall
petition in case no immediate placement can be order the discharge of such child if it is established and
arranged for the disabled child when his welfare and certified by the Department that:
interests are at stake. AEHTIC (1) He is no longer a danger to himself
(b) Venue. — The petition for commitment of a and the community;
disabled child shall be filed with the Family Court of the (2) He has been sufficiently rehabilitated,
place where the parent or guardian resides or where the from his physical handicap or if of working age, is
child is found. already fit to engage in gainful occupation; or
(c) Contents of Verified Petition. — The petition for (3) He has been sufficiently relieved of
commitment must state the following: his psychological, mental and emotional problems
(1) The facts showing that the child and is ready to assume normal social relations.
appears to be mentally retarded, physically
handicapped, emotionally disturbed, mentally ill, SECTION 7. Effectivity. — This rule
with cerebral palsy or with similar afflictions and shall take effect on April 15, 2002 after its publication in
needs institutional care; IADCES a newspaper of general circulation not later than March
(2) The name of the parents and their 15, 2002.
residence, if known, or if the child has no living
parent, the name and residence of the guardian, if
any; and
(3) The fact that the parents or guardian
or any duly licensed disabled child-placement or [A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC. February 28, 2002.]
child-caring agency, as the case may be, has RE: PROPOSED RULE ON JUVENILES IN CONFLICT
opposed the commitment of such child; WITH THE LAW
(4) The name and written conformity of
the institution where the child is to be committed. RESOLUTION
(5) An estimate of the costs and other Acting on the letter of the Chairman of the
expenses of maintaining the child in the institution. Committee on Revision of the Rules of Court submitting
The verified petition shall be sufficient if based for this Court's consideration and approval the Proposed
upon the personal knowledge of the petitioner. Rule on Juveniles In Conflict With The Law, the Court
(d) Order of Hearing; Notice. — If the petition filed Resolved to APPROVE the same.
is sufficient in form and substance, the court, by an The Rule shall take effect on April 15, 2002
order reciting the purpose of the petition, shall fix the following its publication in a newspaper of general
date of the hearing thereof, and a copy of such order circulation not later than March 15, 2002.
shall be served on the child alleged to be mentally February 28, 2002.
retarded, physically handicapped, emotionally disturbed,
mentally ill, with cerebral palsy or with similar afflictions SECTION 1. Applicability of the Rule.
and on the person having charge of him or any of his — This Rule shall apply to all criminal cases involving
relatives residing in the province or city as the court juveniles in conflict with the law.
may deem proper. A juvenile in conflict with the law is a person who at the
The order shall also direct the sheriff or any other time of the commission of the offense is below eighteen
officer of the court to produce, if necessary, the alleged (18) years of age but not less than nine (9) years of
disabled child on the date of the hearing. age.

51
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

This Rule shall not apply to an accused who at the law may be physically restricted pending court
the time of initial contact as defined in Section 4(p) of disposition of the charge against him.
this Rule, or at any time thereafter, shall have reached (d) Intake report is a preliminary written report
the age of eighteen (18), in which case the regular rules containing the personal and other circumstances of the
on criminal procedure shall apply without prejudice to juvenile in conflict with the law and prepared by the
the rights granted under Sections 36, 37, 38 and 39 of social worker assigned by the Department of Social
this Rule. (n) Welfare and Development (DSWD) or local government
unit to assist him as soon as he enters the justice
SECTION 2. Objective. — The objective system.
of this Rule is to ensure that the justice system treats (e) Case study report is a written report of the
every juvenile in conflict with the law in a manner that result of an investigation conducted by the social worker
recognizes and upholds his human dignity and worth, designated by the Family Court on the social, cultural,
and instills in him respect for the fundamental rights and economic and legal status or condition of the juvenile in
freedoms of others. The Rule considers his conflict with the law. It includes, among others, his
developmental age and the desirability of his developmental age; educational attainment; family and
reintegration into and assumption of a constructive role social relationships; the quality of his peer group; the
in society in accordance with the principle of restorative strengths and weaknesses of his family; parental control
justice. over him; his attitude toward the offense; the harm or
To attain this objective, the Rule seeks: damage done to others resulting from the offense; his
a) To provide a procedure in the adjudication of record of prior offenses, if any; and the attitude of his
juveniles in conflict with the law that takes into account parents towards his responsibility for the offense.
their distinct circumstances and assures the parties of a (f) Diversion refers to an alternative child-
fair hearing with their constitutional and statutory rights appropriate process of determining the responsibility
recognized and respected; and treatment of a juvenile in conflict with the law on
b) To divert from the justice system juveniles who the basis of his social, cultural, economic, psychological
can be cared for or placed under community-based or educational background without resorting to formal
alternative programs of treatment, training and court adjudication.
rehabilitation in conformity with the principle of (g) Diversion programs refer to programs that the
restorative justice; juvenile in conflict with the law is required to undergo in
c) To deal with the juvenile in a family lieu of formal court proceedings,
environment whenever possible, separate him from his (h) Disposition conference is a meeting held by the
parents only when necessary for his welfare or in the court with the social worker who prepared the case
interest of public safety; study report together with the juvenile in conflict with
d) To remove from juveniles in conflict with the the law and his parents or guardian ad litem, for the
law the stigma of criminality and the consequences of purpose of determining the disposition measures
criminal behavior; and appropriate to the personal and peculiar circumstances
e) To provide for the care, protection and of the juvenile.
wholesome moral, mental, and physical development of (i) Recognizance is an undertaking in lieu of a
juveniles in conflict with the law. bond assumed by a parent or custodian who shall be
responsible for the appearance in court by the juvenile
SECTION 3. Interpretation. — This in conflict with the law when required.
Rule shall be interpreted liberally to promote the best (j) Probation is a disposition alternative under
interests of the child in conformity with Philippine laws which a juvenile in conflict with the law is released and
and the United Nations' Convention on the Rights of the permitted to remain in his home after conviction and
Child. sentence. The juvenile is subject to conditions imposed
in the sentence and to supervision by the court and a
SECTION 4. Definitions. — As used in probation officer who has the duty to return the juvenile
this Rule, to the court in case of violation of a condition of his
(a) To be in conflict with the law means being probation.
charged with the commission of an act defined and (k) Suspended sentence is the holding in abeyance
punished as a crime or offense under the law, including of the service of the sentence imposed by the court
violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations, and upon a finding of guilt of the juvenile in conflict with the
ordinances of local government units. law who will undergo rehabilitation.
(b) Serious offense refers to any offense not (l) Community continuum is a community-based
covered by Section 1, par. B, Criminal Cases, of the Rule group therapy process that provides continuous
on Summary Procedure, to wit: (1) violations of traffic guidance and support to the juvenile in conflict with the
laws, rules and regulations; (2) violations of the rental law upon his release from rehabilitation and his
law; (3) violations of municipal or city ordinances; (4) all reintegration into society.
other offenses punished with imprisonment not (m) Age of criminal responsibility is the age when a
exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding one juvenile who is nine (9) years or over but under fifteen
thousand pesos (P1,000.00), or both, irrespective of (15) years commits an offense with discernment.
other imposable penalties, accessory or otherwise, or of (n) Discernment means the mental capacity to
the civil liability arising therefrom; provided, however, understand the difference between right and wrong and
that in offenses involving damage to property through its consequences.
criminal negligence, the imposable fine is not in excess (o) Restorative Justice is a principle which requires
of ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00). a process of resolving conflicts with the maximum
(c) Youth detention center refers to a government- involvement of the victim, the offender, and the
owned or operated agency providing habilitating and community. It seeks to obtain reparation for the victim,
rehabilitative facilities where a juvenile in conflict with reconciliation of the offender, the offended and the
community and reassurance to the offender that he can

52
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

be reintegrated into society. It. also enhances public (i) Hold the juvenile in secure quarters separate
safety by activating the offender, the victim and the from that of the opposite sex and adult offenders.
community in prevention strategies.
(p) Initial contact is the apprehension or taking SECTION 7. Taking Custody of a
into custody of a juvenile in conflict with the law by law Juvenile Without a Warrant. — A peace officer or a
enforcement officers or private citizens. It includes the private person taking into custody a juvenile in conflict
time when the juvenile receives a subpoena under with the law without a warrant shall likewise follow the
Section 3 (b) of Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of provisions of Sections 5, 8 and 9 of Rule 113 of the
Criminal Procedure or summons under Section 6 (a) or Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and shall forthwith
Sec. 9 (b) of the same Rule in cases that do not require deliver him to the nearest police station. The juvenile
preliminary investigation or where there is no necessity shall be proceeded against in accordance with Section 7
to place the juvenile under immediate custody. of Rule 112.
(q) Corporal punishment is any kind of physical
punishment inflicted on the body as distinguished from SECTION 8. Conduct of Initial
pecuniary punishment or fine. Investigation by the Police. — The police officer
conducting the initial investigation of a juvenile in
SECTION 5. Exemption from Criminal conflict with the law shall do so in the presence of either
Liability. — A minor under nine (9) years of age at the of the parents of the juvenile; in the absence of both
time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt parents, the guardian or the nearest relative, or a social
from criminal liability. welfare officer, and the counsel of his own choice. In
A minor nine (9) years and above but under fifteen their presence, the juvenile shall be informed of his
(15) years of age at the time of the commission of the constitutional rights during custodial investigation.
offense shall be committed to the care of his father or The right of the juvenile to privacy shall be
mother, or nearest relative or family friend; in the sound protected at all times. All measures necessary to
discretion of the court and subject to its supervision. promote this right shall be taken, including the exclusion
However, if the prosecution proves that he has acted of the media.
with discernment; he shall be proceeded against in
accordance with Sections 24 to 28, or 36 to 40 of this SECTION 9. Fingerprinting and
Rule, as the case may be, and subjected to a Photographing of the Juvenile. — While under
delinquency prevention program as determined by the investigation, no juvenile in conflict with the law shall be
court. fingerprinted or photographed in a humiliating and
Exemption from criminal liability does not include degrading manner. The following guidelines shall be
exemption from civil liability which shall be enforced in observed when fingerprinting or photographing the
accordance with the provisions of Article 221 of the juvenile:
Family Code in relation to Article 101 of the Revised (a) His fingerprint and photograph files shall be
Penal Code and Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of kept separate from those of adults and shall be kept
Criminal Procedure. confidential. They may be inspected by law enforcement
In case the act or omission of the juvenile involves officers only when necessary for the discharge of their
a quasi-delict, Article 2180 of the Civil Code shall apply. duties and upon prior authority of the Family Court;
TADCSE
SECTION 6. Procedure in Taking a (b) His fingerprints and photographs shall be
Juvenile into Custody. — Any person taking into removed from the files and destroyed: (1) if the case
custody a juvenile in conflict with the law shall: against him is not filed, or is dismissed; or (2) when the
(a) Identify himself and present proper juvenile reaches twenty one (21) years of age and there
identification to the juvenile; is no record that he committed an offense after reaching
(b) Inform the juvenile of the reason for such eighteen (18) years of age.
custody and advise him of his constitutional rights in a
language or dialect understood by him; SECTION 10. Intake Report by the
(c) Refrain from using vulgar or profane words and Social Welfare Officer. — Upon the taking into custody
from sexually harassing or abusing, or making sexual of a juvenile in conflict with the law, the social welfare
advances on the juvenile; officer assigned to him by the DSWD shall immediately
(d) Avoid displaying or using any firearm, weapon, under take a preliminary background investigation of the
handcuffs or other instruments of force or restraint, juvenile and submit, prior to arraignment of the
unless absolutely necessary and only after all other juvenile, a report on his findings to the Family Court in
methods of control have been exhausted and have which the case may be filed.
failed;
(e) Refrain from subjecting the juvenile to greater SECTION 11. Filing of Criminal Action.
restraint than is necessary for his apprehension; — A criminal action may be instituted against a juvenile
(f) Avoid violence or unnecessary force; in conflict with the law by filing a complaint with the
(g) Notify the parents of the juvenile or his nearest prosecutor or the municipal trial court in cases where a
relative or guardian, if any, and the local social welfare preliminary investigation is required. In Manila and other
officer as soon as the apprehension is made; chartered cities, if their charters so provide, the
(h) Take the juvenile immediately to an available complaint shall be filed with the Office of the Prosecutor.
government medical or health officer for a physical and It may also be filed directly with the Family Court if no
mental examination. The examination results shall be preliminary investigation is required under Section 1 of
kept confidential unless otherwise ordered by the Family Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Court. Whenever treatment for any physical or mental All criminal actions commenced by complaint or
defect is necessary, steps shall be immediately taken by information shall be prosecuted under the direction and
the said officer to provide the juvenile with the control of the public prosecutor assigned to the Family
necessary and proper treatment; and Court.

53
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

custody, be committed by the Family Court to the care


SECTION 12. Prosecution of Civil of the DSWD, a youth detention center, or a local
Action. — When a criminal action is instituted against a rehabilitation center recognized by the government in
juvenile in conflict with the law, the action for recovery the province, city or municipality within the jurisdiction
of civil liability arising from the offense charged shall be of the said court. The center or agency concerned shall
governed by Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Criminal be responsible for the juvenile's appearance in court
Procedure. whenever required. In the absence of any such center or
agency within a reasonable distance from the venue of
SECTION 13. Preliminary the trial, the juvenile shall be detained in the provincial,
Investigation. — As far as consistent with this Rule, city or municipal jail which shall provide adequate
the preliminary investigation of a juvenile in conflict with quarters for the juvenile separate from adult detainees
the law shall be governed by Section 3 of Rule 112 of and detainees of the opposite sex.
the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. If clarificatory
questions become necessary, the Rule on Examination of SECTION 19. Case Study Report. —
a Child Witness shall apply. After the institution of the criminal action, the social
If a preliminary investigation is required before the worker of the Family Court shall immediately undertake
filing of a complaint or information, the same shall be a case study of the juvenile and his family, his
conducted by the judge of the Municipal Trial Court or environment and such other matters relevant to the
the public prosecutor in accordance with the pertinent proper disposition of the case. His report shall be
provisions of Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal submitted within the period fixed by the Family Court,
Procedure. preferably before arraignment, to aid it in the proper
If the investigating prosecutor finds probable cause disposition of the case.
to hold the juvenile for trial, he shall prepare the
corresponding resolution and information for approval by SECTION 20. Diversion Proceedings
the provincial or city prosecutor, as the case may be. Before Arraignment. — Where the maximum penalty
The juvenile, his parents/nearest relative/guardian and imposed by law for the offense with which the juvenile in
his counsel shall be furnished forthwith a copy of the conflict with the law is charged is imprisonment of not
approved resolution. more than six (6) months, regardless of fine or fine
alone regardless of amount, and the corresponding
SECTION 14. Venue. — Subject to the complaint or information is filed with the Family Court,
provisions of Section 15, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules the case shall not be set for arraignment; instead, it
of Criminal Procedure, any criminal or civil action shall forthwith be referred to the Diversion Committee
involving a juvenile in conflict with the law shall be which shall determine whether the juvenile can be
instituted and tried in the Family Court of or nearest the diverted and referred to alternative measures or
place where the offense was committed or where any of services offered by non-court institutions. Pending
its essential elements occurred. determination by the Committee, the court shall deliver
the juvenile on recognizance to the custody of his
SECTION 15. Recognizance. — Before parents or legal guardian who shall be responsible for
final conviction, all juveniles charged with offenses the presence of the juvenile during the diversion
falling under the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure proceedings.
shall be released on recognizance to the custody of their
parents or other suitable person who shall be SECTION 21. Diversion Committee. —
responsible for the juveniles' appearance in court In each Family Court, there shall be a Diversion
whenever required. Committee to be composed of its branch clerk of court
as chairperson, and the prosecutor, a lawyer of the
SECTION 16. When Bail a Matter of Public Attorney's Office and the social worker assigned
Right. — All juveniles in conflict with the law shall be to the said Family Court as members.
admitted to bail as a matter of right before final The chairperson of the Committee shall call for a
conviction of an offense not punishable by death, conference with notice to the juvenile, his parents/legal
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. guardian and his counsel, and the private complainant
In the event the juvenile cannot post bail for lack of and his counsel, and recommend to the Family Court
financial resources, the Family Court shall commit the whether the juvenile should be diverted to a diversion
juvenile pursuant to Section 18 of this Rule. program or undergo formal court proceedings. In
However, where the juvenile does not pose a threat making its recommendation, the Committee shall
to public safety, the Family Court may, motu proprio or consider the following factors:
upon motion and recommendation of the DSWD, release a) The record of the juvenile on his conflict with
the juvenile on recognizance to the custody of his the law;
parents or other responsible person. b) Whether the imposable maximum penalty of
the offense is more than six (6) months, regardless of
SECTION 17. When Bail Not A Matter fine; or only a fine, regardless of amount;
of Right. — No juvenile charged with an offense c) Whether the juvenile is an obvious threat to
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life himself and/or the community;
imprisonment shall be admitted to bail when evidence of d) Whether the juvenile is unrepentant;
guilt is strong. e) Whether the juvenile or his parents are
indifferent or hostile; and
SECTION 18. Care of Juveniles in Whether the juvenile's relationships with his peers
Conflict with the Law. — The juvenile charged with increase the possibility of delinquent behavior.
having committed a delinquent act, held for trial or while If the Committee recommends diversion, it shall
the case is pending appeal, if unable to furnish bail or is submit the diversion program for the juvenile for the
denied bail, shall, from the time of his being taken into consideration and approval of the court.

54
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

The Committee cannot recommend diversion should The Family Court shall exert its best efforts to
the juvenile or the private complainant object thereto. If secure satisfaction of the civil liability of the juvenile and
no diversion program is recommended, the court shall his parents or guardian. However, inability to pay the
include the case in its calendar for formal proceedings. said liability shall not by itself be a ground to discontinue
Consent to diversion by the juvenile or payment by the diversion program of the juvenile.
him of civil indemnity shall not in any way be construed
as admission of guilt and used as evidence against him SECTION 25. Closure Order. — The
in the event that his case is included in the court juvenile subject of diversion proceedings shall be visited
calendar for formal proceedings. periodically by the Family Court social worker who shall
submit to the Committee his reports thereon. At any
SECTION 22. Diversion Programs. — time before or at the end of the diversion period, a
The diversion program designed by the Committee shall report recommending closure or extension of diversion,
be distinct to each juvenile in conflict with the law as the case may be, shall be filed by the Committee with
limited for a specific period. It may include any or a the Family Court. The report and recommendation shall
combination of the following: be heard by the Family Court within fifteen (15) days
a) Written or oral reprimand or citation; from its receipt thereof, with notice to the members of
b) Return of property; the Committee, the juvenile and his parents or legal
c) Payment of the damage caused; guardian and counsel and the complainant to determine
d) Written or oral apology; whether the undertaking has been fully and satisfactorily
e) Guidance and supervision orders; complied with. If the juvenile has complied with his
f) Counseling for the juvenile and his family; undertaking, the Family Court shall issue the
g) Training, seminars and lectures on (i) anger corresponding closure order terminating the diversion
management skills; (ii) problem-solving and/or conflict program. It may, however, extend the period of
resolution skills; (iii) values formation; and (iv) other diversion to give the juvenile a further chance to be
skills that will aid the juvenile to properly deal with rehabilitated. In the event the court finds that the
situations that can lead to a repetition of the offense; diversion program will no longer serve its. purpose, it
h) Participation in available community-based shall include the case of the juvenile in its calendar for
programs; formal proceedings.
i) Institutional care and custody; or j) Work-
detail program in the community. SECTION 26. Duty of the Family Court
to Protect the Rights of the Juvenile. — In all
SECTION 23. Hearing of Diversion criminal proceedings in the Family Court, the judge shall
Program. — The Family Court shall set the ensure the protection of the following rights of the
recommendation and diversion program for hearing juvenile in conflict with the law:
within ten (10) days from receipt thereof. a) To be presumed innocent until the contrary is
proved beyond reasonable doubt;
SECTION 24. Undertaking. — In all b) To be informed promptly and directly of the
cases where a juvenile in conflict with the law is given nature and cause of the charge against him, and if
the benefit of a diversion program, an undertaking appropriate, through his parents or legal guardian;
describing the program shall be signed by him, his c) To be present at every stage of the
parents or legal guardian and the complainant, and proceedings, from arraignment to promulgation of
approved by the Family Court. The program, which shall judgment. The juvenile may, however, waive his
be enforced under the supervision and control of the presence at the trial pursuant to the stipulations set
Family Court, shall contain the following terms and forth in his bail, unless his presence at the trial is
conditions: specifically ordered by the court for purposes of
a) The juvenile shall present himself to the social identification. The absence of the juvenile without
worker of the Family Court that approved the diversion justifiable cause at the trial of which he had notice shall
program at least once a month for evaluation of its be considered a waiver of his right to be present
effectiveness. Whenever the juvenile is permitted to thereat. When the juvenile under custody escapes, he
reside in a place under the jurisdiction of another Family shall be deemed to have waived his right to be present
Court, control and supervision over him shall be in all subsequent hearings until custody over him is
transferred to the Family Court of that place, and in regained;
such case, a copy of the undertaking, the intake and d) To have legal and other appropriate assistance
case study reports and other pertinent records shall be in the preparation and presentation of his defense;
furnished the said court. Thereafter, the Family Court to e) To testify as a witness in his own behalf and
which jurisdiction over the juvenile is transferred shall subject to cross-examination only on matters covered by
have the power with respect to the latter that was direct examination, provided that the Rule on the
previously possessed by the Family Court that approved Examination of a Child Witness shall be observed
the diversion and such other conditions as the whenever convenient and practicable.
Committee may deem just and proper under the The juvenile shall not be compelled to be a witness
circumstances. against himself and his silence shall not in any manner
b) The juvenile shall faithfully comply with the prejudice him;
terms and conditions in the undertaking. His non- f) To confront and cross-examine the witnesses
compliance shall be referred by the Committee to the against him;
Family Court where the case has been transferred for a g) To have compulsory process issued to secure
show-cause hearing with notice to the juvenile and the attendance of witnesses and production of other
private complainant. The court shall determine whether evidence in his behalf;
the juvenile should continue with the diversion program h) To have speedy and impartial trial, with legal
or his case returned to the original court for formal or other appropriate assistance and preferably in the
proceedings. presence of his parents or legal guardian, unless such

55
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

presence is considered not to be in the best interests of


the juvenile taking into account his age or other peculiar SECTION 32. Automatic Suspension of
circumstances; Sentence and Disposition Orders. — The sentence
(i) To appeal in all cases allowed and in the shall be suspended without need of application by the
manner prescribed by law; juvenile in conflict with the law. The court shall set the
j) To be accorded all the rights under the Rule on case for disposition conference within fifteen (15) days
Examination of a Child Witness; and from the promulgation of sentence which shall be
k) To have his privacy fully respected in all stages attended by the social worker of the Family Court, the
of the proceedings. juvenile, and his parents or guardian ad litem. It shall
proceed to issue any or a combination of the following
SECTION 27. Arraignment and Plea. — disposition measures best suited to the rehabilitation
The provisions of Rules 116 and 117 of the Revised and welfare of the juvenile:
Rules of Criminal Procedure shall apply to the 1. Care, guidance, and supervision orders;
arraignment of the juvenile in conflict with the law. The 2. Community service orders;
arraignment shall be scheduled within seven (7) days 3. Drug and alcohol treatment;
from the date of the filing of the complaint or 4. Participation in group counseling and similar
information with the Family Court, unless a shorter activities;
period is provided for by law. 5. Commitment to the Youth Rehabilitation Center
Arraignment shall be held in chambers and conducted by of the DSWD or other centers for juveniles in conflict
the judge by furnishing the juvenile a copy of the with the law authorized by the Secretary of the DSWD.
complaint or information, reading the same in a The Social Services and Counseling Division (SSCD)
language or dialect known to and understood by him, of the DSWD shall monitor the compliance by the
explaining the nature and consequences of a plea of juvenile in conflict with the law with the disposition
guilty or not guilty and asking him what his plea is. measure and shall submit regularly to the Family Court
a status and progress report on the matter. The Family
SECTION 28. Pre-trial. — The provisions Court may set a conference for the evaluation of such
of Rule 118 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure report in the presence, if practicable, of the juvenile, his
shall govern the pre-trial of the juvenile in conflict with parents or guardian, and other persons whose presence
the law. Agreements or admissions made during the pre may be deemed necessary.
trial conference shall be in writing and signed by the The benefits of suspended sentence shall not apply
juvenile, his parents or guardian and his counsel; to a juvenile in conflict with the law who has once
otherwise, they cannot be used against him. enjoyed suspension of sentence, or to one who is
Whenever possible and practicable, the Family convicted of an offense punishable by death, reclusion
Court shall explore all possibilities of settlement of the perpetua or life imprisonment, or when at the time of
case, except its criminal aspect. Plea bargaining shall be promulgation of judgment the juvenile is already
resorted to only as a last measure when it will serve the eighteen (18) years of age or over.
best interests of the juvenile and the demands of
restorative justice. SECTION 33. Discharge of Juvenile
Subject of Disposition Measure. — Upon the
SECTION 29. Trial. — All hearings shall recommendation of the SSCD and a duly authorized
be conducted in a manner conducive to the best officer of the DSWD, the head of an appropriate center
interests of the juvenile and in an environment that will or the duly accredited child-caring agency which has
allow him to participate fully and freely in accordance custody over the juvenile, the Family Court shall, after
with the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness. due notice to all parties and hearing, dismiss the case
against the juvenile who has been issued disposition
SECTION 30. Guiding Principles in measures, even before he has reached eighteen (18)
Judging the Juvenile. — Subject to the provisions of years of age, and order a final discharge if it finds that
the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and other special the juvenile has behaved properly and has shown the
laws, the judgment against a juvenile in conflict with the capability to be a useful member of the community.
law shall be guided by the following principles: If the Family Court, however, finds that the juvenile
1. It shall be in proportion to the gravity of the has not behaved properly, has been incorrigible, has not
offense, and shall consider the circumstances and the shown the capability of becoming a useful member of
best interests of the juvenile, the rights of the victim, society, has willfully failed to comply with the conditions
the needs of society in line with the demands of of his disposition or rehabilitation program, or should his
restorative justice. continued stay in the training institution where he has
2. Restrictions on the personal liberty of the been assigned be not in his best interests, he shall be
juvenile shall be limited to the minimum. Where brought before the court for execution of his judgment.
discretion is given by law to the judge to determine If the juvenile in conflict with the law has reached
whether the penalty to be imposed is fine or the age of eighteen (18) years while in commitment, the
imprisonment, the imposition of the latter should be Family Court shall determine whether to dismiss the
preferred as the more appropriate penalty. case in accordance with the first paragraph of this
3. No corporal punishment shall be imposed. Section or to execute the judgment of conviction. In the
latter case, unless the juvenile has already availed of
SECTION 31. Promulgation of probation under Presidential Decree No. 603 or other
Sentence. — If after trial the Family Court should find similar laws, he may apply for probation if qualified
the juvenile in conflict with the law guilty, it shall impose under the provisions of the Probation Law.
the proper penalty, including any civil liability which the The final release of the juvenile shall not extinguish
juvenile may have incurred, and promulgate the his civil liability. The parents and other persons
sentence in accordance with Section 6, Rule 120 of the exercising parental authority over the juvenile shall be
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. civilly liable for the injuries and damages caused by the

56
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

acts or omissions of the juvenile living in their company


and under their parental authority subject to the SECTION 37. Non-liability for perjury or
appropriate defenses provided by law. concealment or misrepresentation. — Any person
who has been in conflict with the law as a juvenile shall
SECTION 34. Probation as an not be held guilty of perjury or of concealment or
Alternative to Imprisonment. — After promulgation misrepresentation by reason of his failure to
of sentence and upon application at any time by the acknowledge the case or recite any fact related thereto
juvenile in conflict with the law within the period to in response to any inquiry made to him for any purpose.
appeal, the Family Court may place the juvenile on
probation, if he is qualified under the Probation Law. SECTION 38. Sealing of Records. —
The Family Court motu proprio, or on application of a
SECTION 35. Credit in Service of person who has been adjudged a juvenile in conflict with
Sentence. — The juvenile in conflict with the law who the law, or if still a minor, on motion of his parents or
has undergone preventive imprisonment shall be legal guardian, shall, upon notice to the prosecution and
credited in the service of his sentence consisting of after hearing, order the sealing of the records of the
deprivation of liberty, with the full time during which he case if it finds that two (2) years have elapsed since the
has undergone preventive imprisonment, if he agrees final discharge of the juvenile after suspension of
voluntarily in writing to abide by the same or similar sentence or probation, or from the date of the closure
disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, order and he has no pending case of an offense or a
except in any of the following cases: crime involving moral turpitude.
1. When the juvenile is a recidivist or has been Upon entry of the order, the case shall be treated
convicted previously twice or more times of any crime; as if it never occurred. All index references shall be
or deleted and in case of inquiry, the Family Court,
2. When upon being summoned for execution of prosecution, law enforcement officers and all other
sentence, he failed to surrender voluntarily. offices and agencies that dealt with the case shall reply
If the juvenile does not agree to abide by the same that no record exists with respect to the juvenile
disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, he concerned. Copies of the order shall be sent to these
shall be credited in the service of his sentence with four- officials and agencies named in the order. Inspection of
fifths of the time during which he has undergone the sealed records thereafter may be permitted only by
preventive imprisonment. order of the Family Court upon petition. of the juvenile
Whenever the juvenile has undergone preventive who is the subject of the records or of other proper
imprisonment for a period equal to or more than the parties.
possible maximum imprisonment of the offense charged This procedure shall be without prejudice to the rule
to which he may be sentenced and his case is not yet on destruction of video or audio tapes under Section 31
terminated, he shall be released immediately without of the Rule on the Examination of a Child Witness.
prejudice to the continuation of the trial thereof or the
proceeding on appeal, if the same is under review. In SECTION 39. Prohibition Against
case the maximum penalty to which the juvenile may be Labeling. — In the conduct of proceedings from initial
sentenced is destierro, he shall be released after thirty contact with the juvenile in conflict with the law to the
(30) days of preventive imprisonment. final disposition of the case, there shall be no branding
Any form of physical restraint imposed on the or labeling of the latter as a young criminal, juvenile
juvenile in conflict with the law, including community delinquent, prostitute, vagrant, or attaching to him in
service and commitment to a rehabilitation center, shall any manner any derogatory name. Likewise, no
be considered preventive imprisonment. discriminatory remarks and practices shall be allowed,
particularly with respect to the juvenile's social or
SECTION 36. Confidentiality of economic status, physical disability or ethnic origin.
Proceedings and Records. — All proceedings and
records involving juveniles in conflict with the law from SECTION 40. Contempt Powers. — A
initial contact until final disposition of the case by the person who directly or indirectly disobeys any order of
Family Court shall be considered privileged and the Family Court or obstructs or interferes with its
confidential. The public may be excluded from the proceedings or the enforcement of its orders issued
proceedings and, pursuant to the provisions of Section under this Rule shall be liable for contempt of court.
31 of the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness, the
records shall not be disclosed directly or indirectly to SECTION 41. Effectivity. — This rule shall take
anyone by any of the parties or the participants in the effect on April 15, 2002 after its publication in a
proceedings for any purpose whatsoever, except to newspaper of general circulation not later than March
determine if the juvenile may have his sentence 15, 2002.
suspended under Section 25 of this Rule or if he may be
granted probation under the Probation Law, or to Par. 4. – ANY PERSON WHO, WHILE PERFORMING
enforce the civil liability imposed in the criminal action. A LAWFUL ACT WITH DUE CARE, CAUSES AN
The Family Court shall take other measures to INJURY BY MERE ACCIDENT WITHOUT FAULT OR
protect this confidentiality of proceedings including non- INTENTION OF CAUSING IT.
disclosure of records to the media, the maintenance of a
separate police blotter for cases involving juveniles in ELEMENTS:
conflict with the law and the adoption of a system of 1. A person performing a lawful act;
coding to conceal material information, which will lead to 2. With due care;
the juvenile's identity. Records of juveniles in conflict 3. He causes an injury to another by mere
with the law shall not be used in subsequent accident;
proceedings or cases involving the same offender as an 4. Without fault or intention of causing it.
adult.

57
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

• lack of negligence or intent, i.e., striking another with her husband quarreled before the incident and then her
a gun in self-defense, even if it fired and seriously husband left the kitchen got his shotgun and went back
injured the assailant is a lawful act. to the kitchen to shoot his son.
Accused claimed that it was only an accident.
ACCIDENT – something that happens outside the sway He was merely cleaning his gun and the gun accidentally
of our will and although it comes about through some went off and his son’s buttock was hit.
act of our will, lies beyond the bounds of humanly Held: The exemption from criminal liability
foreseeable consequences. under the circumstance showing accident is based on
- If the consequences are plainly foreseeable, the lack of criminal intent. In the case at bar, accused
it will be a case of negligence. got his shotgun and returned to the kitchen to shoot his
son who had intervened in the quarrel between the
U.S. v. Tanedo former and his wife. There was clear intent to fire and
15 Phil 196 (1910) not mere accident.
Facts: The accused, while hunting, saw wild
chickens and fired a shot. The slug, after hitting a wild Nieva v. People
chicken, recoiled and struck the tenant who was a G.R. No. 188751, (2016)
relative of the accused. The man who was injured died. Petitioner Nieva cannot invoke the exempting
Held: If life is taken by misfortune or accident circumstance of accident to free him from criminal
while the actor is in the performance of a lawful act liability. Article 12 (4), Book I of the Revised Penal Code
executed with due care and without intention of doing states that “any person who, while performing a lawful
harm, there is no criminal liability. act with due care, causes an injury by mere accident
without fault or intention of causing it” shall be exempt
People v. Bindoy from criminal liability. The basis for exemption under
56 Phil 15(1931) said provision is the complete absence of negligence and
Facts: The accused, while in a drinking session, intent. The accused commits a crime but there is no
offered some tuba to Pacas’ wife but she refused so the criminal liability. An accident is a fortuitous
accused threatened to injure her if she didn’t accept. circumstance, event or happening; an event happening
Pacas stepped in to defend his wife, attempting to take wholly or partly through human agency, an event which
away from the accused the bolo he carried. In the under the circumstances is unusual or unexpected by
course of the struggle, accused succeeded in the person to whom it happens. It is an affirmative
disengaging himself from Pacas, wrenching the bolo defense which the accused is burdened to prove by clear
from the latter’s hand towards the left behind the and convincing evidence.
accused, with such violence that the point of the bolo
reached Emigdio’s chest who was then behind the To successfully claim the defense of accident,
accused. the accused must show that the following circumstances
Held: The accused, in his effort to free himself are present: (1) a person is performing a lawful act; (2)
hit Emigdio in the chest. There is no evidence that this with due care; (3) he causes an injury to another by
was done deliberately. It is merely accidental. mere accident; and (4) he had no fault in or intention of
causing the injury.
People v. Concepcion
386 SCRA 74(2002) People v. Bandian
Facts: Galang got involved in a quarrel at the 63 Phil 530 (1936)
town plaza. He was brought to the barangay hall for Facts: One morning, Josefina went to a thicket to
questioning by Brgy Captain Capitli. Shortly after, respond to a call of nature. Her neighbor saw Josefina
Concepcion arrived and fired his rifle twice or thrice past emerge from the thicket staggering and was struggling
the ears of Galang, who was then sitting, but without to support herself and her clothes were stained with
injuring him. After that, however, Concepcion thrust the blood. Her neighbor helped her get home as she was
barrel of the gun against the abdomen of Galang. Then very dizzy. Later in the day, another neighbor saw a
there was an explosion. Galang was shot in the thigh. At newborn baby. It was Josefina’s. She was charged with
least 3 more shots were fired, hitting him in the chest. infanticide and abandonment of a minor.
Lorenzo died instantly. In his defense Concepcion
claimed that the shooting was only accidental. Held:What happened was an accident. Prior to the
Held: There was no accident. By Concepcion’s incident, she was suffering from fever causing her
own testimony, the victim was unarmed. In contrast, he hemorrhage which made bearing the child difficult. She
had an armalite and a handgun. It is highly abandoned the child because she was overcome by
inconceivable that an unarmed man could pose bodily strong dizziness and debility. There was no fault or
harm to another who is heavily armed. Concepcion’s gun intent to kill the baby.
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 his cocked Par 5. – ANY PERSON WHO ACTS UNDER THE
and loaded rifle. In that state, with the slightest COMPULSION OF AN IRRESISTIBLE FORCE.
movement of his finger, the rifle would fire readily. And
it did not just once but several fires. Concepcion is ELEMENTS:
guilty of homicide. 1. That the compulsion is by means of
physical force.
People v. Agliday 2. That the physical force must be
367 SCRA 273 (2001) irresistible.
Facts: The wife of the accused was washing 3. That the physical force must come from a
dishes in the kitchen when her son was shot with a third person
shotgun by her husband. Conchita claimed that she and

58
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

• Complete absence of freedom. and to make him a mere instrument without will. The
• Before force can be considered to be an irresistible fear was not insuperable.
one, it must produce such an effect upon the individual
that, in spite of all resistance, it reduces him to a mere U.S. v. Caballeros
instrument and, as such, incapable of committing a 4 Phil 350 (1905)
crime. Facts: The defendants have been sentenced as
accessories in the crime of assassination of 4 American
• The irresistible force can never consist in an impulse or school teachers. The defendants took part in the burial
passion or obfuscation. It must consist of an extraneous of the corpses of the victims.
force coming from a third person. Held: The defendant Baculi is exempt from
criminal liability because he only assisted in the burial
• A person who acts under the compulsion of an because he was compelled to do so by the murderers.
irresistible force, like one who acts under the impulse of As to defendant Caballeros, there is no proof that he
uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury is exempt took part in any way in the execution of the crime. His
from criminal liability because he does not act with confession cannot be accepted as proof on a trial
freedom. because it was not done voluntarily.

People v. Lising People v. Fronda


285 SCRA 595 (1998) 222 SCRA 71 (1993)
Facts: Manalili asked Garcia if he could find Facts: Balaan brothers were taken by 7 armed
someone who could effect the arrest of Robert Herrera, NPA members accompanied by accused Fronda and
the suspect on the killing of his brother. Garcia Padua. The accused are both residents of the same
introduced Lising and they came up with an agreement. place. The two were convicted of murder. Fronda
Lising’s surveillance group was at the Castanos’ appealed claiming he was merely taken by the armed
residence in the hope of spotting Herrera. The group men as a “pointer”.
saw a man and a woman (the victims) leave the Held: Records show that appellant’s
residence and followed them. Alighting from the car, the participation in the commission of the crime consisted
two were accosted. The abduction of the 2 hit the front of: 1) leading the members of the armed group to the
pages and two guards told the police that their friends house where the victims were found, 2) tying the
who were employees of Lising informed them that Lising victims’ hands and 3) digging the grave where the
killed the 2 victims. Later, the bodies of the 2 were victims were buried. He is not a principal by
found. Lower court found that since there was an indispensable cooperation but only an accomplice. The
agreement among Manalili, Garcia and Lising, they were defense of uncontrollable fear cannot be accepted
all co-conspirators of the crime and therefore liable because the fact that the accused was seen being
principally. Garcia claimed that he acted under handed by and receiving a hunting knife from one of the
compulsion of irresistible force. armed men, as well as, his inexplicable failure to report
Held: To be exempt from criminal liability, a the incident to the authorities for more than 3 years
person invoking irresistible force must show that the negates the existence of uncontrollable fear, such acts
force exerted was such that it reduced him to a mere being indicative of his conscious concurrence with the
instrument who acted not only without will but against acts of the assailants.
his will. Garcia’s participation and presence from the
time the abduction was hatched up to the killing of the Ty v. People (supra)
victims is undisputed. Conspiracy has been established. Facts: Ty's mother Chua Lao So Un was
confined at the Manila Doctors' Hospital from October
People v. Elicanal 1990 until June 1992. Being the patient's daughter, Ty
35 Phil 209 (1916) signed the "Acknowledgment of Responsibility for
Facts: The accused was a member of the crew Payment" in the Contract of Admission. Ty's sister, Judy
of a lorcha and Guiloresa was the chief mate. The latter Chua, was also confined at the same hospital. The total
mentioned that he was going to kill the captain because hospital bills of the two patients amounted to
he was very angry with him and asked him to assist P1,075,592.95. Ty executed a promissory note wherein
him. The accused took this statement as a joke and he she assumed payment of the obligation in installments.
was smiling only when he made the statement. The To assure payment of the obligation, she drew 7
following morning, Guillermo assaulted the captain and postdated checks against Metrobank payable to the
with the help of the crew (except the accused) seized hospital which were all dishonored by the drawee bank
the captain and tied him with a rope. Guillermo then and returned unpaid to the hospital due to insufficiency
struck the captain at the back of the neck with an iron of funds. For her defense, Ty claimed that she issued the
bar and then, delivering the weapon to the accused checks because of “an uncontrollable fear of a greater
ordered him to come forward and assist. The accused injury” She averred that she was forced to issue the
struck the captain on the head which caused the latter’s checks to obtain release for her mother who was being
death. inhumanely and harshly treated by the hospital. She
Held: Before one uses the defense of acting alleged that her mother has comtemplated suicide if she
under uncontrollable fear, it must appear that the threat would not be discharged from the hospital. Ty was found
which caused the fear was an evil greater than or at guilty by the lower courts of 7 counts of violation of
least equal to that which he required to commit and that BP22.
it promised an evil of such gravity and imminence that it Held: The court sustained the findings of the
might be said that the ordinary man would have lower courts. The evil sought to be avoided is merely
succumbed to it. Evidence fails to establish that the expected or anticipated. If the evil sought to be avoided
threat directed to the accused by the chiefmate, if any, is merely expected or anticipated or may happen in the
was of such character as to deprive him of all volition future, the defense of an uncontrollable fear of a greater
injury is not applicable. Ty could have taken advantage

59
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

of an available option to avoid committing a crime. By U.S. v. Vicentillo


her own admission, she had the choice to give jewelry or 19 Phil 118 (1911)
other forms of security instead of postdated checks to A policeman cannot be held liable for illegal
secure her obligation. detention when after arresting his victims, it took him
Moreover, for the defense of state of necessity three days to reach the nearest judge. The distance
to be availing, the greater injury feared should not have which required a journey for three days was considered
been brought about by the negligence or imprudence, to be an insuperable cause.
more so, the willful inaction of the actor. In this case,
the issuance of the bounced checks was brought about People v. Bandian
by Ty's own failure to pay her mother's hospital bills. 63 Phil 530 (1936)
A woman cannot be held liable for infanticide
when she left her newborn child in the bushes without
Par 6. – ANY PERSON WHO ACTS UNDER THE being aware that she had given birth at all. Severe
IMPULSE OF AN UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR OF AN dizziness and extreme debility made it physically
EQUAL OR GREATER INJURY. impossible for Bandian to take home the child plus the
assertion that she didn’t know that she had given birth.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the threat which causes the fear is of People v. Ventura
an evil greater than or at least equal to, 433 SCRA 389 (2004)
that which he is required to commit; Facts: Flores learned of the alleged affair of his wife with
2. That it promises an evil of such gravity Jaime Borinaga. Flores went to his uncle Ventura to plan
and imminence that the ordinary man on how to confront Jaime about the issue. Flores and
would have succumbed to it. Ventura arrived outside the house of Jaime at 11:00
p.m. They waited until 2:00 a.m. before entering the
• Lack of Intent. house. Flores woke up Jaime and pointed a gun at him.
• REQUISITES: a. existence of an uncontrollable fear; b. Jaime tried to wrestle the gun from Flores. Jaime’s wife
the fear must be real and imminent; and c. the fear of Aileen woke up and called for help. She was stabbed
an injury is greater than or at least equal to that twice by Ventura which led to her death. The accused
committed. were convicted of murder and attempted murder.

• Duress as a valid defense should be based on real, Held:The accused deliberately took advantage of
imminent or reasonable fear for one’s life or limb and nighttime. They waited until 2:00 a.m. when the people
should not be speculative, fanciful or remote fear. in the house were already asleep before entering.
Nocturnity was purposely sought by the accused to
• A threat of future injury is not enough. The compulsion facilitate the commission of the offense.
must be of such a character as to leave no opportunity
to the accused for escape or self-defense in equal
combat.
3. MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
• Speculative, fanciful and remote fear is not
uncontrollable fear. Mitigating circumstances are those which, if
present in the commission of the crime, do not entirely
• The case of US v. Exaltation is also an example were free the actor from criminal liability, but serve only to
there is real, imminent or reasonable fear. reduce the penalty.
They are based on the diminution of either
IRRESISTIBLE FORCE UNCONTROLLABLE freedom of action, intelligence or intent or on the lesser
FEAR perversity of the offender.
The offender uses violence The offender employs
or physical force to compel intimidation or threat in CLASSES OF MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
another person to commit compelling another to 1. ORDINARY MITIGATING
the crime. commit a crime. - Those mentioned in subsections 1 to 10 of Art.
13.
2. PRIVILEGED MITIGATING
JUSTIFYING EXEMPTING
There is neither a crime There is a crime but no
nor a criminal. criminal. The act is not Art. 68. Penalty to be imposed upon a person
justified but the actor is under eighteen years of age. — When the offender is
not criminally liable. a minor under eighteen years and his case is one
coming under the provisions of the paragraphs next to
No civil liability except in There is civil liability
the last of Article 80 of this Code, the following rules
no. 4 except no. 4 and 7.
shall be observed:
1. Upon a person under fifteen but over nine
Par. 7 – ANY PERSON WHO FAILS TO PERFORM AN years of age, who is not exempted from liability by
ACT REQUIRED BY LAW, WHEN PREVENTED BY reason of the court having declared that he acted with
SOME LAWFUL OR INSUPERABLE CAUSE. discernment, a discretionary penalty shall be imposed,
but always lower by two degrees at least than that
ELEMENTS: prescribed by law for the crime which he committed.
1. That an act is required by law to be done; 2. Upon a person over fifteen and under
2. That a person fails to perform such act; eighteen years of age the penalty next lower than that
3. That his failure to perform such act was due to prescribed by law shall be imposed, but always in the
some lawful or insuperable cause. proper period.

60
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

Art. 69. Penalty to be imposed when the crime 9. Such illness of the offender as would
committed is not wholly excusable. — A penalty diminish the exercise of the will-power of the offender
lower by one or two degrees than that prescribed by law without however depriving him of the consciousness of
shall be imposed if the deed is not wholly excusable by his acts.
reason of the lack of some of the conditions required to 10. And, finally, any other circumstances of a
justify the same or to exempt from criminal liability in similar nature and analogous to those above mentioned.
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 Par. 1- THOSE MENTIONED IN THE PRECEDING
may be deemed proper, in view of the number and CHAPTER, WHEN ALL THE REQUISITES NECESSARY
nature of the conditions of exemption present or lacking. TO JUSTIFY OR TO EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL
LIABILITY IN THE RESPECTIVE CASES ARE NOT
• Privileged mitigating circumstances which are ATTENDANT.
applicable only to particular crimes:
1. Art. 268, par. 3. Voluntary release of the The circumstances of justification or exemption
person illegally detained within 3 days without the which may give place to mitigation, because not all the
offender attaining his purpose and before the institution requisites necessary to justify the act or to exempt from
of criminal action. The penalty is one degree lower. criminal liability in the respective cases are attendant,
2. Art. 333, par. 3. Abandonment without are the ff: (see Article 69)
justification of the spouse who committed adultery. The 1. Self-defense
penalty is one degree lower. 2. Defense of Relatives
3. Defense of Strangers
4. State of necessity
ORDINARY MC PRIVILEDGED MC 5. Performance of duty
Susceptible of being offset Cannot be offset by 6. Obedience to order of superior
by any aggravating aggravating circumstance 7. Minority over 15 and under 18 years of
circumstance age
If not offset by The effect of imposing 8. Causing injury by mere accident
aggravating circumstance, upon the offender the 9. Uncontrollable fear
produces the effect of penalty lower by one or
applying the penalty two degrees than that INCOMPLETE JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE
provided by law for the provided by law for the
crime in its min period in crime. 1. Incomplete self-defense, defense of
case of divisible penalty relatives, defense of stranger

•• NOTE: Mitigating circumstances only reduce the § In these 3 classes of defense, UNLAWFUL
penalty but do not change the nature of the crime. AGGRESSION must always be present. It is an
indispensable requisite.
Art. 13. Mitigating circumstances. — The following § Par. 1 of Art. 13 is applicable only when unlawful
are mitigating circumstances; aggression is present but the other 2 requisites are not
1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, present in any of the cases referred to in circumstances
when all the requisites necessary to justify or to exempt number 1, 2 and 3 or Art. 11.
from criminal liability in the respective cases are not § Ex. When the one making defense against unlawful
attendant. aggression used unreasonable means to prevent or repel
2. That the offender is under eighteen year of it, he is entitled to a privileged mitigating circumstance.
age or over seventy years. In the case of the minor, he
shall be proceeded against in accordance with the 2. Incomplete justifying circumstance of
provisions of Art. 80. avoidance of greater evil or injury.
3. That the offender had no intention to
commit so grave a wrong as that committed. REQUISITES under par. 4 of Art. 11:
4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the a. That the evil sought to be avoided
part of the offended party immediately preceded the act. actually exists;
5. That the act was committed in the b. That the injury feared be greater
immediate vindication of a grave offense to the one than that done to avoid it;
committing the felony (delito), his spouse, ascendants, c. That there be no other practical and
or relatives by affinity within the same degrees. less harmful means of preventing it.
6. That of having acted upon an impulse so
powerful as naturally to have produced passion or § Avoidance of greater evil or injury is a justifying
obfuscation. circumstance if all the three requisites mentioned in par.
7. That the offender had voluntarily 4 of Art. 11 are present. But if any of the last two
surrendered himself to a person in authority or his requisites are lacking, there is only a mitigating
agents, or that he had voluntarily confessed his guilt circumstance.
before the court prior to the presentation of the
evidence for the prosecution; 3. Incomplete justifying circumstance of
8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or performance of duty.
otherwise suffering some physical defect which thus
restricts his means of action, defense, or REQUISITES under par. 5 of Art. 11:
communications with his fellow beings.

61
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

a. That the accused acted in the a. That the threat which caused the fear was
performance of a duty or in the lawful of an evil greater than, or at least equal to,
exercise of a right or office; and that which he was required to commit;
b. That the injury caused or offense b. That it promised an evil of such gravity
committed be the necessary consequence and imminence that an ordinary person
of the due performance of such duty or would have succumbed to it.
the lawful exercise of such right or office.
● If only one of these requisites is present,
In People v. Oanis, the SC considered one of there is only a mitigating circumstance.
the 2 requisites as constituting the majority. It seems
that there is no ordinary mitigating circumstance under Par. 2 – THAT THE OFFENDER IS [UNDER 18 YEARS
Art. 13 par. 1 when the justifying or exempting OF AGE] OR OVER 70 YEARS. IN THE CASE OF THE
circumstance has 2 requisites only. MINOR, HE SHALL BE PROCEEDED AGAINST IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF ART. 80.
People v. Ulep
340 SCRA 688 (2000) Par. 2 contemplates the ff:
Facts: One early morning, Wapili was suffering from a 1. An offender over 70 years old.
high fever and was heard talking to himself in his room.
His brother in law was unable to pacify Wapili so called
Art. 80. Suspension of sentence of minor
Pastor Borial to pray over his suffering relative.
delinquents. — Whenever a minor of either sex, under
However, Wapili went amuck and went outside the
sixteen years of age at the date of the commission of a
house and became wild and violent. When the police
grave or less grave felony, is accused thereof, the court,
responded, Wapili charged at the officers with a rattan
after hearing the evidence in the proper proceedings,
stool. SPO1 Ulep fired a warning shot but Wapili
instead of pronouncing judgment of conviction, shall
continued advancing. The police officer shot Wapili who
suspend all further proceedings and shall commit such
fell to the ground. SPO1 Ulep shot Wapili at the back of
minor to the custody or care of a public or private,
the head which led to the victim’s death. The trial court
benevolent or charitable institution, established under
convicted SPO1 Ulep with murder.
the law of the care, correction or education of orphaned,
homeless, defective, and delinquent children, or to the
Held: There was incomplete justifying circumstance as
custody or care of any other responsible person in any
defined in Article 69. While the officer was acting in the
other place subject to visitation and supervision by the
fulfillment of his duty, the injury he caused was in
Director of Public Welfare or any of his agents or
excess of what as necessary to perform his task of
representatives, if there be any, or otherwise by the
pacifying the danger. In this case, Wapili was already
superintendent of public schools or his representatives,
down on the ground when he was shot to the head, the
subject to such conditions as are prescribed herein
danger already ceased and the killing was unnecessary.
below until such minor shall have reached his majority
age or for such less period as the court may deem
proper.
INCOMPLETE EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE
The court, in committing said minor as
provided above, shall take into consideration the religion
1. Incomplete exempting circumstance of
of such minor, his parents or next of kin, in order to
minority over 15 and under 18 years of age.
avoid his commitment to any private institution not
under the control and supervision of the religious sect or
REQUISITES under par. 3 of Art. 12:
denomination to which they belong.
a. That the offender is over 9 and under 15
The Director of Public Welfare or his duly
years old; and
authorized representatives or agents, the
b. That he does not act with discernment.
superintendent of public schools or his representatives,
or the person to whose custody or care the minor has
2. Incomplete exempting circumstance of
been committed, shall submit to the court every four
accident.
months and as often as required in special cases, a
written report on the good or bad conduct of said minor
REQUISITES under par. 4 of Art. 12:
and the moral and intellectual progress made by him.
a. A person is performing a lawful act;
The suspension of the proceedings against a
b. With due care;
minor may be extended or shortened by the court on
c. He causes an injury to another by mere
the recommendation of the Director of Public Welfare or
accident; and
his authorized representative or agents, or the
d. Without fault or intention of causing it.
superintendent of public schools or his representatives,
according as to whether the conduct of such minor has
● If the 2nd requisite and 1st part of the 4th
been good or not and whether he has complied with the
requisite are absent, the case will fall under Art. 365
conditions imposed upon him, or not. The provisions of
which punishes reckless imprudence.
the first paragraph of this article shall not, however, be
affected by those contained herein.
● If the 1st requisite and 2nd part of the 4th
If the minor has been committed to the
requisite are absent, it will be an intentional felony.
custody or care of any of the institutions mentioned in
the first paragraph of this article, with the approval of
3. Incomplete exempting circumstance of
the Director of Public Welfare and subject to such
uncontrollable fear.
conditions as this official in accordance with law may
deem proper to impose, such minor may be allowed to
REQUISITES under par. 6 of Art. 12:
stay elsewhere under the care of a responsible person.

62
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

If the minor has behaved properly and has ª Lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong is
complied with the conditions imposed upon him during not appreciated where the offense committed is
his confinement, in accordance with the provisions of characterized by treachery.
this article, he shall be returned to the court in order ª In crimes against persons who do not die as
that the same may order his final release. a result of the assault, the absence of the intent to kill
In case the minor fails to behave properly or to reduces the felony to mere physical injuries, but it does
comply with the regulations of the institution to which not constitute a mitigating circumstance under Art. 13
he has been committed or with the conditions imposed par 3.
upon him when he was committed to the care of a ª It is not applicable to felonies by negligence
responsible person, or in case he should be found because in these kinds of felonies, there is no intent on
incorrigible or his continued stay in such institution the part of the offender which may be considered
should be inadvisable, he shall be returned to the court diminished.
in order that the same may render the judgment § Par. 3 is only applicable to offense resulting
corresponding to the crime committed by him. in physical injuries or material harm. It is not applicable
The expenses for the maintenance of a minor to defamation or slander.
delinquent confined in the institution to which he has
been committed, shall be borne totally or partially by his People v. Ural
parents or relatives or those persons liable to support 56 SCRA 138 (1974)
him, if they are able to do so, in the discretion of the Facts: Witness Alberto saw policeman Ural
court; Provided, That in case his parents or relatives or inside the jail boxing detention prisoner Napola. As
those persons liable to support him have not been Napola collapsed on the floor, Ural went out to get a
ordered to pay said expenses or are found indigent and bottle. He poured the contents to the dress of Napola
cannot pay said expenses, the municipality in which the and set it on fire. Napola got burned and he asked
offense was committed shall pay one-third of said mercy from Ural. Instead, Ural locked him up and
expenses; the province to which the municipality threatened the witness not to tell anyone or else he will
belongs shall pay one-third; and the remaining one-third be burned also. When Napola was already suffering
shall be borne by the National Government: Provided, much from the burns, Ural became frightened and he
however, That whenever the Secretary of Finance and Siton helped put out the fire. Napola died later
certifies that a municipality is not able to pay its share in because of the burns.
the expenses above mentioned, such share which is not Held: Offender is criminally liable although
paid by said municipality shall be borne by the National consequence of his felonious act was not intended by
Government. Chartered cities shall pay two-thirds of him. This is covered by Art. 4 of the RPC. The TC failed
said expenses; and in case a chartered city cannot pay to appreciate the mitigating circumstance that the
said expenses, the internal revenue allotments which offender has no intention to commit so grave a wrong
may be due to said city shall be withheld and applied in as that committed. It is manifest from the facts that the
settlement of said indebtedness in accordance with accused had no intent to kill the victim. His only design
section five hundred and eighty-eight of the was only to maltreat him maybe because of his drunken
Administrative Code. condition. When the accused realized the fearful
consequences of his act, he allowed the victim to secure
medical treatment.

LEGAL EFFECTS OF VARIOUS AGES OF OFFENDER: People v. Amit


1. Minor delinquent under 18 years of age, the 32 SCRA 95(1970)
sentence may be suspended. (Art. 192, P.D. No. Facts: Amit pleads guilty to rape with homicide
603 as amended by P.D. No. 1179) and sentenced to death. Amit appeals claiming that
2. Under 18 years of age, privileged mitigating there are 3 mitigating circumstances including lack of
circumstance (Art. 68) intention to commit so grave a wrong.
3. 18 years or over, full criminal responsibility. Held: A great disproportion between means
employed to accomplish the criminal act on the one
hand, and its consequences on the other, must first be
Par. 3 – THAT THE OFFENDER HAD NO INTENTION shown. Otherwise, the mitigating circumstance could
TO COMMIT SO GRAVE WRONG AS THAT not be considered.
COMMITTED. Based on the narration given by the accused
where he said that he held victim’s neck down as he
boxed her in the face, and considering moreover that
ª This circumstance can be taken into account
the victim was 57 years old while the accused was only
only when the facts proven show that there is a notable
32, the court held that the means employed by the
and evident disproportion between the means employed
accused was sufficient to have caused the death of the
to execute the criminal act and its consequences.
victim.
ª The intention, as an internal act, is judged
Death penalty should be imposed. It is a single
not only by the proportion of the means employed by
indivisible penalty applied regardless of mitigating
him to the evil produced by his act, but also by the fact
circumstance, especially when records of the present
that the blow was or was not aimed at a vital part of
case evince the aggravating circumstances of nighttime
the body.
and abuse of superior strength.
ª Intention must be judged by considering the
weapon used, the injury inflicted and the attitude of the
mind when the accused attacked the deceased.
ª This mitigating circumstance is not
applicable when the offender employed brute force.

63
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

People v. Regato People v. Pagal


127 SCRA 287 (1984) 79 SCRA 570 (1977)
Facts: Regato, Ramirez and Salceda robbed Facts: Pagal and Torcelino, employees of Gau
the store of Victor Flores. Victor was maltreated to force Guan, conspired together to take away from their
him to reveal where their money was. The robbers employer P1,281.00. When Gau Guan refused to open
found the money in a place different from where Victor the kaha de yero, they stabbed him with an icepick and
revealed to them. Ramirez got mad and called Victor a clubbed him with an iron pipe which resulted to his
liar. Victor retorted, “you robbers!”. With this remark, death. The two accused were charged with the crime of
Ramirez shot Victor and the three rushed out of the robbery with homicide. On appeal, they claimed that
house. they are entitled to 2 mitigating circumstances:
Held: The SC did not find merit in the sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the
contention that there was lack of intent to commit so offended party and having acted upon an impulse so
grave a wrong as that committed. Intention is a mental powerful as to produce passion and obfuscation.
process and is an internal state of mind. The intention Held: The 2 mitigating circumstances cannot
must be judged by the ACTION, CONDUCT and be considered as 2 distinct and separate circumstances
EXTERNAL ACTS of the accused. What men do is the but should only be treated as one because they both
best index of their intention. In the case at bar, the arose from the same incident – the alleged
aforesaid mitigating circumstance cannot be maltreatment of Pagal and Torcelino by Gau Guan. The
appreciated considering that the acts employed by the circumstance of passion and obfuscation cannot be
accused were reasonably sufficient to produce the mitigating in a crime which is planned and calmly
result that they actually made – the death of the victim. meditated before its execution. Also, provocation in
order to be mitigating must be sufficient and
People v. Callet immediately preceding the act. In this case, it was
382 SCRA 43 (2002) months ago when the incident of alleged maltreatment
Facts: Alfredo, Lecpoy and Eduardo were took place.
beside each other as they watched a cara y cruz game.
Alfredo sat close to the ground, with his buttocks Romera v. People
resting on his right foot. Lecpoy and Eduardo sat on a 434 SCRA 467(2004)
piece of wood and on a stone, respectively. Out of Facts: While lying in bed, Romera heard the
nowhere, the accused, Callet, appeared behind Alfredo victim Roy call him and his wife, asking if they had beer
and stabbed the latter on the left shoulder near the and a fighter for sale. He did not answer Roy because
base of the neck with a 9-inch hunting knife. he knew that Roy was already drunk. Roy asked for
Instinctively, Alfredo stood up and managed to walk a Romera but when the latter's wife told him that he was
few meters. When he fell on the ground, Lecpoy and already asleep, Roy told her to wake her husband up.
Eduardo rushed to help him but to no avail. Alfredo died Romera went down the house and asked who was at
shortly thereafter. Calleto voluntary surrendered. He the door. Just as he opened the door for Roy, Roy
claims that his liability should be mitigated by the fact thrust his bolo at him. He successfully parried the bolo
that he had no intention to commit so grave a wrong. and asked Roy what it was all about. Roy answered he
Held: The lack of "intent" to commit a wrong would kill Romera. Romera tried to prevent Roy from
so grave is an internal state. It is weighed based on the entering, so he pushed the door shut. As Roy was
weapon used, the part of the body injured, the injury hacking at the wall, Romera’s wife held the door to
inflicted and the manner it is inflicted. The fact that the allow Romera to exit in another door to face Roy. He
accused used a 9-inch hunting knife in attacking the hurled a stone at Roy, who dodged it. Roy rushed to
victim from behind, without giving him an opportunity him and hacked him, but he parried the blow. Petitioner
to defend himself, clearly shows that he intended to do grappled for the bolo and stabbed Roy in the stomach.
what he actually did, and he must be held responsible Wounded, Roy begged petitioner for forgiveness.
therefor, without the benefit of this mitigating Romera ceased harming Roy for fear he might kill him.
circumstance. Held: There was sufficient provocation and the
circumstance of passion or obfuscation attended the
commission of the offense. Thrusting his bolo at
Par. 4. – THAT SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION OR Romera, threatening to kill him, and hacking the
THREAT ON THE PART OF THE OFFENDED PARTY bamboo walls of his house are sufficient provocation to
IMMEDIATELY PRECEDED THE ACT. enrage any man, or stir his rage and obfuscate his
thinking, more so when the lives of his wife and
PROVOCATION children are in danger. Romera stabbed the victim as a
- Any unjust or improper conduct or act of the result of those provocations, and while Romera was still
offended party, capable of exciting, inciting, or irritating in a fit of rage.
anyone. The court however stressed that provocation
and passion or obfuscation are not 2 separate
REQUISITES: mitigating circumstances. Well-settled is the rule that if
a. That the provocation must be sufficient these 2 circumstances are based on the same facts,
b. That it must originate from the offended party they should be treated together as one mitigating
c. That the provocation must be immediate to the circumstance. From the facts established in this case, it
act, i.e., to the commission of the crime by the is clear that both circumstances arose from the same
person who is provoked. set of facts aforementioned. Hence, they should not be
treated as two separate mitigating circumstances.

64
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

Par. 5. – THAT THE ACT WAS COMMITTED IN THE People v. Parana


IMMEDIATE VINDICATION OF A GRAVE OFFENSE 64 Phil 331 (1937)
TO THE ONE COMMITTING THE FELONY (DELITO), Facts: The preceding night, Parana and Lamay
HIS SPOUSE, ASCENDANTS, DESCENDANTS, were at the house of the deceased’s brother playing
LEGITIMATE, NATURAL OR ADOPTED BROTHERS cards when the two had an exchange of words so the
OR SISTERS, OR RELATIVES BY AFFINITY WITHIN deceased asked them to leave. The accused refused so
THE SAME DEGREE. the deceased slapped him and ordered him to leave.
The morning after, Parana was about to surprise the
REQUISITES: deceased and stab him from behind when the chauffeur
a. That there be a grave offense done to the one shouted to warn the deceased. The deceased,
committing the felony, his spouse, ascendants, defending himself retreated until he fell into a ditch.
descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted The appellant mounted astride of the deceased and
brothers or sisters, or relatives by affinity within continued to stab him with the dagger. The deceased
the same degree. was first brought to the hospital but expired 6 days
b. That the felony is committed in vindication of after.
such grave offense. A lapse of time is allowed Held: The mitigating circumstance that he had
between the vindication and the doing of the acted in the immediate vindication of a grave offense
grave offense. committed against him a few hours before, when he
was slapped by the deceased in the presence of many
persons, must likewise be taken into consideration.
PROVOCATION VINDICATION Although this offense (slapping) was not so immediate,
the court believes that the influence thereof, by reason
It is made directly only to The grave offense may be
of its gravity and the circumstances under which it was
the person committing the committed also against
inflicted, lasted until the moment the crime was
offense the offender’s relatives
committed.
mentioned in the law.
The cause that brought The offended party must
People v. Diokno
about the provocation have done a grave offense
63 Phil 601 (1936)
need not be a grave to the offender or his
Facts: The deceased and the daughter of
offense. relatives mentioned in the
accused Epifanio eloped. Epifanio and his son, Roman
law.
went to look for them. When they were able to find the
It is necessary that the The vindication of the
deceased, they stabbed him several times until he died.
provocation or threat grave offense may be
Held: The presence of the 5th mitigating
immediately preceded the proximate, which admits
circumstance must be taken into consideration. There
act. of an interval of time
was no interruption from the time the offense was
between the grace offense
committed to the vindication thereof. The herein
done by the offended
accused belong to a family of old customs to whom the
party and the commission
elopement of a daughter with a man constitutes a grave
of the crime.
offense to their honor and causes disturbance of the
peace of the home. The fact that the accused saw the
deceased run upstairs when he became aware of their
Basis to determine the gravity of offense in presence, as if he refused to deal with them after
vindication having gravely offended them, was certainly a stimulus
The question whether or not a certain personal strong enough to produce in their mind a fit of passion
offense is grave must be decided by the court, having in which blinded them and led them to commit that crime.
mind the social standing of the person, the place and
the time when the insult was made. People v. Torpio
431 SCRA 9 (2004)
ª Vindication of a grave offense and passion or Facts: While having a drinking spree in a
obfuscation cannot be counted separately and cottage, Anthony tried to let Dennis Torpio drink gin
independently. and as the latter refused, Anthony bathed Dennis with
gin and mauled him several times. Dennis crawled
U.S. v. Ampar beneath the table and Anthony tried to stab him with a
37 Phil 201 (1917) 29 fan knife but did not hit him. Dennis got up and ran
Facts: A fiesta was in progress and the accused towards their home. Upon reaching home, he got a
Ampar went to the kitchen and asked from Patobo some knife. He went back to the cottage by another route
of the roast pig. Patobo replied, “There is no more. and upon arrival Anthony was still there. Upon seeing
Come here and I will make roast pig of you.” Later, Dennis, Anthony avoided Dennis and ran by passing the
while Patobo was squatting down, Ampar struck him on shore towards the creek but Dennis met him, blocked
the head with an ax, causing his death the following him and stabbed him. When he was hit, Anthony ran
day. The TC appreciated the mitigating circumstance of but got entangled with a fishing net beside the creek
immediate vindication of a grave offense. and fell on his back. Dennis then mounted on him and
Held: The offense which the defendant was continued stabbing him resulting to the latters death.
endeavoring to vindicate would be to the average person Thereafter, Dennis left and slept at a grassy meadow
considered as a mere trifle. But to this defendant, an old near a Camp. In the morning, he went to Estrera, a
man, it evidently was a serious matter to be made the police officer to whom he voluntarily surrendered.
butt of a joke in the presence of so many guests. The TC Held: The mitigating circumstance of having
was correct. acted in the immediate vindication of a grave offense is
properly appreciated. Dennis was humiliated, mauled
and almost stabbed by Anthony. Although the unlawful

65
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

aggression had ceased when Dennis stabbed Anthony,


it was nonetheless a grave offense for which Dennis People v. Muit
may be given the benefit of a mitigating circumstance. 117 SCRA 696 (1982)
However, the mitigating circumstance of sufficient Facts: Rosario Muit was the Brgy. Zone
provocation cannot be considered apart from the President and Torrero was the zone auditor. They used
circumstance of vindication of a grave offense. These to meet frequently because they were having an affair
two circumstances arose from one and the same which eventually reached the husband of Rosario,
incident, i.e., the attack on the appellant by Anthony, Delfin. Delfin shot Torrero 3 times at the front yard of
so that they should be considered as only one the Muits. Delfin surrendered himself and turned in the
mitigating circumstance. pistol he had used.
Held: Muit is guilty of murder with mitigating
Par. 6. – THAT OF HAVING ACTED UPON AN circumstances of voluntary surrender and passion and
IMPULSE SO POWERFUL AS NATURALLY TO HAVE obfuscation. The accused was driven strongly by
PRODUCED PASSION OR OBFUSCATION. jealousy. The feeling of resentment resulting from the
rivalry in amorous relations with a woman is a powerful
REQUISITES: stimulant to jealousy and prone to produce anger and
a. The accused acted upon an impulse. obfuscation.
b. The impulse must be so powerful that it
naturally produce passion or obfuscation U.S. v. Hicks
in him. 14 Phil 217(1909)
Facts: For about 5 years, Hicks and Sola lived
ª Passion or obfuscation may constitute as a mitigating together as husband and wife when they separated. A
circumstance only when the same arose from LAWFUL few days later, Sola contracted new relations with
SENTIMENTS. It is not applicable when: another negro named Wallace. Hicks went to Wallace’s
a. The act committed in a spirit of LAWLESSNESS. house and asked the latter to go out. They talked for
b. the act is committed in a spirit of REVENGE. awhile and then Hicks shot Wallace
Held: Even if it is true that the accused acted
ª The crime committed must be the result of a sudden with obfuscation because of jealousy, the mitigating
impulse of natural and uncontrollable fury. circumstance cannot be considered in his favor because
the causes which mitigate criminal responsibility for the
ª The accused who raped a woman is not entitled to the loss of self-control are such which originate from
mitigating circumstance of “having acted upon an legitimate feelings and not those which arise from
impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced vicious, unworthy and immoral passions. The cause of
passion” just because he finds himself in a secluded the passion of the accused was his vexation
place with that young ravishing woman, almost naked engendered by the refusal of the woman to continue to
and therefore, “liable to succumb to the uncontrollable live in illicit relations with him, which she had a perfect
passion of his bestial instinct.” right to do.

ª The mitigating circumstance of obfuscation arising US v. De la Cruz


from jealousy cannot be invoked in favor of the accused 22 Phil 429 (1912)
whose relationship with the woman was illegitimate. Facts: The evidence clearly discloses that the
convict, in the heat of passion, killed the deceased, who
ª Passion and obfuscation may lawfully arise from had theretofore been his lover upon discovering her in
causes existing only in the honest belief of the offender. flagrante in carnal communication with a mutual
acquaintance.
Held: The accused was entitled to the
mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation
PASSION OR IRRESISTIBLE FORCE
because the impulse was caused by the sudden
OBFUSCATION
revelation that she was untrue to him, and his
Mitigating circumstance Exempting circumstance
discovery of her in flagrante in the arms of another.
Cannot give rise to an
• Note: when the court used the word “illicit”,
irresistible force because
it doesn’t mean that it is an illegitimate or
the latter requires physical
bigamous relationship. It means that it is
force
cohabitation without a valid marriage.
Passion or obfuscation is in Irresistible force must
the offender himself come from a third person
People v. Germina
Must arise from lawful The irresistible force is 290 SCRA 146(1998)
sentiments unlawful Facts: One night, the accused went to the
Angeles residence to look for Raymund. He went to
PASSION PROVOCATION verify the news that the latter mauled and stabbed the
Produced by an impulse Comes form the injured accused’s mentally retarded brother, Rafael. Raymund
which may be caused by party was not yet at home and the moment he arrived, the
provocation accused spotted him and shot him.
Need not be immediate. It Must immediately precede Held: There is no treachery. Passion cannot co-
is only required that the the commission of the exist with treachery because in passion, the offender
influence thereof lasts crime loses his control and reason while in treachery the
until the moment the means employed are consciously adopted. One who
crime is committed loses his reason and self-control could not deliberately
The effect is the loss of reason and self-control on the employ a particular method or form of attack in the
part of the offender. execution of the crime. Passion existed in this case

66
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

because it clearly arose from lawful sentiments or People v. Bates


legitimate feelings. The accused committed the crime 400 SCRA 95 (2003)
due to the maltreatment inflicted by the victim on his Facts: While Edgar, Simon, and Jose are along
mentally retarded brother. a trail leading to the house of Carlito Bates, the latter
suddenly emerged from the thick banana plantation
People v. Gonzalez surrounding the trail, aiming his firearm at Jose who was
359 SCRA 352 (2001) then walking ahead of his companions. Jose grabbed
Facts: Both of the families of Andres and that Carlito's right hand and elbow and tried to wrest
of Gonzalez were on their way to the exit of the Loyola possession of the firearm. While the 2 were grappling for
Memorial Park. Gonzales was with his grandson and 3 possession, the gun fired, hitting Carlito who
housemaids, while Andres was driving with his pregnant immediately fell to the ground. At that instant, Marcelo
wife, Feliber, his 2yr old son, Kenneth, his nephew Kevin Bates and his son Marcelo Bates, Jr., brother and
and his sister-in-law. At an intersection, their two nephew of Carlito, respectively, emerged from the
vehicles almost collided. Gonzales continued driving banana plantation, each brandishing a bolo. They
while Andres tailed Gonzales’ vehicle and cut him off immediately attacked Jose hacking him several times.
when he found the opportunity to do so, then got out of Jose fell to the ground and rolled but Marcelo and his
his vehicle and knocked on the appellant's car window. son kept on hacking him.
Heated exchange of remarks followed. On his way back Held: Passion and obfuscation may not be
to his vehicle, he met Gonzales son, Dino. Andres had a properly appreciated in favor of the appellant. To be
shouting match this time with Dino. Gonzales then considered as a mitigating circumstance, passion or
alighted from his car and fired a single shot at the last obfuscation must arise from lawful sentiments and not
window on the left side of Andres' vehicle at an angle from a spirit of lawlessness or revenge or from anger
away from Andres. The single bullet fired hit Kenneth, and resentment. In the present case, clearly, Marcelo
Kevin and Feliber which caused the latter’s death. was infuriated upon seeing his brother, Carlito, shot by
Jose. However, a distinction must be made between the
Held: The mitigating circumstance of passion first time that Marcelo hacked Jose and the second time
and obfuscation is not obtaining. Andres' act of shouting that the former hacked the latter. When Marcelo hacked
at Gonzales’ son, who was then a nurse and of legal Jose right after seeing the latter shoot at Carlito, and if
age, is not sufficient to produce passion and obfuscation. appellant refrained from doing anything else after that,
Dino was shouting back at Andres. It was not a case he could have validly invoked the mitigating
wherein Gonzales son appeared helpless and oppressed circumstance of passion and obfuscation. But when,
that Gonzales lost his reason and shot at the vehicle of upon seeing his brother Carlito dead, Marcelo went back
Andres. The same holds true for Gonzales’ claim of to Jose, who by then was already prostrate on the
provocation on the part of Andres. Provocation must be ground and hardly moving, hacking Jose again was a
sufficient to excite a person to commit the wrong clear case of someone acting out of anger in the spirit of
committed and that the provocation must be revenge.
commensurate to the crime committed. The sufficiency
of provocation varies according to the circumstances of Par. 7. – THAT THE OFFENDER HAD VOLUNTARILY
the case. The aggressive behavior of Andres towards SURRENDERED HIMSELF TO A PERSON IN
Gonzales and his son may be demeaning or humiliating AUTHORITY OR HIS AGENTS, OR THAT HE HAD
but it is not sufficient provocation to shoot at Gonzales’ VOLUNTARILY CONFESSED HIS GUILT BEFORE THE
vehicle. COURT PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE
EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION.
People v. Lab-eo
373 SCRA 461 (2002) 2 MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER THIS
Facts: After being told to go away by the PARAGRAPH:
victim. Lab-eo left and returned to where the victim 1. Voluntary surrender to a person in authority or
was selling clothes and then and there stabbed her at his agents;
the back with a knife. Thereafter, he surrendered to the 2. Voluntary confession of guilt before the court
Chief of Police. Lab-eo argues for the appreciation of the prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution.
mitigating circumstances of passion and obfuscation, as
well as of sufficient provocation, in his favor. REQUISITES OF VOLUNTARY SURRENDER:
Held: For a person to be motivated by passion a. That the offender had not been actually arrested.
and obfuscation, there must first exist an unlawful act b. That the offender surrendered himself to a
that would naturally produce an impulse sufficient to person in authority or to the latter’s agent.
overcome reason and self-control. There is passional c. That the surrender was voluntary.
obfuscation when the crime is committed due to an
uncontrollable burst of passion provoked by prior unjust ª Merely requesting a policeman to accompany the
or improper acts, or due to a legitimate stimulus so accused to the police HQ is not equivalent to voluntary
powerful as to overcome reason. In asking Lab—eo to surrender.
leave, the victim did not do anything unlawful. There is
an absolute lack of proof that the Lab-eo was utterly ª Other examples:
humiliated by the victim's utterance. Nor was it shown a. The warrant of arrest showed that the
that the victim made that remark in an insulting and accused was in fact arrested.
repugnant manner. The victim's utterance was not the b. The accused surrendered only after the
stimulus required by jurisprudence to be so warrant of arrest was served.
overwhelming as to overcome reason and self-restraint. c. The accused went into hiding and
surrendered only when they realized that the forces of
the law were closing in on them.

67
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

ª Surrender must be SPONTANEOUS. He surrendered 1) Held: SC agrees with the accused-appellants’


because he acknowledges his guilty or 2) because he view that voluntary surrender should be appreciated in
wishes to save them the trouble and expenses their favor. While it may have taken both Willie and
necessarily incurred in his search and capture. Gildo a week before turning themselves in, the fact is,
they voluntarily surrendered to the police before arrest
ª The surrender must be by reason of the commission of could be effected.
the crime for which he is prosecuted.
People v. Dulos
People v. Coronel 237 SCRA 141 (1994)
17 SCRA 509 (1966) Facts: The accused hired two professional
Facts: Coronel was among those convicted for robbery entertainers to entertain his guests. One of the
with multiple homicide. Coronel and several armed men entertainers, Susan, accepted an offer to check in with
entered the house of Judge Bautista and killed the the accused guests but later on changed her mind and
family. The commission of the crime was attended by rejected the offer. When she went home with her
the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation, boyfriend, the accused chased them and asked for the
abuse of superior strength, use of motor vehicle, amount paid to Susan by one of his guests. Susan
dwelling, nighttime, which was purposely sought and denied this. Susan’s boyfriend was shot by the accused
taken advantage of to facilitate the commission of the which resulted to his death.
crime, and by an armed band. In the course of the trial, Held: Voluntary surrender cannot be
Coronel changed his plea from “not guilty” to “guilty”. appreciated where there was no conscious effort on the
He also presented proof that he voluntarily surrendered part of the accused to voluntarily surrender. Here, there
to a military camp. was no conscious effort on the part of the accused to
voluntary surrender to the military authorities when he
Held: There is no question that the appellant enjoys in went to Camp Siongco after the fateful incidents. As he
his favor the lone mitigating circumstance of voluntary himself admitted, he was not placed under custody by
surrender, which, however, is not sufficient to offset the the military authorities as he was free to roam around
aggravating circumstances found to be attendant in the as he pleased.
commission of the crime. While the accused entered a There is no voluntary surrender also where an
plea of guilty, he did it only during the continuation of accused merely surrendered the gun he used in the
the trial so that this circumstance may not, under the killing, without surrendering his person to the
law, be considered to mitigate the liability of the authorities.
accused. We feel, though, that such an admission of
guilt indicates his submission to the law and a moral Andrada v. People
disposition on his part to reform. Sentence is modified 452 SCRA 685 (2005)
from death penalty to life imprisonment. Facts: On 24 September 1986, accused
Andrada attacked, assaulted and hacked Arsenio Ugerio
People v. Pinca on the head. Evidence of the prosecution showed that
318 SCRA 270 (1999) after attacking the victim, he was apprehended by
Facts: Pinca and Abenir, after drinking at a responding police officers. Accused, however, alleged
bakeshop, hitched a ride with a tricycle driver on their that he voluntarily surrendered to the police.
way home. After passing a man who was apparently Held: For voluntary surrender to be
drunk because he was swaying while he walked, the appreciated, the surrender must be spontaneous, made
accused asked the driver to drop them off already. Pinca in such a manner that it shows the interest of the
told Abenir that that was the guy who spilled a drink on accused to surrender unconditionally to the authorities,
him earlier that day. The accused picked up a long piece either because he acknowledges his guilt or wishes to
of wood and waited for the man to pass by. When the save them the trouble and expenses that would be
latter did, the accused hit him at the back of his head necessarily incurred in his search and capture. Accused’s
which led to his death. surrender is not voluntary as he was apprehended by
When the police came, the accused readily responding police officers in the waiting shed at the
went with them and proceeded to tell his story that he corner of Cambas Road and Magsaysay Avenue. Hence,
was innocent and that it was Abenir who killed the man. the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender
The accused was convicted of the crime of murder. should not have been appreciated in his favor.
Held: For voluntary surrender to be
appreciated, 3 requisites should be present: 1) the REQUISITES OF PLEA OF GUILTY
offender has not been actually arrested; 2) the offender a. That the offender spontaneously confessed his
surrendered to a person of authority and 3) the guilt;
surrender was voluntary. The actions of the accused
belied this claim. He actually DENIED having committed ª Plea of guilty on appeal is not mitigating.
the crime. He went on to try and “clear his name.” There
is no voluntary surrender. b. That the confession of guilty was made in open
court, that is, before the competent court that is to
People v. Amaguin try the case; and
229 SCRA 166 (1994)
Facts: Celso and Gildo, together with others, ª The extrajudicial confession made by the
attacked the Oros. During the fray, Gildo was armed accused is not voluntary confession. Such
with a knife and an “Indian target.” And just as they confession was made outside the court. The
were about to finish off the Oro brothers, Willie, the confession must be made in open court.
eldest of the Amaguins, appeared with a revolver and
delivered the coup de grace. c. That the confession of guilt was made prior to
the presentation of evidence for the prosecution.

68
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

ª The change of plea should be made at the People v. Dawaton


first opportunity when his arraignment was 389 SCRA 277 (2002)
first set. Facts: On 20 September 1998, one Lavares
ª A conditional plea of guilty is not mitigating and several of his companions, including respondent
Dawaton were drinking. Intoxicated, Lavares decided to
* Plea of guilty is mitigating because it indicates a moral sleep while the respondent Dawaton and his companions
disposition in the accused, favorable to his reform. It is continued drinking. Lavares was thereafter awakened
an act of repentance and respect for the law. when respondent Dawaton stabbed him at the base of
his neck. Respondent Dawaton continued stabbing
People v. Crisostomo Lavares until the latter died. Respondent Dawaton
160 SCRA 47(1988) pleaded not guilty when he was first arraigned, but
Facts: On Christmas day, while the accused during the pre-trial, he offered to plead guilty to the
was passing near the house of Romeo, he met the latter lesser offense of homicide but was rejected by the
and invited him to go drinking. Romeo declined and prosecution, hence, the case proceeded to trial. The
suddenly, the accused rushed towards Romeo from trial court found respondent Dawaton guilty of murder,
behind and shot him with a revolver. and sentenced him to death.
After the arraignment wherein accused entered Held: The plea of guily to the crime of
a plea of not guilty and again during the trial, the homicide cannot be considered as a mitigating
accused signified his intention to withdraw his plea of circumstance in this case. While the accused offered to
not guilty to a lesser charge of homicide and prayed that plead guilty to the lesser offense of homicide, he was
he be allowed to prove the mitigating circumstances. charged with murder for which he had already entered a
Held: The appellant offered to enter a plea of plea of not guilty. The Supreme Court had already ruled
guilty to the lesser offense of homicide only after some that an offer to enter a plea of guilty to a lesser offense
evidence of the prosecution had been presented. He cannot be considered as an attenuating circumstance
reiterated his offer after the prosecution rested its case. under the provisions of Art. 13 of the Revised Penal
This is certainly not mitigating. Code because to be voluntary the plea of guilty must be
to the offense charged.
People v. Jose et al.
37 SCRA 450 (1971)
Facts: The Maggie De la Riva story. Maggie Par. 8. – THAT THE OFFENDER IS DEAF AND DUMB,
was driving her car with her maid inside when they were BLIND OR OTHERWISE SUFFERING FROM SOME
stopped by another car. The appellant, Pineda, together PHYSICAL DEFECT WHICH THUS RESTRICTS HIS
with his 3 companions took Maggie with them leaving MEANS OF ACTION, DEFENSE, OR
the maid behind. Maggie who was blindfolded was COMMUNICATION WITH HIS FELLOW BEINGS.
brought to a hotel. Inside the room, her blindfold was
removed and she was asked to strip for them. Then, the § This paragraph does not distinguish between educated
appellants raped her. and uneducated deaf-mute or blind persons.
Held: The court rejected Pineda’s argument § Physical defect referred to in this paragraph is such as
that because the charge against him and his co- being armless, cripple, or a stutterer, whereby his
appellants is a capital offense and the amended means to act, defend himself or communicate with his
complaints cited aggravating circumstances, which, if fellow beings are limited.
proved, would raise the penalty to death, it was the duty
of the court to insist on his presence during all stages of Par. 9. – SUCH ILLNESS OF THE OFFENDER AS
the trial. The court held that while a plea of guilty is WOULD DIMINISH THE EXERCISE OF THE WILL-
mitigating, at the same time it constitutes an admission POWER OF THE OFFENDER WITHOUT HOWEVER
of all the material facts alleged in the information, DEPRIVING HIM OF CONSCIOUSNESS OF HIS
including the aggravating circumstances, it matters not ACTS.
that the offense is capital, for the admission covers both
the crime and its attendant circumstances qualifying REQUISITES:
and/or aggravating the crime. Because of the aforesaid a. That the illness of the offender must
legal effect of Pineda’s plea of guilty, it was not diminish the exercise of his will-power.
incumbent upon the trial court to receive his evidence, b. That such illness should not deprive the
much less to require his presence in court. offender of consciousness of his acts.

People v. Montinola § When the offender completely lost the exercise of will-
360 SCRA 631 (2001) power, it may be an exempting circumstance.
To be entitled to the mitigating circumstance of § It is said that this paragraph refers only to diseases of
plea of guilty, the accused must have voluntarily pathological state that trouble the conscience or will.
confessed his guilt before the court prior to the § Ex. A mother who, under the influence of a puerperal
presentation of the evidence for the prosecution. The fever, killed her child the day following her delivery.
following requirements must therefore concur: (1) the
accused spontaneously confessed his guilt; (2) the Par. 10. – AND FINALLY, ANY OTHER
confession of guilt was made in open court, that is, CIRCUMSTANCE OF A SIMILAR NATURE AND
before a competent court trying the case; and (3) the ANALOGOUS OF THOSE ABOVEMENTIONED.
confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of
evidence for the prosecution. The third requisite is
§ Over 60 years old with failing sight, similar to over 70
wanting in the present case.
years of age mentioned in paragraph 2.
§ Voluntary restitution of the property stolen by the
accused or immediately reimbursing the amount

69
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

malversed is a mitigating circumstance as analogous to GENERIC AC QUALIFYING AC


voluntary surrender. The effect of a generic AC, The effect of a qualifying
§ Not resisting arrest is not analogous to voluntary not offset by any AC is not only to give the
surrender. mitigating circumstance, is crime its proper and
§ Testifying for the prosecution is analogous to plea of to increase the penalty exclusive name but also to
guilty. which should be imposed place the author thereof in
upon the accused to the such a situation as to
In Emilio Cimafranca v. Sandiganbayan MAXIMUM PERIOD. deserve no other penalty
(G.R. No. 94408, 14 February 1991), the Supreme Court than that specially
held that the return of the funds malversed is neither a prescribed by law for said
defense and will not be an exempting circumstance nor crime.
a ground for extinguishing the criminal liability of the A generic aggravating A qualifying AC cannot be
accused but it can be a mitigating circumstance circumstance may be offset by a mitigating
analogous to voluntary surrender. compensated by a circumstance.
mitigating circumstance.
• In the instant case, the return of the According to the new rules, generic and qualifying
property malversed was not mitigating aggravating circumstances must be alleged in order to
because it took the accused several years be appreciated.
before he returned the government
property. In fact, when the engine was
returned, it was already scrap and the AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH DO NOT
revolver was rusty and had to be reblued. HAVE THE EFFECT OF INCREASING THE PENALTY
AC 1) which in themselves constitute a crime
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH ARE NEITHER specially punishable by law, or b) which are included by
EXEMPTING NOR MITIGATING the law in defining a crime and prescribing the penalty
therefore shall not be taken into account for the purpose
1. Mistake in the blow or aberratio ictus, for of increasing the penalty (Art. 62, par. 1)
under Art. 48, there is a complex crime
committed. The penalty is even higher. ¤ AC which arise: a) from the moral attributes of the
2. Mistake in the identity of the victim, for under offender or b) from his private relations with the
Art. 4, par. 1, the accused is criminally liable offended party, or c) from any other personal cause,
even if the wrong done is different from that shall only serve to aggravate the liability of the
which is intended. principals, accomplices, and accessories as to whom
3. Entrapment of the accused. such circumstances are attendant.
4. The accused is over 18 years of age. If the
offender is over 18 years old, his age is neither
Art. 14. Aggravating circumstances. — The following
exempting nor mitigating.
are aggravating circumstances:
5. Performance of righteous action.
1. That advantage be taken by the offender of
his public position.
2. That the crime be committed in contempt or
4. AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES with insult to the public authorities.
3. That the act be committed with insult or in
¤ Aggravating circumstances are those which, if disregard of the respect due the offended party on
attendant in the commission of the crime, serve to account of his rank, age, or sex, or that is be committed
increase the penalty without, however, exceeding the in the dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has not
maximum of the penalty provided by law for the offense. given provocation.
4. That the act be committed with abuse of
¤ They are based on the greater perversity of the confidence or obvious ungratefulness.
offender manifested in the commission of the felony as 5. That the crime be committed in the palace
shown by: of the Chief Executive or in his presence, or where public
a. motivating power itself; authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties,
b. the place of commission; or in a place dedicated to religious worship.
c. the means and ways employed; 6. That the crime be committed in the night
d. the time; or time, or in an uninhabited place, or by a band, whenever
e. the personal circumstances of the such circumstances may facilitate the commission of the
offender, or of the offended party. offense.
Whenever more than three armed malefactors
FOUR KINDS OF AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES shall have acted together in the commission of an
1. GENERIC – Those that can generally apply offense, it shall be deemed to have been committed by a
to all crimes. Nos. 1, 2, 3 (dwelling), 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 14, band.
18, 19, and 20 except “by means of motor vehicles.” 7. That the crime be committed on the
2. SPECIFIC – Those that apply only to occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake,
particular crimes. Nos. 3 (except dwelling), 15, 16, 17 epidemic or other calamity or misfortune.
and 21. 8. That the crime be committed with the aid of
3. QUALIFYING –Those that change the armed men or persons who insure or afford impunity.
nature of the crime. Art. 248 enumerates the qualifying 9. That the accused is a recidivist.
AC which qualify the killing of person to murder. A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial
4. INHERENT – Those that must accompany for one crime, shall have been previously convicted by
the commission of the crime. final judgment of another crime embraced in the same
title of this Code.

70
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

10. That the offender has been previously unlawful entry, not having been alleged in the
punished by an offense to which the law attaches an Information, may not now be appreciated to enhance
equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to the liability of Wilson.
which it attaches a lighter penalty.
11. That the crime be committed in People v. Suela
consideration of a price, reward, or promise. 373 SCRA 163 (2002)
12. That the crime be committed by means of Facts: Brothers Edgar and Nerio Suela, and
inundation, fire, poison, explosion, stranding of a vessel Edgardo Batocan, sporting ski masks, bonnets and
or intentional damage thereto, derailment of a gloves, brandishing handguns and knife, barged into the
locomotive, or by the use of any other artifice involving room of Director Rosas who was watching television
great waste and ruin. together with his adopted son, Norman and his friend
13. That the act be committed with evident Gabilo. They threatened Rosas, Norman and Gabilo to
premeditation. give the location of their money and valuables, which
14. That the craft, fraud or disguise be they eventually took. They dragged Gabilo downstairs
employed. with them. Upon Nerio’s instructions, Batocan stabbed
15. That advantage be taken of superior Gabilo 5 times which caused the latter’s death . The trial
strength, or means be employed to weaken the defense. court sentenced Edgar, Nerio and Batocan to suffer the
16. That the act be committed with treachery penalty of death appreciating the aggravating
(alevosia). circumstance of disguise which was not alleged in the
There is treachery when the offender commits Information against the three.
any of the crimes against the person, employing means, Held: Following current Rules on Criminal
methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend Procedure, particularly Section 9 of the new Rule 110,
directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk and current jurisprudence, the aggravating circumstance
to himself arising from the defense which the offended of disguise cannot be appreciated against appellants. In
party might make. as much as the same was not alleged in the
17. That means be employed or circumstances Information, the aggravating circumstance of disguise
brought about which add ignominy to the natural effects cannot now be appreciated to increase the penalty to
of the act. death notwithstanding the fact that the new rule
18. That the crime be committed after an requiring such allegation was promulgated only after the
unlawful entry. crime was committed and after the trial court has
There is an unlawful entry when an entrance of already rendered its Decision. It is a cardinal rule that
a crime a wall, roof, floor, door, or window be broken. rules of criminal procedure are given retroactive
19. That as a means to the commission of a application insofar as they benefit the accused.
crime a wall, roof, floor, door, or window be broken.
20. That the crime be committed with the aid People v. Mendoza
of persons under fifteen years of age or by means of 327 SCRA 695 (2000)
motor vehicles, motorized watercraft, airships, or other Facts: Anchito and Marianito passed by
similar means. (As amended by R.A. No. 5438). appellant's house and asked for a drink from appellant's
21. That the wrong done in the commission of wife, Emily. Anchito began talking with Emily and they
the crime be deliberately augmented by causing other were about 4 arms-length from Marianito when
wrong not necessary for its commissions. appellant suddenly appeared. Appellant hacked Anchito
on the nape, which prompted Marianito to flee out of
People v. Antonio fear for his life. Anchito died in a kneeling position with
393 SCRA 169 (2002) hack wounds at the back of the neck and body.
Facts: Kevin Paul, 7 year-old son of the victim Appellant voluntary surrendered. The trial court ruled
Sergio was lying on the bed beside his father Sergio in that voluntary surrender was offset by the aggravating
the bedroom when he heard a window being opened and circumstance of treachery.
the sound of feet stepping on the floor. Then someone Held: The trial court erred in ruling that
kicked open the door to the bedroom. Kevin saw Wilson voluntary surrender was offset by the aggravating
Antonio carrying a shotgun. Wilson aimed his gun at circumstance of treachery. Treachery in the present case
Sergio who was asleep on the bed and fired hitting is a qualifying, not a generic aggravating circumstance.
Sergio on the chest, shoulder and back. He was also hit Its presence served to characterize the killing as
on his left thigh. Immediately after firing his gun, Wilson murder; it cannot at the same time be considered as a
hurriedly left the room. When the police arrived, Sergio generic aggravating circumstance to warrant the
was already dead. Wilson surrendered to the police imposition of the maximum penalty. Thus, it cannot
after eluding arrest for more than 1 yr. The trial court offset voluntary surrender.
convicted him of murder qualified by treachery and
aggravated by the circumstance of evident Par. 1. - THAT ADVANTAGE BE TAKEN BY THE
premeditation, dwelling and unlawful entry. The above OFFENDER OF HIS PUBLIC POSITION.
aggravating circumstances were not alleged in the
Information. ¤ The public officer must use the influence, prestige or
Held: Pursuant to the 2000 Revised Rules of ascendancy which his office gives him as the means by
Criminal Procedure, every complaint or information must which he realizes his purpose. The essence of the matter
state not only the qualifying but also the aggravating is presented in the inquiry, “did the accused abuse his
circumstances. This rule may be given retroactive effect office in order to commit the crime?”
in the light of the well-established rule that statutes
regulating the procedure of the courts will be construed ¤ When a public officer commits a common crime
as applicable to actions pending and undetermined at independent of his official functions and does acts that
the time of their passage. The aggravating are not connected with the duties of his office, he should
circumstances of evident premeditation, dwelling and be punished as a private individual without this AC.

71
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

holding a short gun pointed at them. Jerry sustained


¤ The mere fact that he was in fatigue uniform and had gunshot wounds but survived. Jelord, however, died on
army rifle at the time is insufficient to establish that he the spot during the first gun burst.
misused his public position in the commission of the Held: There was no showing that Villamor took
crimes (People v. Pantoja) advantage of his being a policeman to shoot Jelord Velez
or that he used his "influence, prestige or ascendancy"
¤ Even if defendant did not abuse his office, if it is in killing the victim. Villamor could have shot Velez even
proven that he has failed in his duties as such public without being a policeman. In other words, if the
officer, this circumstance would warrant the aggravation accused could have perpetrated the crime even without
of his penalty. occupying his position, there is no abuse of public
position. The Court cited the case of People v. Herrera,
¤ Taking advantage of public position, cannot be taken where the Court emphatically said that the mere fact
into consideration in offenses where it is made by law an that accused-appellant is a policeman and used his
integral element of the crime such as in malversation or government issued .38 caliber revolver to kill is not
in falsification of documents committed by public sufficient to establish that he misused his public position
officers. in the commission of the crime.

People v. Capalac
117 SCRA 874 (1982) Par. 2. - THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED IN
Facts: Magaso stabbed Moises in a cockpit. The CONTEMPT OR WITH INSULT TO THE PUBLIC
aggressor attempting to escape was confronted by 2 AUTHORITIES.
brothers of Moises, Jesus (deceased) and appellant
Mario Capalac. Magaso, seeing that he was cornered, REQUISITES:
raised his hands as a sign of surrender. The brothers a. That the public authority is engaged in the
were not appeased. Mario proceeded to pistol-whip exercise of his functions.
Magaso and after he had fallen, Jesus stabs him. The b. That he who is thus engaged in the exercise of
lower court convicted the accused of murder and took his functions is not the person against whom
into consideration the aggravating circumstance of the crime is committed.
taking advantage of public office because the accused is c. The offender knows him to be a public
a police officer. authority.
Held: On the aggravating circumstance that d. His presence has not prevented the offender
the accused used his public position as a policeman, it from committing the criminal act.
was held that the mere fact that he was a member of
the police force was insignificant to the attack. He acted PUBLIC AUTHORITY / PERSON IN AUTHORITY
like a brother, instinctively. He pistol-whipped the A public officer who is directly vested with
deceased because he had a pistol with him. It came in jurisdiction, that is, a public officer who has the power to
handy and so he acted accordingly. That he was a govern and execute the laws. The councilor, mayor,
policeman is of no relevance. governor, barangay captain etc. are persons in
authority. A school teacher, town municipal health
People v. Gapasin officer, agent of the BIR, chief of police, etc. are now
231 SCRA 728 (1994) considered a person in authority.
Facts: Gapasin was a member of the Phil.
Constabulary. He was issued a mission order to ¤ Par. 2 is not applicable if committed in the presence of
investigate a report regarding the presence of an agent only such as a police officer.
unidentified armed men in one barrio. He was informed
that a certain Calpito had an unlicensed firearm. He shot AGENT
Calpito with the use of an armalite after seeing the latter A subordinate public officer charged with the
walking along the road. Gapasin was convicted of maintenance of public order and the protection and
murder. security of life and property, such as barrio policemen,
Held: The accused took advantage of his public councilmen, and any person who comes to the aid of
position because as a member of the PC, he committed persons in authority.
the crime with an armalite which was issued to him
when he received his order. ¤ The crime should not be committed against the public
authority or else it becomes direct assault.
People v. Villamor
373 SCRA 254 (2002) ¤ Lack of knowledge on the part of the offender that a
Facts: Brothers Jerry and Jelord Velez were on public authority is present indicates lack of intention to
their way home on board a motorcycle. Jerry was insult the public authority.
driving. As they neared a junction, they heard a
speeding motorcycle fast approaching from behind. The Par. 3. - THAT THE ACT BE COMMITTED (1) WITH
brothers ignored the other motorcycle, which caught up INSULT OR IN DISREGARD OF THE RESPECT DUE
with them. As they were about to cross the bridge THE OFFENDED PARTY ON ACCOUNT OF HIS (a)
leading to their home, gunshots rang out from behind RANK, (b) AGE, OR (c) SEX, OR (2) THAT IS BE
them. They abruptly turned the motorcycle around COMMITTED IN THE DWELLING OF THE OFFENDED
towards the direction of the gunfire. The light of their PARTY, IF THE LATTER HAS NOT GIVEN
motorcycle's headlamp fell on their attackers aboard the PROVOCATION.
second motorcycle. The assailants fired at them a
second time and fled. Jerry saw PO3 Villamor and ¤ Four circumstances are enumerated in this paragraph,
Maghilom on board the motorcycle behind them. which can be considered single or together. If all the 4
Maghilom was driving the motorcycle while Villamor was

72
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

circumstances are present, they have the weight of one ¤ It is not aggravating where the deceased was
aggravating circumstance only. called down from his house and he was murdered in the
vicinity of his house.
¤ This circumstance (rank, age or sex) may be taken ¤ Dwelling includes dependencies, the foot of
into account only in crimes against person or honor. the staircase and the enclosure under the house. If the
deceased was only about to step on the first rung of the
¤ There must be evidence that in the commission of the ladder when he was assaulted, the AC of dwelling will
crime, the accused deliberately intended to offend or not be applicable.
insult the sex or age of the offended party.
DWELLING NOT APPLICABLE:
(1) WITH INSULT OR IN DISREGARD OF 1. When both offender and offended party are
THE REPECT DUE THE OFFENDED PARTY ON occupants of the same house.
ACCOUNT: 2. When the robbery is committed by the use of
force upon things, dwelling is not aggravating because
(a) OF THE RANK OF THE OFFENDED PARTY it is inherent to the crime.
ex. An attempt upon the life of a general of the 3. In the crime of trespass to dwelling, it is also
Philippine Army is committed in disregard of his rank. inherent or included by law in defining the crime.
4. When the owner of the dwelling gave sufficient
(b) OF THE AGE OF THE OFFENDED PARTY and immediate provocation.
ex. When the aggressor is 45 years old and the 5. When the dwelling where the crime was
victim was an octogenarian. committed did not belong to the offended party.
¤ It is not proper to consider disregard of old 6. When the rape was committed in the ground
age in crimes against property. Robbery with homicide is floor of the 2-storey structure, the lower floor being
primarily a crime against property. used as a video rental store and not as a private place
of abode or residence.
(c) OF THE SEX OF THE OFFENDED PARTY
¤ This refers to the female sex, not to the male ¤ A victim raped in the boarding house where she was a
sex (Reyes) bed spacer. Her room constituted a “dwelling”.
¤ Killing a woman is not attended by this AC if
the offender did not manifest any specific insult or ¤ Dwelling may be temporary dwelling.
disrespect towards her sex.
¤ Note: The Code speaks of dwelling, not domicile.
¤ THIS AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE IS
NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FOLLOWING: ¤ Dwelling is not aggravating in adultery when paramour
1. When the offender acted with passion and also lives in the conjugal home.
obfuscation.
2. When there exists a relationship between the ¤ Dwelling is not included in treachery.
offended party and the offender.
3. When the condition of being a woman is People v. Rodil
indispensable in the commission of the crime 109 SCRA 308 (1981)
i.e. parricide, rape, etc. Facts: Lt. Mesana approached Rodil and
identifies himself as a PC officer. He asked Rodil whether
¤ Disregard of sex absorbed in treachery. or not the gun which the latter possessed had a license.
Rodil attempted to draw his gun but was prevented by
(2) THAT BE COMMITTED IN THE Mesana’s companions. Rodil was asked to sign a
DWELLING OF THE OFFENDED PARTY document attesting to the confiscation of the gun but he
refused. Instead, he drew a dagger and managed to
DWELLING – BUILDING OR STRUCTURE, stab Mesana in the chest repeatedly.
EXCLUSIVELY USED FOR REST AND COMFORT. Held: The AC of disregard of rank should be
¤ a “combination house and store” or a market appreciated because it is obvious that Mesana identified
stall where the victim slept is not a dwelling. himself as a PC officer to the accused who is merely a
¤ This is considered an AC primarily because of member of the Anti-Smuggling Unit and therefore
the sanctity of privacy, the law accords to human abode. inferior both in rank and social status to the victim.
Also, in certain cases, there is an abuse of confidence
which the offended party reposed in the offender by People v. Daniel
opening the door to him. 86 SCRA 511 (1978)
¤ The evidence must show clearly that the Facts: 13-year-old Margarita was at the bus
defendant entered the house of the deceased to attack station when the accused, Daniel, started molesting her,
him. asking her name and trying to get her bag to carry it for
¤ The offended party must not give her. She refused and asked the help of the conductor
provocation. If the provocation did not take place in the and driver but they did not help her. She ran to the
house, dwelling may be considered as an AC. jeepney stop and rode the jeep. Daniel followed her to
¤ Dwelling is aggravating, even if the offender the boarding house and he raped her.
did not enter the upper part of the house where the Held: Although Margarita was merely renting a
victim was, but shot from under the house. bedspace in a boarding house, her room constituted for
¤ Even if the killing took place outside the all intents and purposes a “dwelling” as the term is used
dwelling, it is aggravating provided that the commission in Art. 14(3) of the RPC. Be she a lessee, a boarder, or a
of the crime was begun in the dwelling. bedspacer, the place is her home the sanctity of which
¤ Dwelling is aggravating in abduction or illegal the law seeks to protect and uphold.
detention.

73
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

People v. Banez People v. De Mesa


301 SCRA 248 (1999) 354 SCRA 397 (2001)
Facts: The accused was living with his parents. Facts: Motas, Barangay Chairman of Barangay
His sisters complained to their father that the accused Sta. Cruz Putol, San Pablo City, was shot by De Mesa
made trouble whenever he was drunk. They wanted to while playing a card game with some town mates at a
put the accused in another house. That night while they neighborhood store resulting to his death. The trial
were discussing the plans for the accused, while their court, in convicting De Mesa for murder, appreciated the
father went to his room, the accused, who looked drunk, aggravating circumstance of commission of the crime in
ran to the kitchen and got 2 knives and then stabbed contempt of or with assault to public authorities.
the father. The father died. Held: The trial court also erred in appreciating
Held: The aggravating circumstance of dwelling the aggravating circumstance that the commission of
cannot be considered aggravating where the accused the crime was in contempt of or with assault to public
and the victim were living in the same house where the authorities. The requisites of this circumstance are: (1)
crime was committed. The rationale for considering the public authority is engaged in the discharge of his
dwelling an aggravating circumstance is the violation by duties and (2) he is not the person against whom the
the offender of the sanctity of the home of the victim by crime is committed. None of these circumstances are
trespassing therein to commit the crime. This reason is present in this case. In the first place, the crime was
entirely absent in this case. committed against the barangay chairman himself. At
the time that he was killed, he was not engaged in the
People v. Lapaz discharge of his duties as he was in fact playing a card
171 SCRA 539 (1989) game with his neighbors.
Facts: Eulalia Cabunag, a 70-year-old woman
who was living alone, was beaten to death by 3 men. People v. Montinola (Supra)
Appellant Barleso, Lapaz and Cristoto agreed to kill Facts: Montinola boarded a passenger jeepney
Eulalia because there was one incident when the victim driven by Hibinioda. Among the passengers was
called Barleso a thief in front of many people. Reteracion. All of a sudden, appellant drew his gun, an
Held: The presence of treachery is clear as unlicensed firearm, .380 cal pistol and directed
Barleso invited two companions to help him execute his Reteracion to hand over his money or else he would be
plan to beat the victim to death with pieces of wood in killed. Montinola aimed the firearm at the neck of
the middle of the night, insuring death of the victim Reteracion and fired successive shots at the latter. As a
without risk to himself arising from the defense with the result Reteracion slumped dead. Montinola was charged
offended party might make. with robbery with homicide and illegal possession of
While it may be true that nighttime is absorbed firearm.
in the aggravating circumstance of treachery, the Held: Disregard of age, sex or rank is not
aggravating circumstance of disregard of sex and age aggravating in robbery with homicide, which is primarily
cannot be similarly absorbed. Treachery refers to the a crime against property, as the homicide is regarded as
manner of the commission of the crime. Disregard of sex merely incidental to the robbery.
and age pertains to the relationship of the victim, who is
a 70-year old woman, and the appellant who is a young People v. Taño
man, 27 years old, at the time of the commission of the 331 SCRA 448 (2000)
offense. Facts: Amy was tending a video rental shop
owned by Marina. Taño kept going in and out of the
People v. Taboga shop and on the last time he went inside said shop, he
376 SCRA 500 (2002) suddenly jumped over the counter, strangled Amy,
Facts: Taboga entered the house of Tubon, a poked a knife at the left side of her neck, pulled her
widowed septuagenarian, robbed, stabbed and burned towards the kitchen where he forced her to undress, and
beyond recognition the latter’s house. gained carnal knowledge of her against her will and
Held: Anent the circumstance of age, there consent. Before they could reach the upper floor, he
must be a showing that the malefactor deliberately suddenly pulled Amy down and started mauling her until
intended to offend or insult the age of the victim. she lost consciousness; then he freely ransacked the
Neither could disregard of respect due to sex be place. Leaving Amy for dead after repeatedly banging
appreciated if the offender did not manifest any her head, first on the wall, then on the toilet bowl, he
intention to offend or disregard the sex of the victim. In took her bracelet, ring and wristwatch. He then
other words, killing a woman is not attended by the proceeded upstairs where he took as well the jewelry
aggravating circumstance if the offender did not box containing other valuables belonging to his victim's
manifest any specific insult or disrespect towards the employer. The trial court appreciated dwelling as an
offended party's sex. In the case at bar, there is aggravating circumstance because the incident took
absolutely no showing that Taboga deliberately intended place supposedly at the residence of private
to offend or insult the victim. However, even if complainant's employer, "which doubles as a video
disrespect or disregard of age or sex were not rental shop.
appreciated, the four circumstances enumerated in Held: Dwelling cannot be appreciated as an
Article 14, paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code, as aggravating circumstance in this case because the rape
amended, can be considered singly or together. 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
333 SCRA 823(2000)
Facts: Rios hurled stones at the house of
Ambrocio and Anacita Benedicto. A few minutes later,

74
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

and while the Benedicto spouses were tending their


store, Rios bought cigarettes. Ambrocio confronted Rios ¤ The confidence between the offender and the offended
about the stoning incident and an altercation ensued party must be immediate and personal.
between them. Having heard the appellant shout at
Ambrocio, Mesa intervened and requested the 2 to part ¤ It is inherent in malversation, qualified theft, estafa by
ways and escorted them to their respective residences. conversion or misappropriation and qualified seduction.
A few minutes later, appellant went back to the store.
Ambrocio went to the terrace of their house. Appellant (2) OBVIOUS UNGRATEFULNESS
suddenly approached Ambrocio and stabbed his right
stomach. Mesa and his group saw Anacita weeping while ¤ The ungratefulness must be obvious –
Ambrocio was lying lifeless in the terrace of their house. manifest and clear.
Ambrocio died before he was brought to the hospital.
The trial court appreciated the aggravating circumstance 1. offended party trusted the offender;
of dwelling. 2. offender abused said trust by committing a
Held: The trial court correctly appreciated the crime against the offended; and
aggravating circumstance of dwelling or morada in this 3. the act committed is with Obvious
case. The word dwelling includes every dependency of Ungratefulness.
the house that forms an integral part thereof and
therefore it includes the staircase of the house and much People v. Mandolado
more, its terrace. When a crime is committed in the 123 SCRA 128 (1983)
dwelling of the offended party and the latter has not Facts: Mandolado and Ortillano, with Erinada
given provocation, dwelling may be appreciated as an and Simon are trainees/draftees of the AFP. They got to
aggravating circumstance. know each other and had a drinking session at the bus
terminal. The accused was drunk. He got his gun and
People v. Arizobal started firing. Erinada and Simon rode a jeep and tried
348 SCRA 143 (2000) to escape from Mandolado and Ortillano but the two
Facts: Arizobal and two others entered the eventually caught up with them. The two accused shot
house of spouses Clementina and Laurencio Gimenez. the victims to death.
They then ransacked the house and ordered Laurencio Held: There is no aggravating circumstance of
to go with them to his son Jimmy’s house. Upon abuse of confidence. In order that abuse of confidence
reaching the house of Jimmy, they tied the latter and be deemed as aggravating, it is necessary that “there
one Francisco also surnamed Gimenez. They consumed exists a relation of trust and confidence between the
the food and cigarettes Jimmy’s wife Erlinda, was accused and one against whom the crime was
selling. They proceeded to ransack the household in committed and that the accused made use of such a
search of valuables. Thereafter, Erlinda was ordered to relationship to commit the crime. It is also essential that
produce P100,000 in exchange for Jimmy’s life. Erlinda the confidence between the parties must be immediate
offered to give a certificate of large cattle but the and personal such as would give the accused some
document was thrown back at her. The 3 then dragged advantage to commit the crime. It is obvious that the
Jimmy outside the house together with Laurencio. One accused and the victims only met for the first time so
of the culprits returned and told Erlinda that Jimmy and there is no personal or immediate relationship upon
Laurencio had been killed for trying to escape. The trial which confidence might rest between them.
court appreciated the aggravating circumstance of
dwelling. People v. Arrojado
Held: The trial court is correct in appreciating 350 SCRA 679 (2001)
dwelling as an aggravating circumstance. Generally, Facts: Arrojado is the first cousin of the victim,
dwelling is considered inherent in the crimes which can Mary Ann and lived with her and her father. Arrojado
only be committed in the abode of the victim, such as helped care for the victim’s father for which he was paid
trespass to dwelling and robbery in an inhabited place. a monthly salary of P1,000.00. Arrojado killed Mary Ann
However, in robbery with homicide the authors thereof by stabbing her with a knife. Thereafter he claimed that
can commit the heinous crime without transgressing the the latter committed suicide.
sanctity of the victim's domicile. In the case at bar, the Held: The aggravating circumstance of abuse
robbers demonstrated an impudent disregard of the of confidence is present in this case. For this
inviolability of the victims' abode when they forced their aggravating circumstance to exist, it is essential to show
way in, looted their houses, intimidated and coerced that the confidence between the parties must be
their inhabitants into submission, disabled Laurencio and immediate and personal such as would give the accused
Jimmy by tying their hands before dragging them out of some advantage or make it easier for him to commit the
the house to be killed. criminal act. The confidence must be a means of
facilitating the commission of the crime, the culprit
Par. 4. - THAT THE ACT BE COMMITTED WITH (1) taking advantage of the offended party's belief that the
ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE OR (2) OBVIOUS former would not abuse said confidence.
UNGRATEFULNESS.

(1) ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE Par. 5. - THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED IN THE


PALACE OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OR IN HIS
REQUISITES: PRESENCE, OR WHERE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES ARE
a. That the offended party had trusted the offender. ENGAGED IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR DUTIES,
b. That the offender abused such trust by OR IN A PLACE DEDICATED TO RELIGIOUS
committing a crime against the offended party. WORSHIP.
c. That the abuse of confidence facilitated the
commission of the crime.

75
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

PLACE WHER PUBLIC CONTEMPT OR INSULT (2) UNINHABITED PLACE


AUTHORITIES ARE TO PUBLIC - One where there are no houses at all, a place
ENGAGED IN THE AUTHORITIES at a considerable distance from town, or where the
DISCHARGE OF THEIR (par. 2) houses are scattered at a great distance from each
DUTIES (par. 5) other.
The public authorities are in the performance of their - TEST: WON in the place of the commission of
duties. the offense, there was a reasonable possibility of the
The public authorities who The public authorities are victim receiving some help.
are in the performance of performing their duties - The fact that persons occasionally passed in
their duties must be in outside of their offices. the uninhabited place and that on the night of the
their office. murder another hunting party was not a great distance
The public authority may The public authority away, does not matter. It is the nature of the place
be the offended party. should not be the offended which is decisive.
party. - It must appear that the accused SOUGHT
THE SOLITUDE of the place where the crime was
¤ If it is the Malacañang palace or a church, it is committed, in order to better attain his purpose.
aggravating, regardless of whether State or official or - The offenders must choose the place as an
religious functions are being held. aid either (1) to an easy and uninterrupted
accomplishment of their criminal designs or (2) to insure
¤ The President need not be in the palace. His presence concealment of the offense.
alone in any place where the crime is committed is
enough to constitute the AC. It also applies even if he is (3) BAND
not engaged in the discharge of his duties in the place - Whenever more than 3 armed malefactors
where the crime was committed. shall have acted together in the commission of an
offense, it shall be deemed to have been committed by a
¤ However, as regards the place where the public band.
authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties, - The armed men must act together in the
there must be some performance of public functions. commission of the crime.
- If one of the four armed persons is a principal
¤ Cemeteries are not places dedicated for religious by inducement, they do not form a band.
worship. - All the armed men, at least four in number,
must take direct part in the execution of the act
¤ Offender must have the intention to commit a crime constituting the crime.
when he entered the place. - Considered in crimes against property and
persons and not to crimes against chastity.
- It is inherent in brigandage.
Par. 6. - THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED (1) IN
THE NIGHT TIME, OR (2) IN AN UNINHABITED
People v. Jose (supra)
PLACE, OR (3) BY A BAND, WHENEVER SUCH
Facts: The Maggie Dela Riva story. Maggie, the
CIRCUMSTANCES MAY FACILITATE THE
victim, was on her way home, driving her car
COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE.
accompanied by her maid, when she was stopped by
WHENEVER MORE THAN THREE ARMED
another car boarded by 4 men. Accused Pineda pulled
MALEFACTORS SHALL HAVE ACTED TOGETHER IN
her out of the car and forced her inside the assailants’
THE COMMISSION OF AN OFFENSE, IT SHALL BE
car. She was brought to a hotel and there, the 4
DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED BY A BAND.
accused raped her.
Held: The Supreme Court found that there was
¤ These 3 circumstances may be considered separately committed forcible abduction with rape. With rape as the
when their elements are distinctly perceived and can more serious crime, the penalty to be imposed is the
subsist independently, revealing a greater degree of maximum penalty in accordance with Art. 48 of the RPC.
perversity. With this finding, the penalty of death was imposed.
While the Supreme Court did not find it necessary to
Nighttime, uninhabited place or band is consider the aggravating circumstances, the Court still
aggravating: considered the aggravating circumstances for the
1. When it facilitated the commission of the purpose of determining the proper penalty to be
crime; or imposed in each of the other 3 crimes of simple rape.
2. When especially sought for by the offender to The court claimed that there was an AC of nighttime
insure the commission of the crime or for the because appellants purposely sought such circumstance
purpose of impunity; or to facilitate the commission of these crimes.
3. When the offender took advantage thereof for
the purpose of impunity. People v. Desalisa
229 SCRA 35 (1994)
(1) NIGHTTIME Facts: Moved by hatred and jealousy, the
- The commission of the crime must begin and accused, armed with a sharp pointed instrument,
be accomplished in the nighttime. attacked and inflicted physical injuries on the vagina of
- The offense must be actually committed in his wife who was about 5 months pregnant. Thereafter,
the darkness of the night. When the place is illuminated the accused hanged his wife to a jackfruit tree, causing
by light, nighttime is not aggravating. her death and that of her fetus.

76
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

He was found guilty of the complex crime of chased by Raelito. Thereafter, the three men took turns
parricide with unintentional abortion and was sentenced hitting Edwin with pieces of wood until the latter fell and
to life imprisonment by the lower court. died. The trial court considered nighttime and
Held: The aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place as just one aggravating circumstance.
uninhabited place is present. The “uninhibitedness” of a Held: The court did not err in considering
place is determined not by the distance of the nearest nighttime and uninhabited place as just one aggravating
house to the scene of the crime but whether or not in circumstance. The court cited the case of People vs.
the place of the commission, there was reasonable Santos where it has been held that if the aggravating
possibility of the victim receiving some help. Considering circumstances of nighttime, uninhabited place or band
that the killing was done during nighttime and many concur in the commission of the crime, all will constitute
fruit trees obstruct the view of neighbors and passersby, one aggravating circumstance only as a general rule
there was no reasonable possibility for the victim to although they can be considered separately if their
receive any assistance. The couple lived on a small nipa elements are distinctly perceived and can subsist
house on a hill. There are 2 other houses in the independently, revealing a greater degree of perversity.
neighborhood which are 150 meters away; the house of
Norma’s parents and house of Carlito. These cannot, Par. 7. - THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED ON THE
however, be seen from the couple’s house because of OCCASION OF A CONFLAGRATION, SHIPWRECK,
the many fruit trees and shrubs prevalent in the area. EARTHQUAKE, EPIDEMIC OR OTHER CALAMITY OR
MISFORTUNE.
People v. Silva
387 SCRA 77 (2002) ¤ The reason for the existence of this AC is found in the
Facts: Accused armed with a gun, a bolo, a debased form of criminality met in one who, in the midst
rope and a flashlight abducted brothers Edmund and of a great calamity, instead of lending aid to the
Manuel Ceriales while the two were playing a game of afflicted, adds to their suffering by taking advantage of
cards inside their house in the middle of the night. They their misfortune to despoil them.
tied both their hands and feet with a rope and they
brought the brothers at an isolated place. Manuel was ¤ The offender must take advantage of the calamity or
stabbed and beheaded causing his instantaneous death. misfortune.
Edmund Ceriales was able to escape while the accused
were about to kill his brother. The trial court appreciated ¤ “OR OTHER CALAMITY OR MISFORTUNE” – refers to
nighttime as an aggravating circumstance. other conditions of distress similar to “conflagration,
Held: By and of itself, nighttime is not an shipwreck, earthquake or epidemic.”
aggravating circumstance, however, it becomes
aggravating only when: (1) it is especially sought by the
offender; or (2) it is taken advantage of by him; or (3) it
Par. 8. - THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED WITH
facilitates the commission of the crime by ensuring the
THE AID OF ARMED MEN OR PERSONS WHO
offender's immunity from capture. In this case, the trial
INSURE OR AFFORD IMPUNITY.
court correctly appreciated nighttime as aggravating
considering that nighttime facilitated the abduction of
the Ceriales brothers, the killing of Manuel and the REQUISITES:
attempt to kill Edmund. Evidence shows that accused- 1. That the armed men or persons took part in the
appellants took advantage of the darkness to commission of the crime, directly or indirectly.
successfully consummate their plans. The fact that they 2. That the accused availed himself of their aid or
brought with them a flashlight clearly shows that they relied upon them when the crime was committed.
intended to commit the crime in darkness.
¤ The armed men must take part directly or indirectly in
People v. Ancheta the offense.
431 SCRA 42 (2004) ¤ This AC shall not be considered when both the
Facts: Appellant Ulep and his group, robbed attacking party and the party attacked were equally
Alfredo Roca of 35 sacks of Palay after killing his son, his armed.
wife and his mother with their guns. Thereafter, they ¤ This AC is not present when the accused as well as
boarded their jeep and left. those who cooperated with him in the commission of the
Held: The offense was proven to have been crime, acted under the same plan and for the same
executed by a band. A crime is committed by a band purpose.
when at least four armed malefactors act together in the
commission thereof. In this case, all six accused were
armed with guns which they used on their victims. WITH AID OF ARMED BY A BAND
Clearly, all the armed assailants took direct part in the MEN (par. 8) (par. 6)
execution of the robbery with homicide. Aid of armed men is More than 3 armed
present even if one of the malefactors that have
People v. Librando offenders merely relied on acted together in the
335 SCRA 232 (2000) their aid, for actual aid is commission of an offense.
Facts: Edwin and his daughter Aileen, and a not necessary.
relative, Fernando, were traversing a hilly portion of a
trail on their way home when they met Raelito Librando, ¤ If there are 4 armed men, “aid of armed men” is
Larry and Eddie. Edwin was carrying a torch at that time absorbed by “employment of a band”
as it was already dark. Raelito inquired from Edwin the ¤ “Aid of armed men” includes “armed women”
whereabouts of Fernando and without any warning hit
Edwin with a piece of wood. Eddie followed suit and
delivered another blow to Edwin. Edwin ran but he was

77
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

¤ There is recidivism even if the lapse of time between


two felonies is more than 10 years. Recidivism must be
Art 14, Par. 6 “By a Art. 295 and 296: taken into account no mater how many years have
Band” Robbery intervened between the 1st and 2nd felonies.
Generic Aggravating Applies only to ROBBERY
Circumstance. with unnecessary violence ¤ Pardon does not obliterate the fact that the accused
or physical injuries under was a recidivist; but amnesty extinguishes the penalty
263, par.2, 3 and 4 in and its effects.
relation to Art, 294, par.
3.4 and 5. People v. Molina
336 SCRA 400(2000)
This aggravating circumstance shall not be considered Facts: Brothers Joseph and Angelito, along
when: with their cousin, Danny were on their way home when
they heard somebody shout “kuba”, referring to Joseph,
¤ both the attacking party and the party attacked were a hunchback. They asked who said that but no one
equally armed. admitted. As the 3 were about to go, Molina delivered a
¤ the accused as well as those who cooperated with him strong stabbing blow at the back of Joseph. Angelito
in the commission of the crime acted under the same came to aid his brother but Molina also stabbed him at
plan and for the same purpose. the back. Joseph was dead on arrival at the clinic.
Held: To prove recidivism, it is necessary to
Par. 9. - THAT THE ACCUSED IS A RECIDIVIST. 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
Art. 160. Commission of another crime during service AC credence if the accused does not object to the
of penalty imposed for another offense; Penalty. — presentation of evidence on the fact of recidivism.
Besides the provisions of Rule 5 of Article 62, any In this case, the accused never voiced out any
person who shall commit a felony after having been objection when confronted with the fact of his previous
convicted by final judgment, before beginning to serve conviction for attempted homicide.
such sentence, or while serving the same, shall be
punished by the maximum period of the penalty People v. Dacillo
prescribed by law for the new felony. 427 SCRA 528 (2004)
Any convict of the class referred to in this Facts: Pacot stabbed and strangled Rosemarie
article, who is not a habitual criminal, shall be pardoned leading to the latter’s death. Dacillo for his part, hold
at the age of seventy years if he shall have already down Rosemarie’s legs to prevent her from struggling.
served out his original sentence, or when he shall The two men stopped only when they were sure that the
complete it after reaching the said age, unless by reason victim was already dead. Dacillo then encase her corpse
of his conduct or other circumstances he shall not be in a cement. The trial court imposed the death penalty
worthy of such clemency. on the ground that Dacillo admitted during re-cross
examination that he had a prior conviction for the death
¤ A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one of his former live-in partner. The fact that Dacillo was a
crime, shall have been previously convicted by final recidivist was appreciated by the trial court as a generic
judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of aggravating circumstance which increased the imposable
the RPC. penalty from reclusion perpetua to death
Held: The aggravating circumstance of
REQUISITES: recidivism was not alleged in the information and
a. That the offender is on trial for an offense; therefore cannot be appreciated against appellant.
b. That he was previously convicted by final In order to appreciate recidivism as an
judgment of another crime; aggravating circumstance, it is necessary to allege it in
c. That both the first and the second offenses are the information and to attach certified true copies of the
embraced in the same title of the Code; sentences previously meted out to the accused. 26 This
d. That the offender is convicted of the new is in accord with Rule 110, Section 8 of the Revised
offense. Rules of Criminal Procedure which states that: The
complaint or information shall state the designation of
¤ What is controlling is the time of trial, not the time of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or
the commission of the crime. omissions constituting the offense, and specify its
¤ There is no recidivism if the subsequent conviction is qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If there is no
for an offense committed before the offense involved in designation of the offense, reference shall be made to
the prior conviction. the section or subsection of the statute punishing it.

¤ Sec. 7 of Rule 120 , Rules of Court, provides that a Par. 10. - THAT THE OFFENDER HAS BEEN
judgment in a criminal case becomes final PREVIOUSLY PUNISHED BY AN OFFENSE TO
(1) after the lapse of the [period for perfecting WHICH THE LAW ATTACHES AN EQUAL OR
an appeal, or GREATER PENALTY OR FOR TWO OR MORE CRIMES
(2) when the sentence has been partially or TO WHICH IT ATTACHES A LIGHTER PENALTY.
totally satisfied or served, or
(3) the defendant has expressly waived in
writing his right to appeal, or Art. 62. Effect of the attendance of
(4) the accused has applied for probation. mitigating or aggravating circumstances and of
habitual delinquency. — Mitigating or aggravating
circumstances and habitual delinquency shall be taken

78
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

into account for the purpose of diminishing or increasing offenses (habituality). He shall suffer an additional
the penalty in conformity with the following rules: penalty for being a habitual delinquent.
5. Habitual delinquency shall have the
following effects: 4. QUASI-RECIDIVISM
(a) Upon a third conviction the culprit shall be - Any person who shall commit a felony after
sentenced to the penalty provided by law for the last having been convicted by final judgment, before
crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional beginning to serve such sentence or while serving the
penalty of prision correccional in its medium and same, shall be punished by the maximum period of the
maximum periods; penalty prescribed by law for the new felony.
(b) Upon a fourth conviction, the culprit shall
be sentenced to the penalty provided for the last crime People v. Gaorana
of which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty 289 SCRA 652 (1998)
of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods; Facts: Marivel, upon instruction of Rowena
and (common-law wife of the accused) went to the house of
(c) Upon a fifth or additional conviction, the Gaorana and saw the couple lying down. Marivel was
culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided for the asked to come and Rowena stood up to urinate. Gaorana
last crime of which he be found guilty and to the covered her mouth and pointed a hunting knife to her
additional penalty of prision mayor in its maximum neck and raped her. The second incident of rape
period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period. occurred while Marivel was sleeping in the sala with her
Notwithstanding the provisions of this article, the total of brother and sister. Marivel did not shout because she
the two penalties to be imposed upon the offender, in was afraid of the accused who was a prisoner and had
conformity herewith, shall in no case exceed 30 years. already killed somebody.
For the purpose of this article, a person shall Held: The 2 Information alleged that both
be deemed to be habitual delinquent, is within a period instances of rape were attended by the aggravating
of ten years from the date of his release or last circumstance of quasi-recidivism. The trial court made
conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious no express ruling that the appellant was a quasi-
physical injuries, robo, hurto, estafa or falsification, he is recidivist, and rightly so. During the trial, the
found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener. prosecution manifested that appellant had been
convicted by the RTC and was serving sentence for the
REQUISITES: crime of homicide. However, the prosecution failed or
neglected to present in evidence the record of
a. That the accused is on trial for an offense; appellant’s previous conviction. Quasi-recidivism, like
b. That he previously served sentence for another recidivism and reiteracion, necessitates the presentation
offense to which the law attaches an equal or of a certified copy of the sentence convicting an
greater penalty, or for 2 or more crimes to which accused. The fact that appellant was an inmate of
it attaches lighter penalty than that for the new DAPECOL does not prove that final judgment had been
offense; and rendered against him.
c. That he is convicted of the new offense.
People v. Villapando
REITERACION/ RECIDIVISM 178 SCRA 341 (1989)
HABITUALITY Facts: The accused was charged before the
It is necessary that the It is enough that a final RTC with the crimes of murder and of attempted
offender shall have served judgment has been homicide.
out his sentence for the rendered in the first Held: The court does not agree that reiteracion
first offense. offense. or habituality should be appreciated in this case. The
The previous and It is the requirement that appellant was found by the trial court to have committed
subsequent offenses must the offenses be included in offenses prior to and after the incident of Jan. 14, 1979.
not be embraced in the the same title of the Code. In habituality, it is essential that the offender be
same title of the Code. previously punished, that is, he has served the
Reiteracion is not always Recidivism is not always to sentence, for an offense in which the law attaches, or
an aggravating be taken into provides for an equal or greater penalty than that
circumstance. consideration in fixing the attached by law to the second offense, or for two or
penalty to be imposed more offenses, in which the law attaches a lighter
upon the accused. penalty. Here, the records do not disclose that the
appellant has been previously punished by an offense to
which the law attaches an equal or greater or penalty or
FOUR FORMS OR REPETITION:
for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter
1. RECIDIVISM
penalty.
2. REITERACTION OR HABITUALITY
People v. Cajara
341 SCRA 192 (2000)
3.MULTI-RECIDIVISM OR HABITUAL
Facts: Accused Cajara raped 16-year old Marita
DELINQUENCY
in front of his common-law wife who is the half-sister of
- when a person, within a period of 10 years
the victim and his two small children. The trial court
from the date of his release or last conviction of the
convicted him as charged and sentenced him to death.
crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries,
Held: The records show that the crime was
robbery, theft, estafa or falsification, is found guilty of
aggravated by reiteracion under Art. 14, par. 10, of The
any of said crimes a third time or oftener. In habitual
Revised Penal Code, the accused having been convicted
delinquency, the offender is either a recidivist or one
of frustrated murder in 1975 and of homicide, frustrated
who has been previously punished for two or more
homicide, trespass to dwelling, illegal possession of

79
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

firearms and murder sometime in 1989 where his Par. 13. - THAT THE ACT BE COMMITTED WITH
sentences were later commuted to imprisonment for 23 EVIDENT PREMEDITATION.
years and a fine of P200,000.00. He was granted
conditional pardon by the President of the Philippines on • Evident premeditation implies a deliberate planning of
8 November 1991. Reiteracion or habituality under Art. the act before executing it.
14, par. 10, herein cited, is present when the accused
has been previously punished for an offense to which • The essence of premeditation is that the execution of
the law attaches an equal or greater penalty than that the criminal act must be preceded by cool thought and
attached by law to the second offense or for two or more reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal
offenses to which it attaches a lighter penalty. As intent during the space of time sufficient to arrive at a
already discussed, herein accused can be convicted only calm judgment.
of simple rape and the imposable penalty therefor is
reclusion perpetua. Where the law prescribes a single • Evident premeditation may not be appreciated absent
indivisible penalty, it shall be applied regardless of the any proof as to how and when the plan was hatched or
mitigating or aggravating circumstances attendant to what time elapsed before it was carried out.
the crime, such as in the instant case.
REQUISITIES:
Par. 11. - THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED IN 1. The time when the offender determined to
CONSIDERATION OF A PRICE, REWARD, OR commit the crime;
PROMISE. 2. An act manifestly indicating that the culprit has
clung to his determination; and
• When this AC is present, there must be 2 or more o When the crime was carefully
principals, the one who gives or offers the price or planned by the offenders;
promise and the one who accepts it, both of whom are o When the offenders previously
principals – to the former, because he directly induces prepared the means which they
the latter to commit the crime, and the latter because considered adequate to carry it
he commits it. out.
3. A sufficient lapse of time between the
• When this AC is present, it affects not only the person determination and execution, to allow him to
who received the price or reward, but also the person reflect upon the consequences of his act and to
who gave it. allow his conscience to overcome the
resolution of his will.
• The evidence must show that one of the accused used • The offender must have an opportunity to
money or other valuable consideration for the purpose coolly and serenely think and deliberate on
of inducing another to perform the deed. the meaning and the consequences of what
he planned to do, an interval long enough
Par. 12. - THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED BY for his conscience and better judgment to
MEANS OF INUNDATION, FIRE, POISON, overcome his evil desire and scheme.
EXPLOSION, STRANDING OF A VESSEL OR
INTERNATIONAL DAMAGE THERETO, DERAILMENT • Conspiracy generally presupposes premeditation.
OF A LOCOMOTIVE, OR BY THE USE OF ANY OTHER • Evident premeditation, while inherent in robbery, may
ARTIFICE INVOLVING GREAT WASTE AND RUIN. be aggravating in robbery with homicide if the
premeditation included the killing of the victim.
• Unless used by the offender as a means to accomplish • The essence of evident premeditation is that the
a criminal purpose, any of the circumstances in execution of the criminal act must be preceded by cool
paragraph 12 cannot be considered to increase the thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out
penalty or to change the nature of the offense. the criminal intent during a space of time sufficient to
• When another AC already qualifies the crime, any of arrive at a calm judgment (People v. Alinao, G.R. No.
these AC’s shall be considered as generic aggravating 191256, 18 September 2013).
circumstance only.
• When the crime intended to be committed is arson and People v. Bibat
somebody dies as a result thereof, the crime is simply 290 SCRA 27 (1998)
arson and the act resulting in the death of that person is Facts: At around 1:30 pm, Bibat stabbed to
not even an independent crime of homicide, it being death one Lloyd del Rosario as the latter was on his way
absorbed. to school waiting for a ride. The suspect fled while the
• The killing of the victim by means of such victim was brought to the hospital where he was
circumstances as inundation, fire, poison or explosion pronounced dead on arrival. A witness testified that the
qualifies the offense to murder. accused and several others often met in Robles’ house.
• It will be noted that each of the circumstances of In one of their meetings, the accused and his
“fire”, “explosion,” and “derailment of a locomotive” may companions hid some guns and “tusok” in the house.
be a part of the definition of particular crime, such as, Also, other witnesses saw the accused at around 11:30
arson, crime involving destruction, and damages and am with some companions and heard the plan to kill
obstruction to means of communication. someone.
• In these cases, they do not serve to increase the Held: There is evident premeditation because
penalty, because they are already included by the law in the 3 requisites are present. There was evident
defining the crimes. premeditation where 2 hours had elapsed from the time
the accused clung to his determination to kill the victim
up to the actual perpetration of the crime.

80
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

People v. Lug-aw People v. Mondijar


229 SCRA 308 (1994) 392 SCRA 356(2002)
Facts: Pal-loy was fencing the boundary limits Facts: In a previous incident, Aplacador had
of the land he was farming when his daughter, Sonia, stabbed Mondijar, his father in law on the knee. A
heard a shot. Immediately, she went uphill and just as a month after, Mondiijar stabbed and hacked his son-in-
second gun shot resounded, she saw Bannay and Lug- law with the use of a sharp and pointed bolo which
aw from a distance and that her father was about to resulted to his death.
draw his bolo when Lug-aw shot him. Held: There was no evident premeditation. For
Held: The SC ruled that there was no evident the circumstance of evident premeditation to be
premeditation because no one witnessed the initial appreciated, the prosecution must present clear and
attack. As Sonia herself testified, she heard the first positive evidence of the planning and preparation
shot, went up a hill, climbed a tree and from there, saw undertaken by the offender prior to the commission of
Lug-aw shooting her father with the shot reverberating the crime. Settled is the rule that evident premeditation,
as the second gun report. What she did see was her like any other circumstance that qualifies a killing to
father trying to repel the assault with a bolo but he murder, must be established beyond reasonable doubt
failed because a second shot hit him. The records are as conclusively and indubitably as the killing itself. In
bereft of evidence that the crime was committed with the present case, no evidence was presented by the
evident premeditation. prosecution as to when and how appellant planned and
prepared for the killing of the victim. There is no
People v. Camilet showing of any notorious act evidencing a determination
142 SCRA 402 (1986) to commit the crime which could prove appellant's
Facts: After a prayer meeting was held at the criminal intent.
place of the victim, a deaf-mute boy arrived crying and
while making signals, was able to convey that he was People v. Torpio (supra)
strangled and spanked. Accompanied by some of his Facts: While having a drinking spree in a
guests, the victim proceeded to go to the place where cottage, Anthony tried to let Dennis Torpio drink gin
the boy said he was accosted. Nearing the place, the and as the latter refused, Anthony bathed Dennis with
victim was suddenly stabbed by the accused in the gin and mauled him several times. Dennis crawled
stomach with a long knife. beneath the table and Anthony tried to stab him with a
Held: Evident premeditation was not 22 fan knife but did not hit him. Dennis got up and ran
established by the prosecution. Although the facts tend towards their home. Upon reaching home, he got a
to show that Camilet might have harbored ill-feelings knife. He went back to the cottage by another route
towards the Camanchos after they took a portion of the and upon arrival Anthony was still there. Upon seeing
land he was farming and, as he himself stated to the Dennis, Anthony avoided Dennis and ran by passing the
police, they also took the produce from his cornfield, shore towards the creek but Dennis met him, blocked
there is no proof that Camilet conceived of killing the him and stabbed him. When he was hit, Anthony ran
victim. Indeed, there is no evidence of 1) the time when but got entangled with a fishing net beside the creek
he determined to commit the crime, 2) an act manifestly and fell on his back. Dennis then mounted on him and
indicating that he has clung to his determination and continued stabbing him resulting to the latter’s death.
execution to allow him to reflect upon the consequences Thereafter, Dennis left and slept at a grassy meadow
of his act and to allow his conscience to overcome the near a Camp. In the morning, he went to Estrera, a
resolution of his will had he desired to hearken to its police officer to whom he voluntarily surrendered.
warnings. Held: There is no evident premeditation in this
case. There was no sufficient interregnum from the
People v. Ilaoa time Dennis was stabbed by the victim, when Dennis
233 SCRA 231 (1994) fled to their house and his arming himself with a knife,
Facts: The 5 accused were charged for the and when he stabbed the victim. In a case of fairly
gruesome murder of Nestor de Loyola. The conviction recent vintage, it was ruled that there is no evident
was based on the following circumstances: a) The premeditation when the fracas was the result, not of a
deceased was seen on the night before the killing in a deliberate plan but of rising tempers, or when the
drinking session with some of the accused; 2) The attack was made in the heat of anger.
drunken voices of accused Ruben and Nestor were later
heard and Nestor was then seen being kicked and People v. Bernal
mauled by the 5 accused; 3) some of the accused 388 SCRA 211 (2002)
borrowed the tricycle of Alex at about 2 a.m.; 4) blood Facts: Appellant, Fernando, Felix, Rey all
was found in Ruben’s shirt. surnamed Bernal and the victim Pedrito went to a pub
Held: Evident premeditation cannot be house. Pedrito, Rey and appellant went inside while
considered. There is nothing in the records to show that Fernando and Felix waited outside. Fernando later went
appellant, prior to the night in question, resolved to kill inside and saw the three in a sleeping position. Fernando
Nestor, nor is there proof to show that such killing was then asked Felix to start the tricycle as they would bring
the result of meditation, calculation or resolution on his home the three. He first brought Pedrito out of the pub
part. On the contrary, the evidence tends to show that and had him seated at the passengers seat inside the
the series of circumstances which culminated in the tricycle. Fernado then got appellant who was roused
killing constitutes an unbroken chain of events with no when they reached the tricycle. While Fernado was
interval of time separating them for calculation and fetching Rey, accused positioned himself at the back of
meditation. 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.

81
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

Accused-appellant did not go to Barangay Dangdangla, conspirators hatched their plan to rob the spouses
Bangued to kill the victim but to attend to some Vallecera and likewise kill Erlinda. The first attempt of
important matters. Accused-appellant was just invited the malefactors to carry out their scheme was foiled and
by his relatives, whom he had not seen for a while after it was only on their second attempt that they were able
he changed residence, to have a drinking spree. The to consummate the conspiracy. Hence, that there were
probability is that the decision to shoot the victim was persistent attempts made by the accused sufficiently
made only right there and then. This should at least cast demonstrate how determined they were to adhere to
reasonable doubt on the existence of a premeditated their agreement despite the sufficient lapse of time.
plan to kill the victim. Further, the mere existence of ill- Moreover, that Charito and his cohorts went to great
feeling or grudge between the parties is not sufficient to lengths to hire Joseph to ferry them back and forth to
establish premeditated killing. Hence, it would be the scene of the crime shows the sobriety and
erroneous to declare that the killing of the victim was circumspection surrounding their decision. Such
premeditated. circumstances therefore show that the crime committed
was a product of intent and coordination among the
People v. Biso accused. Hence, the aggravating circumstance of
400 SCRA 300 (2003) evident premeditation is present in this case.
Facts: Dario, a black belt in karate, entered an
eatery, seated himself beside Teresita and made sexual People v. Salahuddin
advances to her in the presence of her brother, Eduardo. G.R. No. 206291 (2016)
Eduardo contacted his cousin, Biso, an ex-convict and a Facts: On February 10, 2004, at around 5:30
known toughie in the area, and related to him what in the afternoon, Atty. Segundo Sotto Jr., a prominent
Dario had done to Teresita. Eduardo and Pio, and 2 law practitioner in Zamboanga City, together with his
others decided to confront Dario. They positioned niece, Liezel Mae Java left the former's law office and
themselves in the alley near the house of Dario. When went home driving an owner type jeep. On the way
Dario arrived on board a taxicab, the four assaulted towards their house at farmer's Drive, Sta. Maria,
Dario. Eduardo held, with his right hand, the wrist of Zamboanga City, they passed by Nunez Street, then
Dario and covered the mouth of Dario with his left hand. turned left going to Governor Camins Street and through
The 2 others held Dario's right hand and hair. Pio then Barangay Sta. Maria. When the jeep was nearing
stabbed Dario near the breast with a fan knife. Eduardo farmer's Drive, the jeep slowed down, then, there were
stabbed Dario and fled with his three companions from two gun shots. Liezel Mae, the one sitting at the right
the scene. side of the jeep felt her shoulder get numb. Thinking
Held: There was no evident premeditation. The that they were the ones being fired at, she bent forward
prosecution failed to prove that the four intended to kill and turned left towards her uncle. While bending
Dario and if they did intend to kill him, the prosecution downwards, she heard a sound of a motorcycle at her
failed to prove how the malefactors intended to right side. Then, she heard another three (3) gunshots
consummate the crime. Except for the fact that the from the person in the motorcycle. Thereafter, the
appellant and his three companions waited in an alley motorcycle left.
for Dario to return to his house, the prosecution failed to While Liezel's head was touching the abdomen
prove any overt acts on the part of the appellant and his of her uncle, she was crying and calling out his name. A
cohorts showing that that they had clung to any plan to few minutes later, rescuers arrived. Liezel and Alty.
kill the victim. Segundo, with the use of tricycles, were brought to
Western Mindanao Medical Center (WMMC).
People v. Olazo, supra Dr. Lim and Dr. Melvin Talaver attended to the
Facts: An Information was filed with the RTC victim, but they pronounced the victim to be dead on
against Eddie Olazo, Miguel and Charito, together with arrival.
Rogelio, Joseph, Dionesia, Rommel and Eddie with the Held: In this case, the trial court correctly
crime of Robbery with Homicide alleging evident ruled that the fatal shooting of Atty. Segundo was
premeditation and taking advantage of superior strength attended by treachery because appellant shot the said
and conspiracy. However, both the RTC and the CA victim suddenly and without any warning with a deadly
failed to consider evident premeditation and taking weapon, thus: x x x Atty. Segundo G. Sotto, Jr., who
advantage of superior strength as ordinary aggravating was driving his jeep with his teenage niece as passenger
circumstance. sitting on his right side on the front seat, was totally
Held: The requirements to prove the unaware that he will be treacherously shot just 200
aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation are meters away from his residence. He was unarmed and
the following: (i) the time when the offender determined was not given any opportunity to defend himself or to
to commit the crime; (ii) an act manifestly indicating escape from the deadly assault. After he was hit when
that the culprit has clung to his determination; and (iii) the gunman fired the first two shots at him and his niece
sufficient lapse of time between the determination and and after he lost control of his jeep which bumped an
execution to allow him to reflect upon the consequences interlink wire fence and stopped, he was again shot
of his act. To warrant a finding of evident premeditation, three times by the gunman.
it must appear not only that the accused decided to
commit the crime prior to the moment of its execution, Par. 14. - THAT THE CRAFT, FRAUD OR DISGUISE
but also that such decision was the result of "meditation, BE EMPLOYED.
calculation, reflection, or persistent attempt".
While the SC had previously ruled that the CRAFT – involves intellectual trickery and cunning on
circumstance of evident premeditation is inherent in the part of the accused. It is employed as a scheme in
Robbery, it may be considered in the special complex the execution of the crime.
crime of Robbery with Homicide if there is premeditation e.x. Where the defendants pretended to be
to kill besides stealing. Here, the evidence clearly constabulary soldiers to gain entry into the place of the
established how and when Charito and his co- victims.

82
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

The act of the accused in pretending to be road. The victim’s dead body was found on the middle of
bona fide passengers of the taxicab driven by the a rice field, 50 meters from the service drop of an
deceased, when they were not so in fact, in order not to irrigation canal.
arouse his suspicion, and then killing him, constituted Held: The generic aggravating circumstances
craft. of fraud and craft are present in this case. Craft involves
intellectual trickery and cunning on the part of the
• Where craft partakes of an element of the offense, the offender. When there is a direct inducement by insidious
same may not be appreciated independently for the words or machinations, fraud is present. By saying that
purpose of aggravation. he would accompany the victim to see the cows which
the latter intended to buy, appellant was able to lure the
FRAUD – insidious words or machinations used to victim to go with him.
induce the victim to act in a manner which would enable
the offender to carry out his design. Par. 15. - THAT (1) ADVANTAGE BE TAKEN OF
e.x. To enter the house, one of the accused SUPERIOR STRENGTH, OR (2) MEANS BE
shouted from the outside that they wanted to buy EMPLOYED TO WEAKEN THE DEFENSE.
cigarettes.
(1) SUPERIOR STRENGTH
• There is a hairline distinction between craft and fraud.
• To TAKE ADVANTAGE of superior strength
• DISTINCTION: When there is a DIRECT INDUCEMENT means to use purposely excessive force out of
by insidious words or machinations, fraud is present; proportion to the means of defense available to the
otherwise, the act of the accused done in order NOT TO person attacked.
AROUSE THE SUSPICION of the victim constitutes craft. • One who attacks another with passion and
obfuscation dos not take advantage of his superior
DISGUISE – resorting to any device to conceal identity. strength.
ex. Wearing of masks • An attack made by a man with a deadly
weapon upon an unarmed and defenseless woman
• The purpose of the offender in using any device must constitutes the circumstance of abuse of that superiority
be to conceal his identity. which his SEX and the WEAPON used in the act afforded
him, and from which the woman was unable to defend
People v. Marquez herself.
117 SCRA 165 (1982) • No abuse of superior strength in parricide
Facts: Francisca was in their house together against the wife because it is inherent in the crime. It is
with her children and maid when somebody called in generally accepted that the husband is physically
front of their window who identified themselves as PC stronger than the wife.
soldiers looking for contraband. The men ordered her to • There must be evidence that the accused was
open up otherwise they will shoot up their house. Then physically stronger and that they abused such
accused Marquez went inside together with other armed superiority. The mere fact of there being a superiority in
companions. They took some of their belongings and numbers is not sufficient to bring the case within the
one of them even raped Francisca, Leticia (daughter of aggravating circumstance.
Francisca) and Rufina (maid). • There is abuse of superior strength when
Held: The following aggravating circumstances weapon used is out of proportion to the defense
were proved a) nighttime; 2) unlawful entry; 3) dwelling available to the offended party.
of the offended parties; 4) disguise, that is by • Abuse of superior strength is absorbed in
pretending to be PC officers; and 5) by utter disregard treachery.
due to victims’ age and sex. • Abuse of superior strength is aggravating in
coercion and forcible abduction, when greatly in excess
People v. Empacis of that required to commit the offense.
222 SCRA 59 (1993)
Facts: Empacis et al. held-up the store of Fidel BY A BAND ABUSE OF SUPERIOR
and his wife. As Fidel was about to give the money, he STRENGTH
decided to fight. He was stabbed several times which
When the offense is The gravamen of abuse of
resulted to his death. Empacis was stabbed by the son
committed by more than 3 superiority is the taking
of Fidel. When he went to a clinic for treatment, he was
armed malefactors advantage by the culprits
arrested.
regardless of the of their collective strength
Held: Langomes and Empacis pretended to be
comparative strength of to overpower their weaker
bona fide customers of the victim’s store and on this
the victim. victims.
pretext gained entry into the latter’s store and into
another part of his dwelling. Thus, the aggravating
circumstance of craft was taken into consideration.
(2) MEANS EMPLOYED TO WEAKEN DEFENSE
People v. Labuguen
• This circumstance is applicable only to
337 SCRA 488 (2000)
crimes against persons and sometimes against person
Facts: Under the pretext of selling 3 cows to
and property, such as robbery with physical injuries or
the victim, Labuguen convinced the victim to see the
homicide.
cows and bring P40,000.00.00 with him. The two rode
• This AC is absorbed in treachery.
on the victim’s motorcycle and Labuguen lured him to
• Ex. One who, while fighting with another,
where he could divest the victim of his money with the
suddenly casts sand or dirt upon the latter’s eyes and
least danger of being caught. He then boarded a bus
then wounds or kills him, evidently employs means
leaving the motorcycle of the victim on the side of the
which weaken the defense of his opponent.

83
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

years old. The victim died caused by severe beating and


People v. Cabato mauling on the chest portion on the victim’s body.
160 SCRA 98(1988) Held: The crime committed was murder
Facts: The accused with 2 other men who are qualified by the aggravating circumstance of abuse of
still at large, armed with firearms and stones and using superior strength. To appreciate abuse of superior
face masks, entered the dwelling of the victim. They strength, there must be a deliberate intent on the part
held the victim tight as well as the wife, who was able to of the malefactors to take advantage of their greater
scratch the face of the masked man, and as a result was number. They must have notoriously selected and made
able to identify the accused. Not satisfied with the use of superior strength in the commission of the crime.
money given by the couple, the two unknown robbers To take advantage of superior strength is to use
hit the victim with stone at the back of his head and the excessive force that is out of proportion to the means for
accused did the same to the wife which caused her self-defense available to the person attacked; thus, the
death. The prosecution argued that since the attack was prosecution must clearly show the offenders' deliberate
by a robust man of 29 years with a huge stone against intent to do so.
an ageing defenseless human, abuse of superior
strength should aggravate the crime. People v. Barcelon
Held: The prosecution failed to prove that 398 SCRA 556(2002)
there was indeed a notorious inequality between the Facts: Barcelon went inside the house of
ages, sizes and strength of the antagonists and that Amador. Thereafter, accused strangled and stabbed the
these notorious advantages were purposely sought for victim with a knife. Amador died as a result. At the time
or used by the accused to achieve his ends. the crime was committed, Amador was a 69 year-old
woman and Barcelon was only 29 years old.
People v. Ruelan Held: Abuse of superior strength was present
231 SCRA 650(1994) in the commission of the crime. The court cited the case
Facts: Ruelan (20 yrs old) was hired by the of People v. Ocumen, where an attack by a man with a
spouses Ricardo and Rosa (76 yrs old) to help them sell deadly weapon upon an unarmed woman constitutes the
and deliver rice to their customers. One day, Rosa asked circumstance of abuse of that superiority which his sex
Ruelan to accompany her in opening their store in the and the weapon used in the act afforded him, and from
public market; she also ordered him to bring a sack and which the woman was unable to defend herself.
an axe. When they were about to leave the premises, The disparity in age between the assailant and
the house dog got loose and went towards the street. the victim, aged 29 and 69, respectively, indicates
Rosa got angry and scolded Ruelan. Ruelan pleaded her physical superiority on appellant's part over the
to stop but Rosa did not so Ruelan struck her behind her deceased. It did not matter that appellant was "dark"
right ear, causing her to fall face down. He left her in a with a "slim body build" or "medyo mataba." What
grassy portion beside the street and fled. He mattered was that the malefactor was male and armed
surrendered to the police after 2 days. with a lethal weapon that he used to slay the victim.
Held: Although abuse of superior strength was
proven since Ruelan was only 20 years old, whereas his People v. Sansaet
victim was 76 years old already, this was not pleaded in 376 SCRA 426 (2002)
the information. Hence, it shall only be considered as a Facts Uldarico was drinking with 15 other men
generic circumstance in the imposition of the correct that include the Sansaet brothers, Rogelio, Leopoldo and
penalty. Silverio. Because of a bad joke that cropped up, verbal
exchanges ensued. Thereafter, Rogelio and Uldarico
People v. Padilla started hacking each other with bolos. Silverio and
233 SCRA 46 (1994) Leopolo positioned themselves behind the victim and
Facts: Pat. Omega was on duty when Ontuca also hacked him. Uldarico retaliated wounding Silverio.
approached him asking for help claiming he was being Rogelio then hacked Uldarico a 2nd time. Leopoldo and
maltreated by strangers. They proceeded to the place Rogelio continued hacking Uldarico when the latter fell.
where they saw 3 men and a woman. An argument They then dragged Uldarico towards the river and there
ensued between Ontuca and the 3 men, one of which they each twice hacked Uldarico resulting to his death.
was Sgt. Padilla. Omega left but returned when he saw Held: Mere superiority in number, even
that the 3 men were ganging up on Ontuca. The latter assuming it to be a fact, would not necessarily indicate
was stripped of his service revolver. Ontuca was pursued the attendance of abuse of superior strength. The
by Padilla. The former, with only a piece of plywood as a prosecution should still prove that the assailants
defense, was shot by the latter in the head. purposely used excessive force out of proportion to the
Held: The killing was qualified by the AC of means of defense available to the persons attacked.
abuse of superior strength which was alleged in the Finally, to appreciate the qualifying
information and proved during trial. The abuse of circumstance of abuse of superior strength, what should
superior strength is present not only when the offenders be considered is whether the aggressors took advantage
enjoy numerical superiority, or there is a notorious of their combined strength in order to consummate the
inequality of forces between the victim and the offense. To take advantage of superior strength means
aggressor, but also when the offender uses a powerful to purposely use excessive force out of proportion to the
weapon which is out of proportion to the defense means available to the person attacked to defend
available to the victim as in this case. himself. In the case at bar, the victim Uldarico de Castro
was the one who picked a fight with the accused-
People v. Lobrigas appellants because he did not like the joke by one of the
394 SCRA 170 (2002) accused-appellants. There was no evidence to show that
Facts: Frank, Marlito, both surnamed Lobrigas the accused-appellants purposely sought and took
and Mante mauled and box Taylaran who was already 76 advantage of their number to subdue the victim.

84
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

People v. Ventura • There is treachery in killing a child because the


433 SCRA 389 (2004) weakness of the victim due to his tender age results in
Facts: Ventura armed with a .38 Caliber Home- the absence of any danger to the accused.
made Revolver and Flores armed with a bladed weapon,
entered the house of the Bocatejas by cutting a hole in
the kitchen door. Ventura announced a hold-up and hit ADDITIONAL RULES:
Jaime on the head and asked for the keys. Jaime called 1. When the aggression is CONTINUOUS,
out for help and tried to wrestle the gun away from treachery must be present in the BEGINNING
Ventura. Flores then stabbed Jaime 3 times. Flores also of the assault.
stabbed Jaime’s wife Aileen who had been awakened. 2. When the assault WAS NOT CONTINUOUS, in
Aileen tried to defend herself with an electric cord to no that there was an interruption, it is sufficient
avail. Aileen died on the hospital on the same day. that treachery was present AT THE MOMENT
Held: By deliberately employing a deadly THE FATAL BLOW WAS GIVEN.
weapon against Aileen, Flores took advantage of the
superiority which his strength, sex and weapon gave • In treachery, it makes no difference whether or not
him over his unarmed victim. The fact that Aileen the victim was the same person whom the accused
attempted to fend off the attack on her and her husband intended to kill.
by throwing nearby objects, such as an electric cord, at • When it is NOT SHOWN that the principal by induction
appellant Flores does not automatically negate the directed the killer of the deceased to adopt the means or
possibility that the latter was able to take advantage of methods actually used by the latter in accomplishing the
his superior strength murder, because the former left to the latter the details
as to how it was to be accomplished, treachery cannot
Par. 16. - THAT THE ACT BE COMMITTED WITH be taken into consideration as to the principal by
TREACHERY (ALEVOSIA). induction.
• A treacherous attack is one in which the victim was
• TREACHERY means that the offended party not afforded any opportunity to defend himself or resist
was not given opportunity to make a defense. the attack. The existence of treachery is not solely
• There is treachery when the offender determined by the type of weapon used. If it appears
commits any of the crimes against the person, that the weapon was deliberately chosen to insure the
employing means, methods or forms in the execution execution of the crime, and to render the victim
thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its defenseless, then treachery may be properly appreciated
execution, without risk to himself arising from the against the accused (People v. Labiaga, G.R. No.
defense which the offended party might make. 202867, 15 July 2013).

REQUISITES:
TREACHERY ABUSE OF MEANS
a. That at the time of the attack, the victim was SUPERIOR EMPLOYED TO
not in a position to defend himself; and STRENGTH WEAKEN
b. That the offender consciously adopted the DEFENSE
particular means, method or form of attack The means, The offender The offender,
employed by him. methods or does not employ like in treachery,
• Treachery does not connote the element of surprise forms of attack means, methods employs means
alone. are employed to or forms of but the means
• There is no treachery when the attack is preceded by a make it attack; he only employed only
warning or the accused gave the deceased a chance to impossible or takes advantage materially
prepare. hard for the of his superior weakens the
• The qualifying circumstance of treachery may not be offended party strength. resisting power
simply deduced from presumption as it is necessary that to defend of the offended
the existence of this qualifying or aggravating himself. party.
circumstance should be proven as fully as the crime
itself in order to aggravate the liability or penalty • When there is conspiracy, treachery is considered
incurred by the culprit. against all the offenders.
• Treachery, evident premeditation and use of superior
RULES REGARDING TREACHERY strength are, by their nature, inherent in the offense of
a. Applicable only to crimes against persons. treason.
b. Means, methods or forms need not insure
accomplishment of crime. • Treachery absorbs abuse of superior strength, aid of
c. The mode of attack must be consciously adopted. armed men, by a band and means to weaken the
defense.
• Mere suddenness of the attack is not enough to
constitute treachery. Such method or form of attack • Nighttime and craft are absorbed in treachery except if
must be deliberately chosen by the accused. treachery rests upon an independent factual basis.

ATTACKS SHOWN INTENTION TO ELIMINATE • Treachery is inherent in murder by poisoning.


RISK:
a. Victim asleep • Treachery cannot co-exist with passion and
b. Victim half-awake or just awakened obfuscation.
c. Victim grappling or being held.
d. Attacked from behind

85
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

People v. Calinawan the offender commits any of the crimes against the
G.R. No. 226145, 13 February 2017 person, employing means, methods, or forms in the
Facts: Janice’s seven year old daughter saw execution thereof which tend directly and specially to
Calinawan stabbing her mother in their kitchen. insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from
Thereafter, Calinawan quickly fled the scene. Janice told the defense which the offended party might make. There
his husband that Calinawan stabbed her. After three was treachery in this case as the accused appeared from
days, Janice died due to the severity of the injuries. out of nowhere and suddenly stabbed the victim.
Held: The following elements must be
established before the existence of treachery may be People v. Umayam
appreciated: (a) at the time of the attack, the victim 381 SCRA 323 (2002)
was not in a position to defend himself; and (b) the Facts: Umayam and the victim, Mendoza were
accused consciously and deliberately adopted the living as husband and wife in a shanty erected inside a
particular means, methods, or forms of attack employed compound owned by Velasquez. During the couple’s stay
by him. The suddenness or unexpectedness alone, in the compound, Velasquez would notice them
however, of the attack is insufficient to support the frequently quarreling and Mendoza on occasions would
finding of treachery. Other than Marigor's first-hand run to Velasquez for help for the beatings inflicted on
account, no other witness actually saw the stabbing her by her husband. Velasquez then noticed a foul odor
incident. Obviously, her narration of the events that emanating from the couple’s shanty which he at first
unfolded was crucial in determining how the killing was thought to be that of a poultry feed or kaning baboy.
perpetrated because she was the only one who actually With the assistance of the police who broke the shanty’s
saw its execution. Her testimony, however, was lacking walls, the decomposing body of Mendoza was found
in details; thus, it is insufficient to conclude that the inside. The trial court found Umayam guilty of murder.
killing was attended with treachery. Absent clear and Held: The qualifying circumstance of treachery
convincing evidence on how the attack was perpetrated, was not established with concrete evidence. The
the conclusion that there was treachery is nothing more circumstantial evidence on record does not clearly show
but an assumption. It is unfortunate that the particular that there was any conscious and deliberate effort on
means, manner or method of attack was never clearly the part of the accused to adopt any particular means,
illustrated in her testimony leaving the evidence for method or form of attack to ensure the commission of
murder wanting. the crime without affording the victim any means to
defend herself. The conclusion that there was treachery
People vs. Sibbu can hardly be gleaned because the victim and Umayam
G.R. No. 214757, 29 March 2017 were inside their shanty and no one witnessed how the
Facts: Bryan saw from a distance a person in killing took place. Notably, the medical findings of the
camouflage uniform with a long firearm slung across his victim's cadaver show, contusions on her arms and legs,
chest and a black bonnet over his head. Bryan also saw indicating that there may have been a quarrel prior to
two men in crouching position at a distance of three the stabbing. This reasonably negates treachery.
meters away from the appellant. Fearing the worst,
Bryan shouted a warning to his family. Appellant then People v. Piedad
fired upon them killing three persons. The RTC found the 393 SCRA 488 (2002)
accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and The essence of treachery is a deliberate and
attempted murder. The CA affirmed the RTC’s decision. sudden attack, affording the hapless, unarmed and
Held: Treachery is present when the offender unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to escape.
commits any of the crimes against person, employing While it is true that the victim herein may have been
means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof warned of a possible danger to his person, since the
which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, victim and his companion headed towards their
without risk to himself arising from the defense which residence when they saw the group of accused-
the offended party might make. In the case, the appellants coming back for them after an earlier quarrel
evidence on record reveals that at the time of the just minutes before, in treachery, what is decisive is that
shooting incident, the victims were at the porch of their the attack was executed in such a manner as to make it
house totally unaware of the impending attack. In impossible for the victim to retaliate.
addition, they were all unarmed thus unable to mount a In the case at bar, Mateo did not have any chance of
defense in the event of an attack. The use of disguise defending himself from the accused-appellant's
was likewise correctly appreciated as an aggravating concerted assault, even if he was forewarned of the
circumstance in this case. There could be no other attack. Mateo was obviously overpowered and helpless
possible purpose for wearing a bonnet over appellant’s when accused-appellants' group numbering around
face but to conceal his identity. eight, ganged up and mauled him. Luz came to Mateo's
succor by embracing him and pacifying his aggressors,
People v. Roberto Castillo but accused-appellants were unrelenting. More
289 SCRA 213 (1998) importantly, Mateo could not have actually anticipated
Facts: At around 1:00a.m. Tony went out of a the sudden landing of a large concrete stone on his
pubhouse in Quezon City. As he was saying goodbye to head. The stone was thus treacherously struck. Neither
the floor manager outside, Robert Castillo suddenly could the victim have been aware that Lito came up
appeared and stabbed Tony in the chest with a knife. beside him to stab his back as persons were beating him
Tony ran towards EDSA. The next day, Tony was found from every direction. Lito's act of stabbing the victim
dead near the fence of an INC compound. with a knife, inflicting a 15-cm deep wound shows
Held: There is treachery when the means, deliberate intent of using a particular means of attack.
methods and forms of execution gave the victim no Considering the location of the injuries sustained by the
opportunity to defend himself or retaliate. It must be victim and the absence of defense wounds, Mateo
deliberately and consciously adopted by the accused clearly had no chance to defend himself.
without danger to his person. There is treachery when

86
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

People v. Dumadag Held: The appellant’s sudden attack on Romeo


432 SCRA 65 (2004) amply demonstrates that treachery was employed in the
Facts: Prudente with his friends including commission of the crime. It is of no consequence that
Meliston agreed to meet at a swimming pool to celebrate appellant was in front of Romeo when he thrust the
the feast of St. John. On their way home, there was knife to his torso. Records show that appellant initially
heavy downpour so they decided to take a shelter at a came from behind and then attacked Romeo from the
store where 2 men, 1 of whom is Dumadag are having front. In any event, "[e]ven a frontal attack could be
some drinks. Dumadag offered Prudente a drink of treacherous when unexpected and on an unarmed victim
Tanduay but the latter refused then left. Dumadag who would be in no position to repel the attack or avoid
followed Prudente and stabbed the victim on his breast it," as in this case. Undoubtedly, the RTC and CA
with a knife which resulted to his death. correctly held that the crime committed was murder
Held: As a general rule, a sudden attack by under Article 248 of the RPC by reason of the qualifying
the assailant, whether frontally or from behind, is circumstance of treachery.
treachery if such mode of attack was deliberately
adopted by him with the purpose of depriving the victim People v. Libre
of a chance to either fight or retreat. The rule does not G.R. No. 192790 (2016)
apply if the attack was not pre-conceived but merely There is treachery when the killing was
triggered by infuriation of the appellant on an act made committed through an unexpected and sudden attack
by the victim. In the present case, it is apparent that the which renders the victim unable and unprepared to put
attack was not preconceived. It was triggered by the up a defense.
appellant's anger because of the victim's refusal to have There is treachery when the offender commits
a drink with the appellant and his companions. any of the crimes against the person, employing means,
methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend
People v. Rebucan directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk
G.R. No. 182551 (2011) to himself arising from the defense which the offended
Facts: Carmela stated that at the time of the party might make. The essence of treachery is that the
incident, she was playing with a toy camera inside the attack comes without a warning and in a swift,
house and she was situated beside a chicken cage, near deliberate, and unexpected manner, affording the
a bench. Felipe, her grandfather was also there near the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to
bench and he was carrying Ranil, her brother, in his resist or escape.
right arm. Accused-appellant then came inside the Respondents’ attack was well-planned and the
house in a sudden manner. She insisted that Ranil was series of events that transpired clearly established
carried by Felipe when the accused-appellant entered conspiracy among them. First, the perpetrators
the house. She said that no fight or altercation occurred undoubtedly acted in concert as they went to the house
between Felipe and the accused-appellant. After Felipe of Ruben together, each with his own firearms. Second,
was hacked, he immediately ran outside of the the perpetrators used Lucy Sabando and her child to
house. Carmela and Jericho then ran to the back of the trick Ruben and ensure that he will come out of the
house. house clueless to their presence. Third, after a moment
Held: The abruptness of the unexpected of struggling, Caman immediately shot Ruben Barte at
assault rendered Felipe defenseless and deprived him of the back. Fourth, perpetrators simultaneously strafed
any opportunity to repel the attack and retaliate. As Barte's house for a long period to ensure that those
Felipe was carrying his grandson Ranil, the child inside the house are likewise killed. Fifth, despite Juanita
unfortunately suffered the same fatal end as that of his Barte's plea to stop shooting as there were children with
grandfather. In the killing of Ranil, the trial court them, the shooting continued thus manifesting clear
likewise correctly appreciated the existence of intent to kill. Lastly, when they ceased firing, they
treachery. The said circumstance may be properly rested at the same time and fled together. The
considered, even when the victim of the attack was not suddenness and unexpectedness of the assault deprived
the one whom the defendant intended to kill, if it the victims of an opportunity to resist it or offer any
appears from the evidence that neither of the two defense of their persons. Clearly, the victims were
persons could in any manner put up defense against the unaware that they would be attacked by accused with a
attack or become aware of it. Furthermore, the killing of hail of bullets from their firearms. In fact, they were
a child is characterized by treachery even if the manner already in bed when Lucy Sabando called for help which
of assault is not shown. For the weakness of the victim prompted Ruben Barte to come out of the house. Hence,
due to his tender years results in the absence of any the subsequent shooting was deliberate, unexpected,
danger to the accused. swift and sudden which foreclosed any escape,
resistance or defense coming from the victims.

People v. Amora People v. Oandasan


G.R. No. 190322 (2014) G.R. No. 194605 (2016)
Facts: Anselmo, Aurelio, and the victim Romeo Facts: Three informations were filed against
were walking on their way to Sampol Market in San Jose Oandasan, two of which were for murder involving the
Del Monte City. As they were making their way to the fatal shooting of Tamanu and Montegrico, and the third
market, they saw appellant in his store located on the was for frustrated homicide involving the near-fatal
right side of the street. Suddenly, appellant rushed shooting of Paleg alleging treachery in all the
towards them and stabbed Romeo twice - one on the informations. The trial court properly appreciated the
chest and another on the abdomen. They were all attendance of treachery and pronounced that Oandasan
caught by surprise due to the suddenness of the attack. guilty of murder for the fatal shooting of Montegrico.
Romeo fell to the ground while appellant quickly ran However, the trial court pronounced Oandasan guilty of
away from the scene. homicide for killing Tamanu and frustrated homicide as
to the wounding of Paleg, on the basis that treachery

87
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

was not shown to be attendant which was affirmed by and excitement, and had no time to reflect on his
the CA. actions; in other words, he could not be shown to have
Held: Treachery is also attendant in the consciously adopted the mode of attacking the victim
shooting of Tamanu and Paleg The evidence in this case from behind to facilitate the killing without risk to
shows that the attack was unexpected and swift. himself.
Montegrico and his friends were just drinking outside the
bunkhouse when the appellant suddenly appeared from People v. Berk
the back of a dump truck, walked towards their table G.R. No. 204896 (2016)
and, without any warning, fired at Montegrico. This shot Facts: Berk and his co-accused Serencio were
was followed by more shots directed at Montegrico's charged with Murder for the death of Disu. During
friends, Tamanu and Paleg. Indisputably, Montegrico arraignment, Berk pleaded not guilty to the crime
was caught off guard by the sudden and deliberate charged. Serencio remains at large. After trial, the RTC
attack coming from the appellant, leaving him with no gave credence to the eyewitness accounts of Marbie and
opportunity to raise any defense against the attack. Loreto of Berk’s liability in the killing of the victim and
Also, appellant deliberately and consciously adopted his found him guilty of Murder, qualified by treachery which
mode of attack by using a gun and made sure that was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Montegrico, who was unarmed, would have no chance to Held: In the prosecution of the crime of
defend himself. Hence, the accused is guilty of two murder as defined in Article 248 of the Revised Penal
counts of murder and one count of frustrated murder. Code (RPC), the following elements must be established
by the prosecution: (1) that a person was killed; (2)
People v. Buenafe that the accused killed that person; (3) that the killing
G.R. No. 212930 (2016) was attended by treachery; and (4) that the killing is not
Facts: Appellant and two (2) unidentified men infanticide or parricide.
alighted from a vehicle and thereafter, while Rommel The prosecution ably established the presence
was unwarily texting inside a tent, the two men of the element of treachery as a qualifying circumstance.
suddenly restrained his arms behind his back. The shooting of the unsuspecting victim was sudden and
Subsequently, appellant approached Rommel and unexpected which effectively deprived her of the chance
delivered several blows to his abdomen until he to defend herself or to repel the aggression, insuring the
crumpled to the ground. After which, appellant walked commission of the crime without risk to the aggressor
towards a nearby hut while the two men dragged and without any provocation on the part of the victim.
Rommel. Inside the hut, appellant shot the victim using
a lead pipe ("sumpak"). People v. Salahuddin (supra)
Held: In this case, the victim was merely The essence of treachery is the sudden attack
unwarily texting inside the tent when the two men held by the aggressor without the slightest provocation on
him from behind so that the appellant can deliver blows the part of the victim, depriving the latter of any real
to his abdomen. The victim was too unprepared and chance to defend himself, thereby ensuring the
helpless to defend himself against these three men. commission of the crime without risk to the aggressor.
Furthermore, appellant's acts of dragging him to the Two conditions must concur for treachery to exist,
nearby hut and using a lead pipe (sumpak) evidently namely, (a) the employment of means of execution gave
shows that he consciously adopted means to ensure the the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or
execution of the crime. Thus, treachery is appreciated. to retaliate; and (b) the means or method of execution
was deliberately and consciously adopted.
Rustia v. People
G.R. No. 208351 (2016) People v. Benjamin Ong
There is no treachery when the killing was 62 SCRA 174 (1975)
committed during the heat of an argument. Facts: Ong owed Chua P50,000 from their mahjong
Treachery exists when the following elements sessions. Chua even went to Ong’s office to collect the
are present: (a) at the time of the attack, the victim was money which embarrassed Ong and eventually caused
not in a position to defend himself; and (b) the accused Ong to resign from work. Tan, a friend of Ong,
consciously and deliberately adopted the particular suggested that they just kill Chua. After the parties held
means, methods, or forms of attack employed by him. a meeting to discuss the payment of the balance, Tan
Thus, it is not sufficient that the victim was unable to and other men followed Chua’s car. The suspects
defend himself. It must be clearly shown that the abducted and tied Chua’s hands and brought him to a
accused consciously adopted such mode of attack to place in Novaliches where he was stabbed him with an
facilitate the perpetration of the killing without risk to icepick. Chua’s body was buried and his car was left in
himself. Since the killing of the victim was committed in Bulacan.
the heat of their argument, it is quite clear that
Benjamin, Jr. had not consciously adopted his mode of Held: There was conspiracy in the commission of the
attack in killing the victim. The fact remains that it was crime and it was done with treachery. There was
the victim who had brought the gun to the meeting. To treachery which qualified the killing to murder when the
establish the attendance of treachery in such an victim’s hands were tied and his mouth was gagged
environment, the Prosecution's evidence must before he was stabbed to death. The suspects
competently and convincingly show that the accused participated in the planning and execution of the crime.
made some preparation to kill the victim; hence, a Because there was concert of design and the unity of
killing done at the spur of the moment cannot be purpose and intention was present, all the suspects are
treacherous. Even where the victim was shot from liable as principals for the conspiracy to murder the
behind, if the shooting was done in the course of a victim.
heated argument between the victim and the assailant,
treachery should not be appreciated, for in that
situation, the assailant was filled with anger and rage

88
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

People v. Escote ex. When the accused raped a married woman


400 SCRA 603 (2003) in the presence of her husband.
Facts: At around midnight, a bus going to Pangasinan
was boarded by the accused in Balintawak. A few People v. Siao
minutes after, the suspects declared a holdup and fired 327 SCRA 231 (2000)
shots at the roof of the bus to wake up the passengers. Facts: Estrella worked as a housemaid of Rene
They began taking the passenger’s valuables. SPO1 Siao’s family. One day, Rene ordered Reylan, their
Mario was among the passengers. He was disarmed and houseboy, to bring Estrella to a room. While holding a
was shot dead by one of the robbers even after he pled gun, Rene forced Reylan to have sex with Estrella (oral
for his life. The suspects were arrested at a checkpoint sex, missionary position, and in the manner dogs
when they presented the dead officer’s identification perform sexual intercourse).
card. They were convicted of robbery with homicide. Held: The accused was held guilty of rape with
the use of a deadly weapon, which is punishable by
Issue: Whether or not treachery can be used to qualify reclusion perpetua to death. But the trial court
the robbery with homicide committed. overlooked and did not take into account the
aggravating circumstance of ignominy and sentenced
Held: No. Treachery is not an element of robbery with accused to the single indivisible penalty of reclusion
homicide. Neither does it constitute a crime specially perpetua. It has been held that where the accused in
punishable by law nor is it included by the law in committing the rape used not only the missionary
defining the crime of robbery with homicide and position, the AC of ignominy attended the commission
prescribing the penalty therefore. Treachery is likewise thereof.
not inherent in the crime of robbery with homicide.
Hence, treachery should be considered as a generic People v. Cachola
aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide for 420 SCRA 520 (2004)
the imposition of the proper penalty for the crime. Facts: Jessie was about to leave their house to
watch cartoons in his uncle's house next door when
In the application of treachery as a generic accused suddenly entered the front door of their house.
aggravating circumstance to robbery with homicide, the They ordered Jessie to drop to the floor, and then hit
law looks at the constituent crime of homicide which is a him in the back with the butt of a long gun. Without
crime against persons and not at the constituent crime much ado, the intruders shot to death Jessie's uncle,
of robbery which is a crime against property. Treachery Victorino who was then in the living room. Jessie
is applied to the constituent crime of homicide and not forthwith crawled and hid under a bed, from where he
to the constituent crime of robbery of the special saw the feet of a third man who had also entered the
complex crime of robbery with homicide. house. The men entered the kitchen and continued
shooting. When the rampage was over and after the
The crime of robbery with homicide does not lose
malefactors had already departed, Jessie came out of his
its classification as a crime against property or as a
hiding place and proceeded to the kitchen. There he saw
special complex and single and indivisible crime simply
his mother, Carmelita; his brother Felix.; and his cousin
because treachery is appreciated as a generic
Rubenson — all slaughtered. The death certificate of
aggravating circumstance. Treachery merely increases
Victorino reveals that his penis was excised.
the penalty for the crime conformably with Article 63 of
Held: Ignominy cannot be appreciated in this
the Revised Penal Code absent any generic mitigating
case. For ignominy to be appreciated, it is required that
circumstance.
the offense be committed in a manner that tends to
In sum then, treachery is a generic aggravating make its effect more humiliating, thus adding to the
circumstance in robbery with homicide when the victim victim's moral suffering. Where the victim was already
of homicide is killed by treachery. 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
Par. 17. - THAT MEANS BE EMPLOYED OR organ was severed after he was shot and there is no
CIRCUMSTANCES BROUGHT ABOUT WHICH ADD allegation that it was done to add ignominy to the
IGNOMINY TO THE NATURAL EFFECTS OF THE ACT. natural effects of the act. We cannot, therefore, consider
ignominy as an aggravating circumstance.
IGNOMINY – it is a circumstance pertaining to the
People v. Bumidang
moral order, which adds disgrace and obloquy to the
346 SCRA 807(2000)
material injury caused by the crime.
Facts: Baliwang Bumidang raped Gloria in front
of her 80 year old father, Melecio. Melecio helplessly saw
• This AC is applicable to crimes against chastity and
the accused rape her daughter but did not move
persons.
because he was too afraid and weak. Before raping the
victim, Baliwang examined the genitals of Gloria with a
• When the accused raped a woman after winding cogon
flashlight.
grass around his genital organ, he thereby augmented
Held: The aggravating circumstance of
the wrong done by increasing its pain and adding
ignominy shall be taken into account if means are
ignominy thereto (People v. Torrefiel).
employed or circumstances brought about which add
* NOTE: According to Professor Ambion, this is
ignominy to the natural effects of the offense; or if the
not ignominy but cruelty.
crime was committed in a manner that tends to make its
effects more humiliating to the victim, that is, add to her
• The means employed or the circumstances brought
moral suffering. It was established that Baliwang used
about must tend to make the effects of the crime MORE
the flashlight and examined the genital of Gloria before
HUMILIATING or TO PUT THE OFFENDED PARTY TO
he ravished her. He committed his bestial deed in the
SHAME.

89
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

presence of Gloria's old father. These facts clearly show


that Baliwang deliberately wanted to further humiliate Par. 20. - THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED (1)
Gloria, thereby aggravating and compounding her moral WITH THE AID OF PERSONS UNDER FIFTEEN
sufferings. Ignominy was appreciated in a case where a YEARS OF AGE (SEE R.A 9344) OR (2) BY MEANS
woman was raped in the presence of her betrothed, or OF MOTOR VEHICLES, MOTORIZED WATERCRAFT,
of her husband, or was made to exhibit to the rapists AIRSHIPS, OR OTHER SIMILAR MEANS. (AS
her complete nakedness before they raped her. AMENDED BY RA 5438).

Par. 18. - THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED AFTER (1) WITH THE AID OF PERSONS UNDER 15 YEARS
AN UNLAWFUL ENTRY. OF AGE
THERE IS AN UNLAWFUL ENTRY WHEN AN (2) BY MEANS OF A MOTOR VEHICLE
ENTRANCE IS EFFECTED BY A WAY NOT INTENDED • It is aggravating where the accused used the
FOR THE PURPOSE. motor vehicle in going to the place of the crime, in
carrying away the effects thereof, and if facilitating their
• There is unlawful entry when an entrance is effected escape.
by a way not intended for the purpose. • If the motor vehicle was used only in
• Unlawful entry must be a means to effect entrance and facilitating the escape, it should not be an aggravating
not for escape. circumstance.
• There is no unlawful entry when the door is broken • Estafa, which is committed by means of
and thereafter the accused made an entry thru the deceit or abuse of confidence, cannot be committed by
broken door. The breaking of the door is covered by means of motor vehicle.
paragraph 19. • Theft, which is committed by merely taking
personal property which need not be carried away,
RATIONALE FOR PAR. 18: One who acts, not respecting cannot be committed by means of motor vehicles.
the walls erected by men to guard their property and “or other similar means” – the expression
provide for their personal safety, shows a greater should be understood as referring to MOTORIZED
perversity, a greater audacity; hence, the law punishes vehicles or other efficient means of transportation
him with more severity. similar to automobile or airplane.

• This AC is inherent in robbery with force upon things. Par. 21. - THAT THE WRONG DONE IN THE
• Dwelling and unlawful entry is taken separately in COMMISSION OF THE CRIME BE DELIBERATELY
murders committed in a dwelling. AUGMENTED BY CAUSING OTHER WRONG NOT
• Unlawful entry is not aggravating in trespass to NECESSARY FOR ITS COMMISSION.
dwelling.
CRUELTY
People v. Baello • There is cruelty when the culprit enjoys and
224 SCRA 218 (1993) delights in making his victim suffer slowly and gradually,
Facts: Brgy. Captain Borja awoke one night to causing him unnecessary physical pain in the
find out that their front door was open and that their TV consummation of the criminal act.
set was missing. He and his wife saw their dead
daughter lying in bed. The TV set was recovered by the • For cruelty to exist, it must be shown that the accused
police at the house of Tadifo, Baello’s brother-in-law. enjoyed and delighted in making his victim suffer.
Tadifo claimed that Baello and Jerry had an agreement
to rob the house of Borja. It was Jerry who killed Borja’s REQUISITES:
daughter because it was he who was left inside the 1. That the injury caused be deliberately
house. increased by causing other wrong;
Held: The aggravating circumstances of 2. That the other wrong be unnecessary for
unlawful entry was properly appreciated against the the execution of the purpose of the
accused as he and his companion, Jerry, had entered offender.
the Borja residence through the second floor window, a
way not intended for ingress. • Cruelty refers to physical suffering of victim purposely
intended by offender.
Par. 19. - THAT AS A MEANS TO THE COMMISSION • Plurality of wounds alone does not show cruelty.
OF A CRIME, A WALL, ROOF, FLOOR, DOOR, OR • There is no cruelty when other wrong was done after
WINDOW BE BROKEN. the victim was dead.

• To be considered as an AC, breaking the door must be IGNOMINY CRUELTY


utilized as a means to the commission of the crime. Involves moral suffering. Refers to physical
suffering.
• It is only aggravating in cases where the offender
resorted to any of said means TO ENTER the house. If People v. Lacao
the wall, etc. is broken in order to get out of the place, it 60 SCRA 89 (1974)
is not aggravating. Facts: Gallardo, coming from a gathering,
decided to go home. As he was descending the stairs
Par. 19 Par. 18 Baltazar followed him and stabbed him with a knife at
It involves the breaking Presupposes that there is the right side of his body. Baltazar tried to pull out the
(rompimiento) of the no such breaking as by knife. Gallrado ran. When the latter reached the bamboo
enumerated parts of the entry is through the grove, he was assaulted by David and his son, Salvador,
house. window Jose and Federico. Gallardo sustained 14 wounds by

90
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

different bladed instruments. His assailants dragged him SECTION 1. Short Title. - This Act shall be
to the field. He died later. It was found that each of the known as "The Anti-Rape Law of 1997".
9 wounds could have caused his death if there were no SECTION 2. Rape as a Crime Against Persons.
timely medical assistance. - The crime of rape shall hereafter be classified as a Crime
Held: The numerousness of wound is not the Against Persons under Title Eight of Act 3815, as amended,
otherwise known as the Revised Penal Code. Accordingly,
criterion for appreciating cruelty. The test is whether the
there shall be incorporated into Title Eight of the same Code
accused deliberately and sadistically augmented the
a new chapter to be known as Chapter Three on Rape, to
wrong by causing another wrong not necessary for its
read as follows:
commission or inhumanly increased the victim’s
suffering or outraged or scoffed at his person or corpse. "Chapter Three Rape"

People v. Ilaoa (supra) Article 266-A. Rape: When and How Committed. - Rape is
The fact that Nestor’s decapitated body bearing Committed-
43 stab wounds, 24 of which were fatal, was found
dumped in the street is not sufficient for a finding of 1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a
cruelty where there is no showing that appellant Ilaoa, woman under any of the following circumstances:
for his pleasure and satisfaction, caused Nestor to suffer
slowly and painfully and inflicted on him unnecessary a) Through force, threat, or intimidation;
physical and moral pain. Number of wounds alone is not b) When the offended party is deprived of reason
or otherwise unconscious;
the criterion for the appreciation of cruelty as an
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave
aggravating circumstance. Neither can it be inferred
abuse of authority;
from the mere fact that the victim’s dead body was d) When the offended party is under twelve (12)
dismembered. years of age or is demented, even though none of the
circumstances mentioned above be present;
People v. Catian
374 SCRA 514 (2002) 2) By any person who, under any of the
Facts: Catian repeatedly strike Willy with a circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall
"chako" on the head, causing Willy to fall on his knees. commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into
Calunod seconded by striking the victim with a piece of other person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or
wood on the face. When Willy finally collapsed, object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person.
Sumalpong picked him up, carried him over his
shoulder, and carried Willy to a place where they burned Article 266-B. Penalties. - Rape under paragraph 1 of the
Willy. The latter’s skeletal remains were discovered by a next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion
child who was pasturing his cow near a peanut perpetua.
Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a
plantation.
deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall
Held: The circumstance of cruelty may not be
be reclusion perpetua to death.
considered as there is no showing that the victim was When by reason or on the occasion of the rape,
burned while he was still alive. For cruelty to exist, there the victim has become insane, the penalty shall be reclusion
must be proof showing that the accused delighted in perpetua to death.
making their victim suffer slowly and gradually, causing When the rape is attempted and a homicide is
him unnecessary physical and moral pain in the committed by reason or on the occasion thereof, the penalty
consummation of the criminal act. No proof was shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
presented that would show that accused-appellants When by reason or on the occasion of the rape,
deliberately and wantonly augmented the suffering of homicide is committed, the penalty shall be death.
their victim. The death penalty shall also be imposed if the
crime of rape is committed with any of the following
People v. Guerrero aggravating/qualifying circumstances:
1) When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of
389 SCRA 389 (2002)
age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent,
Appellant first severed the victim's head
guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the
before his penis was cut-off. This being the sequence of
third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent
events, cruelty has to be ruled out for it connotes an act of the victim.
of deliberately and sadistically augmenting the wrong by 2) When the victim is under the custody of the
causing another wrong not necessary for its commission, police or military authorities or any law enforcement of penal
or inhumanely increasing the victim's suffering. As institution.
testified to by Dr. Sanglay, and reflected in her medical 3) When the rape is committed in full view of the
certificate, Ernesto in fact died as a result of his head spouse, parent, any of the children or other relatives within
being severed. No cruelty is to be appreciated where the the third civil degree of consanguinity.
act constituting the alleged cruelty in the killing was 4) When the victim is a religious engaged in
perpetrated when the victim was already dead. legitimate religious vocation or calling and is personally
known to be such by the offender before or at the time of
the commission of the crime.
SPECIAL AGGRAVATING (5) When the victim is a child below seven (7)
years old.
CIRCUMSTANCES (6) When the offender knows that he is afflicted
with Human Immune-Deficiency Virus (HIV)/Acquired
Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) or any other sexually
Republic Act No. 8353
transmissible disease and the virus or disease is transmitted
An act expanding the definition of the crime of
to the victim.
rape, reclassifying the same as a crime against persons,
(7) When committed by any member of the Armed
amending for the purpose act no. 3815, as amended,
Forces of the Philippines or paramilitary units thereof or the
otherwise known as the revised penal code, and for other
Philippine National Police or any law enforcement agency or
purposes

91
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

penal institution, when the offender took advantage of his


position to facilitate the commission of the crime. Under R.A. No. 9165, as amended,
(8) When by reason or on the occasion of the otherwise known as the “Comprehensive
rape, the victim suffered permanent physical mutilation or Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002:”
disability. Notwithstanding the provisions of any law to
(9) When the offender knew of the pregnancy of
the contrary, a positive finding for the use of dangerous
the offended party at the time of the commission of the
drugs shall be a qualifying aggravating circumstance in
crime.
the commission of a crime by an offender, and the
(10) When the offender knew of the mental
disability, emotional disorder and/or physical handicap of the application of the penalty provided for in the Revised
offended party at the time of the commission of the crime. Penal Code shall be applicable (Sec. 25).
Rape under paragraph 2 of the next preceding
article shall be punished by prision mayor. Under R.A. No. 7659 otherwise known as
Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly the “Organized/Syndicated Crime Group”:
weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be The maximum penalty shall be imposed if the
prision mayor to reclusion temporal. offense was committed by any person who belongs to
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, any organized / syndicated crime group.
the victim has become insane, the penalty shall be reclusion
temporal. Owner, driver or passenger of carnapped
When the rape is attempted and a homicide is vehicle is killed or raped:
committed by reason or on the occasion thereof, the penalty The penalty of life imprisonment to death is
shall be reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua.
imposed.
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape,
homicide is committed, the penalty shall be reclusion
People v. Balgos
perpetua.
323 SCRA 372 (2000)
Reclusion temporal shall also be imposed if the
rape is committed by any of the ten aggravating/qualifying Facts: Balgos was accused of raping a 6-year
circumstances mentioned in this article. old child named Criselle. While the victim was playing,
the accused asked his nieces to go outside and buy
Article 266-C. Effect of Pardon - The subsequent cheese curls. When they left, the accused opened his
valid marriage between the offender and the offended party zipper and made Criselle hold his penis. The 2 girls came
shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty imposed. back and he asked them to go out and buy more cheese
In case it is the legal husband who is the offender, the curls. When they left, he locked the door and had carnal
subsequent forgiveness by the wife as the offended party knowledge with Criselle. The accused cannot penetrate
shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty. Provided, the victim’s organ. The lower court convicted the
That the crime shall be extinguish or the penalty shall not be accused of qualified rape.
abated if the marriage is void ab initio.
Held: The trial court was correct. Under Art.
Article 266-D. Presumptions. - Any physical
335 of the RPC as amended by RA 7659 and further
overt act manifesting resistance against the act of rape in
amended by RA 8353, the penalty of death shall be
any degree from the offended party, or where the offended
party is so situated as to render her/him incapable of giving imposed if the crime of rape is committed against a child
valid consent, may be accepted as evidence in the below 7 years of age. There is no dispute that the victim
prosecution of the acts punished under Article 266-A." was 6 years of age when the accused had carnal
SECTION 3. Separability Clause.- If any part, knowledge with her.
section, or provision of this Act is declared invalid or
unconstitutional, the other parts thereof not affected thereby People v. Ladjaalam
shall remain valid. 340 SCRA 617(2000)
Facts: Accused who is maintaining a drug den
SECTION 4. Repealing Clause.- Article 335 of fired an unlicensed M-14 rifle at the policemen who were
Act No. 3815, as amended, and all laws, acts presidential about to enter his house to serve a search warrant.
decrees, executive orders, administrative orders, rules and Held: If an unlicensed firearm is used in the
regulations, inconsistent with or contrary to the provisions of
commission of any crime, there can be no separate
this Act are deemed amended, modified or repealed
offense of simple illegal possession of firearms. Hence, if
accordingly.
the "other crime" is murder or homicide, illegal
SECTION 5. Effectivity. - This Act shall take possession of firearms becomes merely an aggravating
effect fifteen (15) days after completion of its publication in circumstance, not a separate offense. Since direct
two (2) newspapers of general circulation. assault with multiple attempted homicide was
committed in this case, appellant can no longer be held
Under Republic Act No. 10591, otherwise liable for illegal possession of firearms.
known as the “Comprehensive Firearms and Moreover, penal laws are construed liberally in
Ammunition Regulation Act”: favor of the accused. In this case, the plain meaning of
RA 8294's simple language is most favorable to herein
If the use of a loose firearm is inherent in the appellant. Verily, no other interpretation is justified, for
commission of a crime punishable under the RPC or the language of the new law demonstrates the
other special laws – the use of loose firearm is an legislative intent to favor the accused. Accordingly,
aggravating circumstance. Hence, the penalty for the appellant cannot be convicted of 2 separate offenses of
use of a loose firearm is not imposed (Sec. 29). illegal possession of firearms and direct assault with
attempted homicide. Since the crime committed was
However, if the crime is committed by the direct assault and not homicide or murder, illegal
person without using the loose firearm, the violation of possession of firearms cannot be deemed an
aggravating circumstance. (Decided under the old law)
this law shall be considered as a distinct and separate
offense (Sec. 29).

92
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

5. ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES offended party is a descendant of the offender,


relationship is an AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE.
- But the serious physical injuries must not be
• Alternative circumstances are those which must be
inflicted by a parent upon his child by excessive
taken into consideration as AGGRAVATING or
chastisement.
MITIGATING according to the nature and effects of the
crime and the other conditions attending its commission.
§ When the crime is less serious physical injuries or
slight physical injuries, ordinary rule applies;
Art. 15. Their concept. — Alternative circumstances relationship is MITIGATING if the offended party is a
are those which must be taken into consideration as relative of lower degree and AGGRAVATING if the
aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and offended party is a relative of a higher degree than the
effects of the crime and the other conditions attending offender.
its commission. They are the relationship, intoxication
and the degree of instruction and education of the § When the crime against persons is homicide or
offender. murder, relationship is aggravating even if the victim of
The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be the crime is a relative of lower degree.
taken into consideration when the offended party is the
spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural, or • Relationship is mitigating in trespass to dwelling.
adopted brother or sister, or relative by affinity in the
same degrees of the offender. • Relationship is neither mitigating nor aggravating,
The intoxication of the offender shall be taken into when relationship is an element of the offense.
consideration as a mitigating circumstances when the
offender has committed a felony in a state of • In crimes against chastity, relationship is always
intoxication, if the same is not habitual or subsequent to aggravating.
the plan to commit said felony but when the intoxication - Because of the nature and effect of the crime
is habitual or intentional, it shall be considered as an committed, it is considered AGGRAVATING although the
aggravating circumstance. offended party is a relative of lower degree.

The alternative circumstances are: People v. Atop


a. RELATIONSHIP 286 SCCRA 157 (1998)
b. INTOXICATION Facts: 11-year-old Regina lives with her
c. DEGREE OF INSTRUCTION AND grandmother. Atop is the common-law husband of her
EDUCATION OF THE OFFENDER grandmother. Atop was found guilty of 4 counts of rape
which was committed in 1993 (2x), 1994 and 1995. The
a. RELATIONSHIP lower court took into account the aggravating
circumstance of relationship.
This is taken into consideration when the Held: The law cannot be stretched to include
offended party is the: persons attached by common-law relations. In this case,
a. spouse there is no blood relationship or legal bond that links
b. ascendant Atop to his victim.
c. descendant
d. legitimate, natural or adopted brother or People v. Marcos
sister 349 SCRA 537 (2001)
e. relative by affinity in the same degree of Facts: Virgilio arrived at the house of the
the offender Marcoses and proceeded to the artesian well (jetmatic)
located just at the back of the house. Virgilio bent down
• As a rule, relationship is MITIGATING in crimes against to put on the ground the tools he was carrying. Cesar
property by analogy to the provisions of Art. 332. then came out of the kitchen door with a bolo in hand
- Under Art. 332 of the RPC, no criminal, but and suddenly hacked Virgilio from behind. Virgilio was
only civil, liability shall result from commission of the hit on the nape of the neck which caused him to fall to
crime of theft, swindling or malicious mischief the ground. Then Cesar hacked him again and this time
committed or caused mutually by spouses, ascendants, Virgilio was hit on the right side of the head. Virgilio is
and descendants, or relatives by affinity in the same the elder brother of Cesar.
line; brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and Held: In order that the alternative
sisters-in-law, if living together. circumstance of relationship may be taken into
- Relationship becomes actually an exempting consideration in the imposition of the proper penalty,
circumstance since there is no occasion to consider a the offended party must either be the (a) spouse, (b)
mitigating or an aggravating circumstance because there ascendant, (c) descendant, (d) legitimate, natural or
is no criminal liability. adopted brother or sister, or (e) relative by affinity in
the same degree, of the offender. In the case at bar,
§ It is aggravating in CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS in Cesar and Virgilio Marcos are brothers. Accused likewise
cases where the offended party is a relative of a higher declared that Virgilio is his brother. That the victim is
degree than the offender, or when the offender and the the elder brother of Cesar is likewise alleged in the
offended party are relatives of the same level, as killing Information. The rule is that relationship is aggravating
a brother, a brother-in-law, a half-brother or adopted in crimes against persons as when the offender and the
brother. offended party are relatives of the same level such as
killing a brother. Thus, relationship was correctly
§ When the CRIME AGAINST PERSONS is any of the appreciated as an aggravating circumstance.
SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES (Art. 263), even if the

93
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

b. INTOXICATION The intoxication of the appellant not being


habitual and considering that the said appellant was in a
MITIGATING state of intoxication at the time of the commission of the
a. if intoxication is not habitual, or felony, the alternative circumstance of intoxication
b. if intoxication is not subsequent to the should be considered mitigating.
plan to commit a felony.
c. DEGREE OF INSTRUCTION AND EDUCATION OF
AGGRAVATING THE OFFENDER
a. if intoxication is habitual; or Low degree of instruction and education or lack
b. if it is intentional (subsequent to the plan of it is generally mitigating. High degree of instruction
to commit a felony) and education is aggravating, when the offender avails
- It is intentional when the offender himself of his learning in committing the crime.
drinks liquor fully knowing its effects, to find in
the liquor a stimulant to commit a crime or a LACK OF INSTRUCTION, AS MITIGATING
means to suffocate any remorse. - Lack of instruction cannot be taken into
account where the defendant admitted that he studied in
• When the offender has committed a felony in a state the first grade in a public elementary school. Art. 15
of intoxication. applies only to him who really has not received any
- This clause means that the offender’s mental instruction.
faculties must be affected by drunkenness.
- The accused’s state of intoxication must be • Not illiteracy alone, but also lack of sufficient
proved. intelligence are necessary to invoke the benefit of the
alternative circumstance of lack of instruction, the
WHEN THE INTOXICATION IS HABITUAL determination of which is left to the trial court.
- A habitual drunkard is one given to
intoxication by excessive use of intoxicating drinks. The • Lack of sufficient instruction is not mitigating when the
habit should be actual and confirmed, but it is not offender is a city resident who knows how to sign his
necessary that it be continuous or by daily occurrence. name.

People v. Renejane • Lack of instruction must be proved positively and


158 SCRA 258 (1988) directly and cannot be based on mere deduction or
Facts: The accused was convicted for the crime inference.
of murder of 1 policeman and his companion. It was
found that Renejane was with these 2 persons and some • The question of lack of instruction cannot be raised for
other people and they were having a drinking session the first time in appellate court.
when the incident took place. It was also found that the
policeman apprehended Renejane a month before the • Ordinarily, LOW DEGREE OR LACK OF INSTRUCTION
incident for illegal possession of marijuana. IS MITIGATING IN ALL CRIMES.
Held: Drunkenness is not necessarily an Exceptions:
aggravating circumstance. The fact that the accused (1) crimes against property such as estafa, theft,
drank liquor prior to the commission of the crime did not robbery arson except theft of large cattle and robbery
necessarily qualify such action as an aggravating with homicide.
circumstance. Intoxication is aggravating if it is habitual (2) crimes against chastity
or intentional. There is no finding of either by the lower (3) treason: because love of country should be a
court. The affair was an ordinary drinking party. Neither natural feeling of every citizen, however unlettered or
can this be considered as a mitigating circumstance in uncultured he may be
the absence of proof that the intake of alcoholic drinks (4) murder: because to kill is forbidden by
was of such quantity as to blur the appellant’s reason natural law which every rational being is endowed to
and deprive him of a certain degree of control. know and feel.

People v. Camano HIGH DEGREE OF INSTRUCTION, AS AGGRAVATING


115 SCRA 688 (1982)
Facts: After the accused had been drinking Degree of instruction is aggravating when the
liquor, he stabbed twice the victim Pascua with a bolo offender availed himself or took advantage of it in
while the latter was walking along the barrio street. committing the crime.
After hacking and stabbing to death the victim, the
accused proceeded to the seashore and on finding People v. Lapaz (1989)
Buenaflor hacked the latter with the same bolo. Facts:Johnson used to stay in the house of Eulalia, a 70-
Held: Intoxication is mitigating if accidental, year old woman. Because of an accusation that he was a
and neither habitual nor intentional, that is, no thief, Johnson and his wife moved out. One evening,
subsequent to the plan to commit the crime. It is Johnson and three other men went to the house of
aggravating if habitual or intentional. To be mitigating, it eulalia and beat up the elder woman which eventually
must be indubitably proved. A habitual drunkard is one caused her death. The accused were convicted of
given to intoxication by excessive use of intoxicating murder qualified by treachery with the aggravating
drinks. The habit should be actual and confirmed. It is circumstances of dwelling, nighttime, disregard of rank,
unnecessary that it be a matter of daily occurrence. It age and sex. In his defense, Lapaz claims that he lacks
lessens individual resistance to evil thought and instruction
undermines will-power making its victim a potential evil
doer.

94
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

Issues: People v. Casio


1. Whether the aggravating circumstance of G.R. No. 211465, Dec. 3, 2014
disregard of rank, age and sex is absorbed in Facts: A police operation was coordinated to rescue
treachery. minors who were being used in human trafficking in
2. Whether lack of instruction is a defense for the Cebu. The undercover agents posed as tour guides
accused. looking for girls to entertain their tourists. Casio asked
them if they wanted “chicks.” They agreed to the offer
Held: and paid for the services two minors at P500 per person.
1. No. Treachery refers to the manner of Casio was arrested for human trafficking.
commission of the crime while disregard of
rank, age and sex refers to the relationship Held: In an entrapment, the mens rea originates from
between the attacker and the victim. the mind of the criminal. On the other hand, in
2. No. The mere lack of instruction or illiteracy of instigation, the law officer conceives the idea of
the appellant cannot be considered as a committing the crime and suggests it to the accused. In
mitigating circumstance. One does not have to this case, Casio was the one who initiated the
be educated or intelligent to be able to know undercover agents to the idea of paying for minor girls.
that it is unlawful to take the life of another The criminal intent came from the accused.
person even if it is to redress a wrong
committed against him People v. Lua Chu and Uy Se Ting
56 Phil. 44 (1931)
Facts: Samson was the chief of customs secret
ABSOLUTORY CAUSES AND OTHER service in Cebu and Natividad was the former collector
SPECIAL SITUATIONS of customs. He was instructed to make sure that the
shipment containing opium shall be unloaded in the
Absolutory causes are those where the act country. He went along the plan and then he informed
committed is a crime but for reasons of public policy and the Philippine Constabulary of all that had taken place
sentiment there is no penalty imposed. and they discussed a plan to capture the opium owners.
Held: The mere fact that the chief of customs
a. ENTRAPMENT AND INSTIGATION secret service pretended to agree to a plan for
smuggling illegally imported opium through the
ENTRAPMENT INSTIGATION customhouse, in order the better to assure the seizure
Ways and means are The instigator practically of said opium and the arrest of its importers, is no bar to
resorted to for the purpose induces the would-be the prosecution and conviction of the accused.
of trapping and capturing accused into the Samson did not induce nor instigate the
the lawbreaker in the commission of the offense accused to import the opium but merely pretended to
execution of his criminal and himself becomes a co- have an understanding with the collector of customs.
plan principal. There is nothing immoral in this or against the public
good which should prevent the government from
The means originate from The law enforcer conceives
prosecuting and punishing the culprits, for this is not a
the mind of the criminal. the commission of the
case where an innocent person is induced to commit a
crime and suggests to the
crime merely to prosecute him, but it is simply a trap
accused who adopts the
set to catch a criminal.
idea and carries it into
execution.
Araneta v. CA
A person has planned or is A public officer or a private
142 SCRA 532 (1986)
about to commit a crime detective induces an
Facts: Atty. Araneta was the hearing officer of
and ways and means are innocent person to commit
the Dept. of Labor in Cabanatuan while Mrs. Yoyongco is
resorted to by a public a crime and would arrest
the widow of a government employee. The latter went to
officer to trap and catch him upon or after the
see Araneta regarding her claim for death compensation
the criminal. commission of the crime
and Araneta asked for P100 for her claim to be
by the latter.
processed. The widow reported this to the PC and the PC
Not a bar to the The accused must be
decided to entrap Araneta. The entrapment was
prosecution and conviction acquitted.
successful and Atty. Araneta was charged for violating
of the lawbreaker.
the anti-graft law.
Held: Entrapment is not a defense in a criminal
case. It is different from instigation. There is instigation
People v. Doria
when the accused was induced to commit the crime. In
G.R. No. 125299, Jan. 22, 1999
entrapment, the mens rea originates from the mind of
Held: Entrapment refers to the ways and means
the criminal. Entrapment does not exempt the criminal
resorted to for trapping and capturing the lawbreaker in
from liability.
the execution of a criminal plan. The perpetrator is
caught in the act or in flagrante delicto. On the other
People v. Pacis
hand, there is instigation when the officer induces the
384 SCRA 684 (2002)
would-be accused into the commission of the crime. As a
Facts: Atty. Yap, supervising agent of the
result, the officer becomes a co-principal. The arrest is
Dangerous Drugs Division-NBI, received information that
illegal and contrary to public policy and the suspect is
Pacis was offering to sell ½ kg of "shabu." A buy-bust
deemed innocent.
operation was approved. Yap and Senior Agent Congzon,
Jr., were assigned to handle the case. Yap, Congzon
and the informant then went to the house of Pacis. The
informant introduced Yap to Pacis as interested buyer.

95
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

They negotiated the sale of ½ kg of shabu. It was


agreed that payment and delivery of shabu would be Art. 7. When light felonies are punishable. —
made on the following day. The next day, the NBI Light felonies are punishable only when they have been
agents and the informant went to Pacis's house as consummated, with the exception of those committed
agreed. Pacis handed to Yap a paper bag with markings against person or property.
"yellow cab". When he opened the bag, Yap found a
transparent plastic bag with white crystalline substance
Art. 16. Who are criminally liable. — The
inside. While examining it, Pacis asked for the payment.
following are criminally liable for grave and less grave
Yap instructed Congzon to get the money from the car.
felonies:
Congzon returned and gave the "boodle money" to Atty.
1. Principals.
Yap who handed the money to Pacis. Upon Pacis' receipt
2. Accomplices.
of the payment, the officers identified themselves as NBI
3. Accessories.
agents and arrested him.
Held: The operation that led to the arrest of
appellant was an entrapment, not instigation. In Art. 20. Accessories who are exempt from
entrapment, ways and means are resorted to for the criminal liability. — The penalties prescribed for
purpose of trapping and capturing lawbreakers in the accessories shall not be imposed upon those who are
execution of their criminal plan. In instigation on the such with respect to their spouses, ascendants,
other hand, instigators practically induce the would-be descendants, legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers
defendant into the commission of the offense and and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same
become co-principals themselves. It has been held in degrees, with the single exception of accessories falling
numerous cases by this Court that entrapment is within the provisions of paragraph 1 of the next
sanctioned by law as a legitimate method of preceding article.
apprehending criminal elements engaged in the sale and
distribution of illegal drugs. Art. 247. Death or physical injuries inflicted
under exceptional circumstances. — Any legally
b. EFFECT OF PARDON married person who having surprised his spouse in the
act of committing sexual intercourse with another
RPC, Art. 23. Effect of pardon by the offended person, shall kill any of them or both of them in the act
party. — A pardon of the offended party does not or immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any
extinguish criminal action except as provided in Article serious physical injury, shall suffer the penalty of
344 of this Code; but civil liability with regard to the destierro.
interest of the injured party is extinguished by his If he shall inflict upon them physical injuries of
express waiver. any other kind, he shall be exempt from punishment.
These rules shall be applicable, under the same
R.A. No. 8353. Anti-Rape Law of 1997. circumstances, to parents with respect to their
Article 266-C. Effect of Pardon - The daughters under eighteen years of age, and their
subsequent valid marriage between the offender and the seducer, while the daughters are living with their
offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or the parents.
penalty imposed. Any person who shall promote or facilitate the
In case it is the legal husband who is the prostitution of his wife or daughter, or shall otherwise
offender, the subsequent forgiveness by the wife as the have consented to the infidelity of the other spouse shall
offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or the not be entitled to the benefits of this article.
penalty. Provided, That the crime shall not be extinguish
or the penalty shall not be abated if the marriage is void Art. 280. Qualified trespass to dwelling. —
ab initio. Any private person who shall enter the dwelling of
another against the latter's will shall be punished by
§ A pardon by the offended party does not arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos.
extinguish criminal action because a crime is an offense If the offense be committed by means of violence or
against the State. In criminal cases, the intervention of intimidation, the penalty shall be prision correccional in
the aggrieved parties is limited to being witnesses for its medium and maximum periods and a fine not
the prosecution. exceeding 1,000 pesos.
§ Compromise does not extinguish criminal liability. The provisions of this article shall not be
§ The offended party in crimes of adultery and applicable to any person who shall enter another's
concubinage cannot institute criminal prosecution, if he dwelling for the purpose of preventing some serious
shall have consented or pardoned the offenders. harm to himself, the occupants of the dwelling or a third
- the pardon here may be implied, as person, nor shall it be applicable to any person who shall
continued inaction of the offended party after learning enter a dwelling for the purpose of rendering some
the offense. service to humanity or justice, nor to anyone who shall
- both offenders must be pardoned by the enter cafes, taverns, inn and other public houses, while
offended party. the same are open.

c. ABSOLUTORY CAUSES Art. 332. Persons exempt from criminal


Art. 6(3). - There is an attempt when the offender liability. — No criminal, but only civil liability, shall
commences the commission of a felony directly or over result from the commission of the crime of theft,
acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution swindling or malicious mischief committed or caused
which should produce the felony by reason of some mutually by the following persons:
cause or accident other than this own spontaneous 1. Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or
desistance. relatives by affinity in the same line.

96
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

2. The widowed spouse with respect to the latter instance, what is involved is no longer
property which belonged to the deceased spouse before simply the property right of a family relation but a
the same shall have passed into the possession of paramount public interest.
another; and
3. Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and d. ACTS NOT COVERED BY LAW AND IN CASE OF
sisters-in-law, if living together. EXCESSIVE PUNISHMENT
The exemption established by this article shall
not be applicable to strangers participating in the Art. 5. Duty of the court in connection
commission of the crime. with acts which should be repressed but which are
not covered by the law, and in cases of excessive
Art. 344. Prosecution of the crimes of adultery, penalties. — Whenever a court has knowledge of any
concubinage, seduction, abduction, rape and acts act which it may deem proper to repress and which is
of lasciviousness. — The crimes of adultery and not punishable by law, it shall render the proper
concubinage shall not be prosecuted except upon a decision, and shall report to the Chief Executive, through
complaint filed by the offended spouse. the Department of Justice, the reasons which induce the
The offended party cannot institute criminal court to believe that said act should be made the subject
prosecution without including both the guilty parties, if of legislation.
they are both alive, nor, in any case, if he shall have In the same way, the court shall submit to the
consented or pardoned the offenders. Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice,
The offenses of seduction, abduction, rape or such statement as may be deemed proper, without
acts of lasciviousness, shall not be prosecuted except suspending the execution of the sentence, when a strict
upon a complaint filed by the offended party or her enforcement of the provisions of this Code would result
parents, grandparents, or guardian, nor, in any case, if in the imposition of a clearly excessive penalty, taking
the offender has been expressly pardoned by the above into consideration the degree of malice and the injury
named persons, as the case may be. caused by the offense.
In cases of seduction, abduction, acts of
lasciviousness and rape, the marriage of the offender People v. Veneracion
with the offended party shall extinguish the criminal 249 SCRA 244 (1995)
action or remit the penalty already imposed upon him. Facts: The accused was found guilty of the
The provisions of this paragraph shall also be applicable crime of Rape with Homicide. The instant petition raised
to the co-principals, accomplices and accessories after the issue whether or not the respondent judge acted
the fact of the above-mentioned crimes. with grave abuse of discretion when he failed or refused
to impose the mandatory penalty of death under RA
Carungcong v. People 7659
612 SCRA 274, Feb. 11, 2010 Held: The law plainly and unequivocably
Facts: Accused was charged of Estafa thru falsification. provides that “when by reason or on the occasion of
He raises Article 332 as a defense since he was a rape, a homicide is committed, the penalty shall be
relative by affinity. death. Courts are not concerned with wisdom, efficacy
or morality of law. The discomfort faced by those forced
Held: The absolutory cause under Article 332 is meant by law to impose death penalty is an ancient one, but it
to address specific crimes against property, namely, the is a matter upon which judges have no choice. The Rules
simple crimes of theft, swindling and malicious mischief. of Court mandates that after an adjudication of guilt, the
Thus, all other crimes, whether simple or complex, judges should impose the proper penalty and civil
are not affected by the absolutory cause provided liability provided for by the law on the accused.
by the said provision. To apply the absolutory cause
under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code to one of
the component crimes of a complex crime for the
purpose of negating the existence of that complex crime V. PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE
is to unduly expand the scope of Article 332. In other
words, to apply Article 332 to the complex crime of Art. 16. Who are criminally liable. — The
estafa through falsification of public document would be following are criminally liable for grave and less grave
to mistakenly treat the crime of estafa as a separate felonies:
simple crime, not as the component crime that it is in 1. Principals.
that situation. It would wrongly consider the indictment 2. Accomplices.
as separate charges of estafa and falsification of public 3. Accessories.
document, not as a single charge for the single The following are criminally liable for light felonies:
(complex) crime of estafa through falsification of public 1. Principals
document. 2. Accomplices.

Under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code, the State


§ The treble division of persons criminally
waives its right to hold the offender criminally liable for
responsible for an offense rests upon the very nature of
the simple crimes of theft, swindling and malicious
their participation in the commission of the crime.
mischief and considers the violation of the juridical right
§ The ACCESSORIES are not liable for light felonies
to property committed by the offender against certain
because in the commission of light felonies, the social
family members as a private matter and therefore
wrong as well as the individual prejudice is so small that
subject only to civil liability. The waiver does not apply
penal sanction is deemed not necessary for accessories
when the violation of the right to property is achieved
through (and therefore inseparably intertwined with) a
breach of the public interest in the integrity and
RULES RELATIVE TO LIGHT FELONIES:
presumed authenticity of public documents. For, in the

97
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

a. Light felonies are punishable only when they


have been consummated. First requisite – Participation in the criminal
b. But when light felonies are committed resolution
against persons or property, the are punishable even if • Two or more persons are said to have
they are only in the attempted or frustrated stage of the participated in the criminal resolution when they were in
execution. conspiracy at the time of the commission of the crime.
c. Only principals and accomplices are liable for • It is well settled that a person may be
light felonies. convicted for the criminal act of another where, between
d. Accessories are not liable for light felonies, them, there has been conspiracy or unity of purpose and
even if they are committed against persons or property. intention in the commission of the crime charged.

§ Only natural persons can be the active CONSPIRACY


subject of crime because of the highly personal nature of • A conspiracy exists when 2 or more persons
the criminal responsibility. come to an agreement concerning the commission of a
felony and decide to commit it.
§ Only a natural person can be the • The conspiracy contemplated in the first
offender because: requisite is not a felony, but only a manner of incurring
a. The RPC requires that the culprit should criminal liability.
have acted with personal malice or negligence. An • In order to hold an accused guilty as co-
artificial or juridical person cannot act with malice or principal by reason of conspiracy, it must be established
negligence. that he performed an over act in furtherance of the
b. A juridical person, like a corporation, cannot conspiracy, either by actively participating in the actual
commit a crime in which a willful purpose or a malicious commission of the crime, or by lending moral assistance
intent is required. to his co-conspirators by being present at the scene of
c. There is substitution of deprivation of liberty the crime, or by exerting moral ascendancy over the
(subsidiary imprisonment) for pecuniary penalties in rest of the conspirators as to move them to executing
case of in case of insolvency of the accused. the conspiracy.
d. Other penalties consisting in imprisonment • Mere knowledge without cooperation or
and other deprivation of liberty like destierro, can be agreement to cooperate is not enough to constitute
executed only against individuals. conspiracy.
• Silence does not make one a conspirator
§ Officers, not the corporation, are criminally • The existence of conspiracy does not require
liable. necessarily an agreement for an appreciable length of
§ Juridical persons are criminally liable under time prior to the execution of its purpose, since from the
certain special laws. legal viewpoint, conspiracy exists if, at the time of the
§ In all crimes there are always 2 parties: commission of the offense, the accused had the same
ACTIVE (the criminal) and PASSIVE (the injured party). purpose and were united in its execution.
• Conspiracy arises on the very instant the
A. PRINCIPALS plotters agree, expressly or impliedly, to commit the
felony and forthwith decide to pursue it.
Art. 17. Principals. — The following are considered • Formal agreement or previous acquaintance
principals: among several persons not necessary in conspiracy.
1. Those who take a direct part in the • Must be established by positive and
execution of the act; conclusive evidence.
2. Those who directly force or induce others to • When there is no conspiracy, each of the
commit it; offenders is liable only for the act performed by him.
3. Those who cooperate in the commission of
the offense by another act without which it would not ∞ It is not enough that a person participated
have been accomplished. in the assault made by another in order to consider him
a co-principal in the crime committed. He must also
participate in the criminal resolution of the other.
• When a single individual commits a crime, there is
∞ When there is conspiracy, the act of one is
no difficulty in determining his participation in the
the act of all. There is collective criminal responsibility.
commission thereof.
∞ Conspiracy may cover persons previously
• But when 2 or more persons are involved, it is
undetermined.
necessary to determine the participation of each.
∞ A person in conspiracy with others, who had
desisted before the crime was committed by the other,
PAR. 1. – PRINCIPALS BY DIRECT PARTICIPATION is not criminally liable.
∞ When there is conspiracy, it is not necessary
The principal by direct participation to ascertain the specific act of each conspirator.
PERSONALLY TAKES PART IN THE EXECUTION OF THE ∞ There could be no conspiracy to commit an
ACT constituting the crime. offense through negligence.
∞ In cases of criminal negligence or crimes
• Two or more persons who took part in the commission punishable by special law, allowing or failing to prevent
of the crime are principals by direct participation, when an act to be performed by another, makes one a co-
the following requisites are present: principal.
1. That they participated in the criminal resolution
2. That they carried out their plan and personally Second requisite – that the culprits “carried out
took part in its execution by acts which directly their plan and personally took part in its
tended to the same end.

98
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

execution, by acts which directly tended to the part in its execution by acts which directly tended to the
same end.” same end. Both requisites were met in this case. Further
Dacillo’s admission that he participated in the
∞ The principals by direct participation must commission of the crime by holding Rosemarie’s legs
be at the scene of the crime, personally taking part in its made him a principal by direct participation.
execution.
∞ The acts of each offender must directly tend
to the same end. PAR. 2. – PRINCIPALS BY INDUCTION
∞ One serving as guard pursuant to the
conspiracy is a principal by direct participation. “Those who directly force or induce others to
∞ When the second requisite is lacking, there commit it.”
is only conspiracy. ∞ The principal by induction becomes liable
only when the principal by direct participation committed
People v. Nunag the act induced.
173 SCRA 274 (1989)
Facts: The victim claimed that while she was 2 WAYS OF BECOMING PRINCIPAL BY INDUCTION
standing outside the house of her neighbor peeping
through an open window to watch a TV program, Nunag 1) BY DIRECTLY FORCING ANOTHER TO
came towards her appearing to be drunk. Nunag, COMMIT A CRIME
threatening to kill her, led her to a nearby ricefield.
Later, they were joined by the other 4 accused. Nunag a. By using IRRESISTIBLE FORCE
then undressed her and had sexual intercourse with her. b. By causing UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR
Mandap followed and she lost consciousness after. She
regained consciousness only when Manalili was abusing 2) BY DIRECTLY INDUCING ANOTHER TO
her. COMMIT A CRIME.
Held: Accused Nunag, Mandap and Manalili are a. By giving price, or offering reward or
found guilty of 3 distinct and separate crimes of rape. promise.
They being principals by direct participation while the b. By using words of command.
other 2 accused as principals by indispensable
cooperation since there is no sufficient evidence that the REQUISITES:
latter also had sexual intercourse with the victim. The 1. That the inducement be made directly with the
victim lost consciousness and only assumed that the two intention of procuring the commission of the crime;
also raped her. and
a. A thoughtless expression without intention to
People v. Dela Cerna produce the result is not an inducement to
21 SCRA 569 (1967) commit a crime.
Facts: Rafael filed an ejectment suit against b. The inducement may be by acts of command,
dela Cerna’s father wherein the court ruled in his favor. advice, or through influence, or agreement
Later he was shot by the accused while the former and for consideration.
his family were bringing sacks of corn. He was taken
away by his family to tend his wounds but Dela Cerna 2. That such inducement be the determining cause
and company followed them and Rafael was shot again of the commission of the crime by the material
resulting to his death. Maquiling, one companion of Dela executor.
Cerna, shot Casiano, a relative of Rafael. - The words of advice of the influence must
Held: Dela Cerna cannot be held liable for the have actually moved the hands of the principal by
death of Casiano because the conspiracy was to kill direct participation.
Rafael only. The rule has always been: co-conspirators
are liable only for acts done pursuant to the conspiracy; PRINCIPAL BY PROPOSAL TO COMMIT
for other acts done outside the contemplation of the co- INDUCEMENT THE FELONY
conspirators, or acts which are not the necessary and There is an inducement to commit a crime.
logical consequence of the intended crime, only the The principal by The mere proposal to
actual perpetrators are criminally liable. Although inducement becomes liable commit a felony is
Maquiling got the gun from Dela Cerna, the latter only only when the crime is punishable in treason and
gave it to the former as per their agreement to shoot committed by the principal rebellion. The person to
Rafael. by direct participation. whom the proposal is
As to the other companions, facts prove their made should not commit
active participation in the killing. They are all principals. the crime; otherwise, the
proponent becomes a
People v. Dacillo (supra) principal by inducement.
Facts: Pacot stabbed and strangled Rosemarie
The inducement involves The proposal to be
leading to the latter’s death. Dacillo for his part, hold
any crime punishable must involve
down Rosemarie’s legs to prevent her from struggling.
only treason or rebellion.
The two men stopped only when they were sure that the
victim was already dead. Dacillo then encase her corpse
in cement.
Held:. Two or more persons taking part in the
commission of a crime are considered principals by
EFFECTS OF ACQUITTAL OF PRINCIPAL BY DIRECT
direct participation if the following requisites are
PARTICIPATION UPON THE LIABILITY OF
present: 1. they participated in the criminal resolution
PRINCIPAL BY INDUCEMENT
and 2. they carried out their plan and personally took

99
CRIMINAL LAW 1
REVIEW NOTES

1) Conspiracy is negated by the acquittal of co- “Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense
defendant. by another act without which it would not have been
2) One cannot be held guilty of having instigated accomplished.”
the commission of a crime without first being
shown that the crime has been actually REQUISITES:
committed by another. 1. Participation in the criminal resolution, that is,
there is either anterior conspiracy or unity of
People v. Dela Cruz criminal purpose and intention immediately
97 SCRA 385 (1980) before the commission of the crime charged;
Facts: Dela Cruz met with Salip and a and
couple of other men when he proposed to them the 2. Cooperation in the commission of the offense
killing of Antonio Yu and the kidnapping of the latter’s by performing another act, without which it
brother for a ransom. A group of men sailed for Basilan would not have been accomplished.
where they met with Salip. They proceeded to the
accused’s house where the accused informed the group To be liable as principals, the offender must fall
of the whereabouts of the Chinese brothers and other under any of the three concepts defined in Article 17.
details of the plan. The group was able to kidnap and There is collective criminal responsibility when
detain the brother for a short while before he attempted the offenders are criminally liable in the same manner
to escape and was shot by one of the men. and to the same extent. The penalty to be imposed must
Held: The contention of the accused that be the same for all.
since he did not take part in the commission of the Principals by direct participation have collective
crime, conspiracy does not exist, is untenable. The criminal responsibility. Principal by induction, except
requisites necessary in order that a person may be that who directly forced another to commit a crime, and
convicted as principal by inducement are present. principal by direct participation have collective criminal
Without Dela Cruz, the crime would not have been responsibility. Principal by indispensable cooperation has
conceived, much less committed. Clearly, he was the collective criminal responsibility with the principal by
principal by induction. direct participation.

US v. Indianan People v. Montealegre


24 Phil. 203 (1913) 161 SCRA 700 (1988)
Facts: Indianan was the HEADMAN of the F