Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
11: Justifying Circumstances – those wherein the acts of the actor are in The nature, character, location, and extent of the wound may belie claim of self-
accordance with law, hence, he is justified. There is no criminal and civil liability defense.
because there is no crime. 2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;
Self-defense a. Requisites:
1. Reason for lawfulness of self-defense: because it would be impossible for the Means were used to prevent or repel
State to protect all its citizens. Also a person cannot just give up his rights Means must be necessary and there is no other way to prevent or repel it
without any resistance being offered.
Means must be reasonable – depending on the circumstances, but generally
2. Rights included in self-defense: proportionate to the force of the aggressor.
1. The rule here is to stand your ground when in the right which may invoked when
1. Defense of person the defender is unlawfully assaulted and the aggressor is armed with a weapon.
2. The rule is more liberal when the accused is a peace officer who, unlike a private
2. Defense of rights protected by law person, cannot run away.
3. The reasonable necessity of the means employed to put up the defense.
1. Defense of property: The gauge of reasonable necessity is the instinct of self-preservation, i.e. a person
a. The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has a right to exclude any person from the did not use his rational mind to pick a means of defense but acted out of self-
enjoyment or disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use such force as may be preservation, using the nearest or only means available to defend himself, even if
reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical such means be disproportionately advantageous as compared with the means of
invasion or usurpation of his property. (Art. 429, New Civil Code) violence employed by the aggressor.
Reasonableness of the means depends on the nature and the quality of the
b. defense of chastity weapon used, physical condition, character, size and other circumstances.
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
3. Elements: 1. When no provocation at all was given to the aggressor by the person defending
1. 1. Unlawful Aggression– is a physical act manifesting danger to life or limb; it himself.
is either actual or imminent. 2. When even if provocation was given by the person defending himself, such was
1. Actual/real aggression – Real aggression presupposes an act positively not sufficient to cause violent aggression on the part of the attacker, i.e. the
strong, showing the wrongful intent of the aggressor, which is not merely amount of provocation was not sufficient to stir the aggressor into the acts which
threatening or intimidating attitude, but a material attack. There must be led the accused to defend himself.
real danger to life a personal safety. 3. When even if the provocation were sufficient, it was not given by the person
2. Imminent unlawful aggression – it is an attack that is impending or on defending himself.
the point of happening. It must not consist in a mere threatening 4. When even if provocation was given by the person defending himself, the attack
attitude, nor must it be merely imaginary. The intimidating attitude must was not proximate or immediate to the act of provocation.
be offensive and positively strong. 5. Sufficient means proportionate to the damage caused by the act, and adequate to
3. Where there is an agreement to fight, there is no unlawful aggression. stir one to its commission.
Each of the protagonists is at once assailant and assaulted, and neither 1. Kinds of Self-Defense
can invoke the right of self-defense, because aggression which is an 1. Self-defense of chastity – to be entitled to complete self-defense of
incident in the fight is bound to arise from one or the other of the chastity, there must be an attempt to rape, mere imminence thereof will
combatants. Exception: Where the attack is made in violation of the suffice.
conditions agreed upon, there may be unlawful aggression. 2. Defense of property – an attack on the property must be coupled with
4. Unlawful aggression in self-defense, to be justifying, must exist at the an attack on the person of the owner, or of one entrusted with the care of
time the defense is made. It may no longer exist if the aggressor runs such property.
away after the attack or he has manifested a refusal to continue fighting. 3. Self-defense in libel – physical assault may be justified when the libel is
If the person attacked allowed some time to elapse after he suffered the aimed at a person’s good name, and while the libel is in progress, one
injury before hitting back, his act of hitting back would not constitute libel deserves another.
self-defense, but revenge.
A light push on the head with the hand is not unlawful aggression, but a slap on *Burden of proof – on the accused (sufficient, clear and convincing evidence; must rely
the face is, because his dignity is in danger. on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution).
A police officer exceeding his authority may become an unlawful aggressor.
Defense of Relative
A. Elements: 1. Elements:
1. unlawful aggression 1. that the accused acted in the performance of a duty, or in the lawful exercise of a
2. reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the attack; right or office;
3. in case provocation was given by the person attacked, that the person making the 2. that the injury caused or offense committed be the necessary consequence of the
defense had no part in such provocation. due performance of the duty, or the lawful exercise of such right or office.
B. Relatives entitled to the defense: 2. A police officer is justified in shooting and killing a criminal who refuses to stop
1. spouse when ordered to do so, and after such officer fired warning shots in the air.
2. ascendants shooting an offender who refused to surrender is justified, but not a thief who
3. descendants refused to be arrested.
4. legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters 3. The accused must prove that he was duly appointed to the position he claimed he
5. relatives by affinity in the same degree was discharging at the time of the commission of the offense. It must be made to
6. relatives by consanguinity within the 4th civil degree. appear not only that the injury caused or the offense committed was done in the
The third element need not take place. The relative defended may even be the fulfillment of a duty, or in the lawful exercise of a right or office, but that the
original aggressor. All that is required to justify the act of the relative defending offense committed was a necessary consequence of such fulfillment of duty, or
is that he takes no part in such provocation. lawful exercise of a right or office.
General opinion is to the effect that all relatives mentioned must be legitimate, 4. A mere security guard has no authority or duty to fire at a thief, resulting in the
except in cases of brothers and sisters who, by relatives by nature, may be latter’s death.
illegitimate. Obedience to a Superior Order
The unlawful aggression may depend on the honest belief of the person making 1. Elements:
the defense. 1. there is an order;
Defense of Stranger 2. the order is for a legal purpose;
A. Elements 3. the means used to carry out said order is lawful.
1. unlawful aggression 2. The subordinate who is made to comply with the order is the party which may
2. reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the attack; avail of this circumstance. The officer giving the order may not invoke this.
3. the person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment or other evil 3. The subordinate’s good faith is material here. If he obeyed an order in good faith,
motive. not being aware of its illegality, he is not liable. However, the order must not be
2. A relative not included in defense of relative is included in defense of stranger. patently illegal. If the order is patently illegal this circumstance cannot be validly
3. Be not induced by evil motive means that even an enemy of the aggressor who invoked.
comes to the defense of a stranger may invoke this justifying circumstances so 4. The reason for this justifying circumstance is the subordinate’s mistake of fact in
long as he is not induced by a motive that is evil. good faith.
5. Even if the order be patently illegal, the subordinate may yet be able to invoke
State of Necessity
1. Art. 11, Par. a provides: the exempting circumstances of having acted under the compulsion of an
Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an act which causes irresistible force, or under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear.
damage to another, provided that the following requisites are present: EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it; and Exempting circumstances (non-imputability) are those ground for exemption
Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing from punishment because there is wanting in the agent of the crime of any of the
it. conditions which make the act voluntary, or negligent.
1. A state of necessity exists when there is a clash between unequal rights, the Basis: The exemption from punishment is based on the complete absence of
lesser right giving way to the greater right. Aside from the 3 requisites stated in intelligence, freedom of action, or intent, or on the absence of negligence on the
the law, it should also be added that the necessity must not be due to the part of the accused.
negligence or violation of any law by the actor. A person who acts WITHOUT MALICE (without intelligence, freedom of action or
2. The person for whose benefit the harm has been prevented shall be civilly liable intent) or WITHOUT NEGLIGENCE (without intelligence, freedom of action or
in proportion to the benefit which may have been received. This is the only fault) is NOT CRIMINALLY LIABLE or is EXEMPT FROM PUNISHMENT.
justifying circumstance which provides for the payment of civil indemnity. There is a crime committed but no criminal liability arises from it because of the
Under the other justifying circumstances, no civil liability attaches. The courts complete absence of any of the conditions which constitute free will or
shall determine, in their sound discretion, the proportionate amount for which voluntariness of the act.
law one is liable
Fulfillment of Duty or Lawful Exercise of a Right or Office
Burden of proof: Any of the circumstances is a matter of defense and must be Crimes committed while in a dream, by a somnambulist are embraced in the plea
proved by the defendant to the satisfaction of the court. of insanity. Hypnotism, however, is a debatable issue.
Art. 12. CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY. The Crime committed while suffering from malignant malaria is characterized by
following are exempt from criminal liability: insanity at times thus such person is not criminally liable.
1. An imbecile or insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval. 1. Basis: complete absence of intelligence, and element of voluntariness.
When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which the law 2. Definition : An imbecile is one who while advanced in age has a mental
defines as a felony (delito), the court shall order his confinement on one of the development comparable to that of children between 2 and 7 years of age. An
hospital or asylums established for persons thus afflicted. He shall not be insane is one who acts with complete deprivation of intelligence/reason or
permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission of the same court. without the least discernment or with total deprivation of freedom of the will.
Requisites: 1. Dementia praecox is covered by the term insanity because homicidal attack is
1. Offender is an imbecile common in such form of psychosis. It is characterized by delusions that he is
2. Offender was insane at the time of the commission of the crime being interfered with sexually, or that his property is being taken, thus the
IMBECILITY OR INSANITY person has no control over his acts.
2. Kleptomania or presence of abnormal, persistent impulse or tendency to steal, to
An imbecile is exempt in all cases from criminal liability. The insane is not so
exempt if it can be shown that he acted during a lucid interval. In the latter, loss be considered exempting, will still have to be investigated by competent
of consciousness of ones acts and not merely abnormality of mental faculties will psychiatrist to determine if the unlawful act is due to the irresistible impulse
qualify ones acts as those of an insane. produced by his mental defect, thus loss of will-power. If such mental defect
only diminishes the exercise of his willpower and did not deprive him of the
Procedure: court is to order the confinement of such persons in the hospitals or consciousness of his acts, it is only mitigating.
asylums established. Such persons will not be permitted to leave without
3. Epilepsy which is a chronic nervous disease characterized by convulsive motions
permission from the court. The court, on the other hand, has no power to order of the muscles and loss of consciousness may be covered by the term insanity.
such permission without first obtaining the opinion of the DOH that such persons However, it must be shown that commission of the offense is during one of those
may be released without danger.
epileptic attacks.
Presumption is always in favor of sanity. The defense has the burden to prove
that the accused was insane at the time of the commission of the crime. For the 2. A person under nine years of age.
ascertainment such mental condition of the accused, it is permissible to receive
evidence of the condition of his mind during a reasonable period both before and
after that time. Circumstantial evidence which is clear and convincing will MINORITY
suffice. An examination of the outward acts will help reveal the thoughts, Under nine years to be construed nine years or less. Such was inferred from the
motives and emotions of a person and if such acts conform to those of people of next subsequent paragraph which does not totally exempt those over nine years
sound mind. of age if he acted with discernment.
Insanity at the time of the commission of the crime and not that at the time of the Presumptions of incapability of committing a crime is absolute.
trial will exempt one from criminal liability. In case of insanity at the time of the Age is computed up to the time of the commission of the crime. Age can be
trial, there will be a suspension of the trial until the mental capacity of the established by the testimonies of families and relatives.
accused is restored to afford him a fair trial. Senility or second childhood is only mitigating.
Evidence of insanity must refer to the time preceding the act under prosecution 4 periods of the life of a human being:
or to the very moment of its execution. Without such evidence, the accused is 1. Requisite: Offender is under 9 years of age at the time of the commission of the
presumed to be sane when he committed the crime. Continuance of insanity crime. There is absolute criminal irresponsibility in the case of a minor under 9-
which is occasional or intermittent in nature will not be presumed. Insanity at years of age.
another time must be proved to exist at the time of the commission of the crime. 2. Basis: complete absence of intelligence.
A person is also presumed to have committed a crime in one of the lucid
intervals. Continuance of insanity will only be presumed in cases wherein the Age Criminal Responsibility
accused has been adjudged insane or has been committed to a hospital or an
9 years and below Absolute irresponsibility
asylum for the insane.
Instances of Insanity:
Reyes: Feeblemindedness is not imbecility because the offender can distinguish Between 9 and 15 Conditional responsibility
right from wrong. An imbecile and an insane to be exempted must not be able to years old
distinguish right from wrong. Without discernment – no liability With Discernment – mitigated
Relova: Feeblemindedness is imbecility.
4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by
liability
mere accident without fault or intention of causing it.
Exception: Par 4 (causing an injury by mere accident) and Par 7 (lawful cause) Offset by any
aggravating Cannot be offset by any Can be offset by a generic
b. Justifying – person does not transgress the law, does not commit any crime because circumstance aggravating circumstance aggravating circumstance
there is nothing unlawful in the act as well as the intention of the actor.
Example: Under threat that their farm will be burned, Pedro and Juan took turns
Has the effect of imposing the If not offset, has the effect of
guarding it at night. Pedro fired in the air when a person in the shadows refused to reveal
Effect on the penalty by 1 or 2 degrees than imposing the penalty in the
his identity. Juan was awakened and shot the unidentified person. Turned out to be a
penalty that provided by law minimum period
neighbor looking for is pet. Juan may have acted under the influence of fear but such fear
was not entirely uncontrollable. Considered mitigating
Minority, Incomplete Self- 2. That the offender is under 18 years of age or over 70 years. In the case of a
defense, two or more mitigating minor, he shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Art 192
circumstances without any of PD 903
aggravating circumstance (has Those circumstances Applicable to:
the effect of lowering the penalty enumerated in paragraph 1 to
Kinds by one degree) 10 of Article 13 a. Offender over 9, under 15 who acted with discernment
the act constituting the provocation Made directly only to the person Grave offense may be also against the
the social standing of the person provoked committing the felony offender’s relatives mentioned by law
time and place provocation took place
3. Example: Juan likes to hit and curse his servant. His servant thus killed him. There’s
Cause that brought about the provocation Offended party must have done a grave
mitigating circumstance because of sufficient provocation.
need not be a grave offense offense to the offender or his relatives
4. When it was the defendant who sought the deceased, the challenge to fight by the
deceased is NOT sufficient provocation. Necessary that provocation or threat
immediately preceded the act. No time
b. It must originate from the offended party interval May be proximate. Time interval allowed
1. Why? Law says the provocation is “on the part of the offended party”
More lenient in vindication because offense concerns the honor of the person.
Such is more worthy of consideration than mere spite against the one giving the
2. Example: Tomas’ mother insulted Petra. Petra kills Tomas because of the insults. No
provocation or threat.
Mitigating Circumstance because it was the mother who insulted her, not Tomas.
Vindication of a grave offense and passion and obfuscation can’t be counted Passion and obfuscation cannot co-exist with treachery since the means that the
separately and independently offender has had time to ponder his course of action.
6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced PASSION AND OBFUSCATION arising from one and the same cause should be
passion or obfuscation treated as only one mitigating circumstance
Passion and obfuscation is mitigating: when there are causes naturally producing Vindication of grave offense can’t co-exist w/ PASSION AND OBFUSCATION
in a person powerful excitement, he loses his reason and self-control. Thereby
dismissing the exercise of his will power. PASSION AND OBFUSCATION IRRESITIBLE FORCE
PASSION AND OBFUSCATION are Mitigating Circumstances only when the same
arise from lawful sentiments (not Mitigating Circumstance when done in the Mitigating Exempting
spirit of revenge or lawlessness)
Requisites for Passion & Obfuscation
No physical force needed Requires physical force
a. The offender acted on impulse powerful enough to produce passion or obfuscation
b. That the act was committed not in the spirit of lawlessness or revenge From the offender himself Must come from a 3rd person
b. The act be sufficient to produce a condition of mind Produced by an impulse which may be
caused by provocation Comes from injured party
c. That the act was proximate to the criminal act
Offense, which engenders perturbation of
d. The victim must be the one who caused the passion or obfuscation mind, need not be immediate. It is only
required that the influence thereof lasts Must immediately precede the
Example: Juan saw Tomas hitting his (Juan) son. Juan stabbed Tomas. Juan is until the crime is committed commission of the crime
entitled to Mitigating Circumstance of P&O as his actuation arose from a natural
instinct that impels a father to rush to the rescue of his son.
The exercise of a right or a fulfillment of a duty is not the proper source of P&O. Effect is loss of reason and self-control on
Example: A policeman arrested Juan as he was making a public disturbance on the the part of the offender Same
streets. Juan’s anger and indignation resulting from the arrest can’t be considered
passionate obfuscation because the policeman was doing a lawful act. 7. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in authority
The act must be sufficient to produce a condition of mind. If the cause of the loss or his agents, or that he had voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior
of self-control was trivial and slight, the obfuscation is not mitigating. to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution.
Example: Juan’s boss punched him for not going to work he other day. Cause is slight. 2 Mitigating Circumstances present:
There could have been no Mitigating Circumstance of P&O when more than 24
hours elapsed between the alleged insult and the commission of the felony, or a) voluntarily surrendered
several hours have passed between the cause of the P&O and the commission of
the crime, or at least ½ hours intervened between the previous fight and b) voluntarily confessed his guilt
subsequent killing of deceased by accused.
Not mitigating if relationship is illegitimate If both are present, considered as 2 independent mitigating circumstances.
The passion or obfuscation will be considered even if it is based only on the Mitigate penalty to a greater extent
honest belief of the offender, even if facts turn out to prove that his beliefs were
Requisites of voluntary surrender:
wrong.
a) offender not actually arrested even if during arraignment, accused pleaded not guilty, he is entitled to
Mitigating Circumstance as long as withdraws his plea of not guilty to the charge
b) offender surrendered to a person in authority or the latter’s agent before the fiscal could present his evidence
plea to a lesser charge is not Mitigating Circumstance because to be voluntary
c) surrender was voluntary plea of guilty, must be to the offense charged
plea to the offense charged in the amended info, lesser than that charged in the
Surrender must be spontaneous – shows his interest to surrender original info, is Mitigating Circumstance
unconditionally to the authorities present Rules of Court require that even if accused pleaded guilty to a capital
Spontaneous – emphasizes the idea of inner impulse, acting without external offense, its mandatory for court to require the prosecution to prove the guilt of
stimulus. The conduct of the accused, not his intention alone, after the the accused being likewise entitled to present evidence to prove, inter alia,
commission of the offense, determines the spontaneity of the surrender. Mitigating Circumstance
Example: Surrendered after 5 years, not spontaneous anymore.
Example: Surrendered after talking to town councilor. Not V.S. because there’s an 8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering from some physical
external stimulus defect w/c thus restricts his means of action, defense or communication w/ his fellow
Conduct must indicate a desire to own the responsibility beings.
Not mitigating when warrant already served. Surrender may be considered
mitigating if warrant not served or returned unserved because accused can’t be Basis: one suffering from physical defect which restricts him does not have
located. complete freedom of action and therefore, there is diminution of that element of
Surrender of person required. Not just of weapon. voluntariness.
Person in authority – one directly vested with jurisdiction, whether as an No distinction between educated and uneducated deaf-mute or blind persons
individual or as a member of some The physical defect of the offender should restrict his means of action, defense or
court/government/corporation/board/commission. Barrio captain/chairman communication with fellow beings, this has been extended to cover cripples,
included. armless people even stutterers.
Agent of person in authority – person who by direct provision of law, or be The circumstance assumes that with their physical defect, the offenders do not
election, or by appointment by competent authority is charged with the have a complete freedom of action therefore diminishing the element of
maintenance of public order and the protection and security of life and property voluntariness in the commission of a crime.
and any person who comes to the aid of persons in authority.
RPC does not make distinction among the various moments when surrender may 9. Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the will-power of the
occur. offender w/o depriving him of consciousness of his acts.
Surrender must be by reason of the commission of the crime for which defendant
is charged Basis: diminution of intelligence and intent
Requisites for plea of guilty Requisites:
a) offender spontaneously confessed his guilt a) illness of the offender must diminish the exercise of his will-power
b) confession of guilt was made in open court (competent court) b) such illness should not deprive the offender of consciousness of his acts
c) confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of evidence for the when the offender completely lost the exercise of will-power, it may be an
prosecution exempting circumstance
deceased mind, not amounting to insanity, may give place to mitigation
plea made after arraignment and after trial has begun does not entitle accused to 10. And any other circumstance of a similar nature and analogous to those above-
have plea considered as Mitigating Circumstance mentioned
plea in the RTC in a case appealed from the MTC is not mitigating – must make Examples of “any other circumstance”:
plea at the first opportunity
plea during the preliminary investigation is no plea at all a) defendant who is 60 years old with failing eyesight is similar to a case of one over
70 years old
b) outraged feeling of owner of animal taken for ransom is analogous to vindication of Definition – Those circumstance which raise the penalty for a crime without
grave offense exceeding the maximum applicable to that crime.
Basis: The greater perversity of the offense as shown by:
c) impulse of jealous feeling, similar to PASSION AND OBFUSCATION
a) the motivating power behind the act
d) voluntary restitution of property, similar to voluntary surrender
b) the place where the act was committed
e) extreme poverty, similar to incomplete justification based on state of necessity
c) the means and ways used
NOT analogous:
d) the time
a) killing wrong person
e) the personal circumstance of the offender
b) not resisting arrest not the same as voluntary surrender
f) the personal circumstance of the victim
c) running amuck is not mitigating
Kinds:
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE which arise from:
a) Generic – generally applicable to all crimes
a) moral attributes of the offender
b) Specific – apply only to specific crimes (ignominy – for chastity crimes; treachery –
Example: Juan and Tomas killed Pedro. Juan acted w/ PASSION AND OBFUSCATION. Only for persons crimes)
Juan will be entitled to Mitigating Circumstance
b) private relations with the offended party c) Qualifying – those that change the nature of the crime (evident premeditation –
Example: Juan stole his brother’s watch. Juan sold it to Pedro, who knew it was stolen. becomes murder)
The circumstance of relation arose from private relation of Juan and the brother. Does
not mitigate Pedro. d) Inherent – necessarily accompanies the commission of the crime (evident
c) other personal cause premeditation in theft, estafa)
Example: Minor, acting with discernment robbed Juan. Pedro, passing by, helped the
minor. Circumstance of minority, mitigates liability of minor only.
Shall serve to mitigate the liability of the principals, accomplices and accessories QUALIFYING AGGRAVATING GENERIC AGGRAVATING
to whom the circumstances are attendant. CIRCUMSTANCE CIRCUMSTANCE
Circumstances which are neither exempting nor mitigating
Gives the proper and exclusive name,
places the author thereof in such a
a) mistake in the blow situation as to deserve no other penalty Increase penalty to the maximum,
than that specifically prescribed by law without exceeding limit prescribed by law
b) mistake in the identity of the victim
Public authority may be the offended Public authority is not be the offended
Example: A jealous lover, already determined to kill his sweetheart, invited her party party
for a ride and during that ride, he stabbed her
Abuse of confidence is inherent in: 6a. That the crime be committed (1) in the nighttime, or (2) in an uninhabited
1. malversation place (3) by a band, whenever such circumstances may facilitate the commission of
2. qualified theft the offense.
3. estafa by conversion
Nighttime, Uninhabited Place or By a Bang Aggravating when:
4. misappropriation
5. qualified seduction Impunity – means to prevent the accused’s being recognized or to secure
himself against detection or punishment
5. That the crime be committed in the palace of the Chief Executive, or in his presence, or Nighttime begins at the end of dusk and ending at dawn; from sunset to sunrise
when public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties, or in a place Uninhabited Place – one where there are no houses at all, a place at a
dedicated to religious worship. considerable distance from town, where the houses are scattered at a great
distance from each other
1. it facilitated the commission of the crime
Requirements of the aggravating circumstance of public office:
A polling precinct is a public office during election day
2. especially sought for by the offender to insure the commission of the crime or for
misfortune means
the purpose of impunity
3. when the offender took the advantage thereof for the purpose of impunity
4. commission of the crime must have began and accomplished at nighttime Crime is committed BY using fire,
1. commission of the crime must begin and be accomplished in the nighttime Crime is committed DURING any of the inundation, explosion or other wasteful
2. when the place of the crime is illuminated by light, nighttime is not aggravating calamities means
3. absorbed by Treachery
Requisites:
1. The place facilitated the commission or omission of the crime 8. That the crime be committed with the aid of (1) armed men or (2) persons who
2. Deliberately sought and not incidental to the commission or omission of the insure or afford impunity
crime based on the means and ways
3. Taken advantage of for the purpose of impunity Requisites:
what should be considered here is whether in the place of the commission of the Exceptions:
offense, there was a reasonable possibility of the victim receiving some help 1. that armed men or persons took part in the commission of the crime, directly or
6b. – Whenever more than 3 armed malefactors shall have acted together in the indirectly
commission of an offense, it shall be deemed to have been committed by a band. 2. that the accused availed himself of their aid or relied upon them when the crime
Requisites: was committed
if one of the four-armed malefactors is a principal by inducement, they do not 1. when both the attacking party and the party attacked were equally armed
form a band because it is undoubtedly connoted that he had no direct 2. not present when the accused as well as those who cooperated with him in the
participation, commission of the crime acted under the same plan and for the same purpose.
Band is inherent in robbery committed in band and brigandage 3. Casual presence, or when the offender did not avail himself of any of their aid nor
did not knowingly count upon their assistance in the commission of the crime
It is not considered in the crime of rape
It has been applied in treason and in robbery with homicide WITH THE AID OF ARMED MEN BY A BAND
1. Facilitated the commission of the crime
2. Deliberately sought Present even if one of the offenders Requires more than 3 armed malefactors
3. Taken advantage of for the purposes of impunity merely relied on their aid. Actual aid is who all acted together in the commission
4. There must be four or more armed men not necessary of an offense
7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck, if there are more than 3 armed men, aid of armed men is absorbed in the
earthquake, epidemic or other calamity or misfortune employment of a band.
9. That the accused is a recidivist
Requisites: Recidivist – one who at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been
1. Committed when there is a calamity or misfortune previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same
1. Conflagration title of the RPC
2. Shipwreck Basis: Greater perversity of the offender as shown by his inclination to commit
3. Epidemic crimes
2. Offender took advantage of the state of confusion or chaotic condition from such Requisites:
misfortune
What is controlling is the time of the trial, not the time of the commission of the
Basis: Commission of the crime adds to the suffering by taking advantage of the offense. At the time of the trial means from the arraignment until after sentence
misfortune. is announced by the judge in open court.
based on time When does judgment become final? (Rules of Court)
offender must take advantage of the calamity or misfortune Example of Crimes embraced in the Same title of the RPC
Distinction between Paragraphs 7 and 12 of Article 14
Q: The accused was prosecuted and tried for theft, robbery and estafa. Judgments
were read on the same day. Is he a recidivist?
1. offender is on trial for an offense
Committed during a calamity or Committed with the use of wasteful 2. he was previously convicted by final judgment of another crime
3. that both the first and the second offenses are embraced in the same title of the injuries, robbery, theft, estafa or falsification is found guilty of any of said crimes
RPC a third time or oftener.
4. the offender is convicted of the new offense Quasi-Recidivism – any person who shall commit a felony after having been
1. after the lapse of a period for perfecting an appeal convicted by final judgment, before beginning to serve such sentence, or while
2. when the sentence has been partially or totally satisfied or served serving the same, shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty
3. defendant has expressly waived in writing his right to appeal prescribed by law for the new felony
4. the accused has applied for probation 1. Recidivism – generic
1. robbery and theft – title 10 2. Reiteracion or Habituality – generic
2. homicide and physical injuries – title 8 3. Multiple recidivism or Habitual delinquency – extraordinary aggravating
4. Quasi-Recidivism – special aggravating
A: No. Because the judgment in any of the first two offenses was not yet final when he 11. That the crime be committed in consideration of a price, reward or promise.
was tried for the third offense Requisites:
1. At least 2 principals
Recidivism must be taken into account no matter how many years have
intervened between the first and second felonies 1. The principal by inducement
Pardon does not obliterate the fact that the accused was a recidivist, but amnesty
extinguishes the penalty and its effects 2. The principal by direct participation
To prove recidivism, it must be alleged in the information and with attached
certified copies of the sentences rendered against the accused 2. the price, reward, or promise should be previous to and in consideration of the
Exceptions: if the accused does not object and when he admits in his confession commission of the criminal act
and on the witness stand. Applicable to both principals.
12. That the crime be committed by means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion,
10. That the offender has been previously punished for an offense to which the law stranding a vessel or intentional damage thereto, or derailment of a locomotive, or
attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a by use of any other artifice involving great waste or ruin.
lighter penalty Requisite: The wasteful means were used by the offender to accomplish a
criminal purpose
Reiteracion or Habituality – it is essential that the offender be previously 13. That the act be committed with evident premeditation
punished; that is, he has served sentence. Essence of premeditation: the execution of the criminal act must be preceded by
Par. 10 speaks of penalty attached to the offense, not the penalty actually cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent
imposed during the space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment
Requisites:
REITERACION RECIDIVISM
Conspiracy generally presupposes premeditation
Necessary that offender shall have served Enough that final judgment has been When victim is different from that intended, premeditation is not aggravating.
out his sentence for the first sentence rendered in the first offense Although it is not necessary that there is a plan to kill a particular person for
premeditation to exist (e.g. plan to kill first 2 persons one meets, general attack
on a village…for as long as it was planned)
Previous and subsequent offenses must The premeditation must be based upon external facts, and must be evident, not
not be embraced in the same title of the merely suspected indicating deliberate planning
Code Same title Evident premeditation is inherent in robbery, adultery, theft, estafa, falsification,
and etc.
1. the time when the offender determined to commit the crime
Not always an aggravating circumstance Always aggravating 2. an act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his determination
3. a sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution to allow him
4 Forms of Repetition to reflect upon the consequences of his act and to allow his conscience to
overcome the resolution of his will
Habitual Delinquency – when a person within a period of 10 years from the date
14. That (1) craft, (2) fraud, or (3) disguise be employed
of his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical
Craft – involves intellectual trickery and cunning on the part of the accused.
It is employed as a scheme in the execution of the crime (e.g. accused pretended to be 16. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia)
members of the constabulary, accused in order to perpetrate rape, used chocolates TREACHERY: when the offender commits any of the crime against the person,
containing drugs) employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly
and specially to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from the
Fraud –involves insidious words or machinations used to induce victim to act in defense which the offended party might make.
a manner which would enable the offender to carry out his design. Requisites:
as distinguished from craft which involves acts done in order not to arouse the Treachery – can’t be considered when there is no evidence that the accused,
suspicion of the victim, fraud involves a direct inducement through entrapping or prior to the moment of the killing, resolved to commit to crime, or there is no
beguiling language or machinations proof that the death of the victim was the result of meditation, calculation or
Disguise – resorting to any device to conceal identity. Purpose of concealing reflection.
identity is a must. Examples: victim asleep, half-awake or just awakened, victim grappling or being
held, stacks from behind
Distinction between Craft, Fraud, and Disguise But treachery may exist even if attack is face-to-face – as long as victim was not
given any chance to prepare defense
Craft Fraud Disguise 1. that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in the position to defend himself
2. that the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of
Involves the use of attack employed by him
intellectual trickery and Involves the use of direct Involves the use of 1. does not exist if the accused gave the deceased chance to prepare or there was
cunning to arouse suspicion inducement by insidious devise to conceal warning given or that it was preceded by a heated argument
of the victim words or machinations identity 2. there is always treachery in the killing of child
3. generally characterized by the deliberate and sudden and unexpected attack of
the victim from behind, without any warning and without giving the victim an
Requisite: The offender must have actually taken advantage of craft, fraud, or opportunity to defend himself
disguise to facilitate the commission of the crime.
Inherent in: estafa and falsification. ABUSE OF SUPERIOR MEANS EMPLOYED TO
15. That (1) advantage be taken of superior strength, or (2) means be employed to TREACHERY STRENGTH WEAKEN DEFENSE
weaken the defense
Means, methods or forms
To purposely use excessive force out of the proportion to the means of defense are employed by the Offender does not employ Means are employed but
available to the person attacked. offender to make it means, methods or forms it only materially
Requisite of Means to Weaken Defense impossible or hard for the of attack, he only takes weakens the resisting
To weaken the defense – illustrated in the case where one struggling with offended party to put any advantage of his superior power of the offended
another suddenly throws a cloak over the head of his opponent and while in the sort of resistance strength party
said situation, he wounds or kills him. Other means of weakening the defense
would be intoxication or disabling thru the senses (casting dirt of sand upon
another’s eyes) Where there is conspiracy, treachery is considered against all the offenders
1. Superiority may arise from aggressor’s sex, weapon or number as compared to Treachery absorbs abuse of strength, aid of armed men, by a band and means to
that of the victim (e.g. accused attacked an unarmed girl with a knife; 3 men weaken the defense
stabbed to death the female victim).
2. No advantage of superior strength when one who attacks is overcome with 17. That the means be employed or circumstances brought about which add ignominy to
passion and obfuscation or when quarrel arose unexpectedly and the fatal blow the natural effects of the acts
was struck while victim and accused were struggling.
3. Vs. by a band : circumstance of abuse of superior strength, what is taken into IGNOMINY – is a circumstance pertaining to the moral order, which adds
account is not the number of aggressors nor the fact that they are armed but disgrace and obloquy to the material injury caused by the crime
their relative physical might vis-à-vis the offended party
1. Means were purposely sought to weaken the defense of the victim to resist the Applicable to crimes against chastity (rape included), less serious physical injuries, light
assault or grave coercion and murder
2. The means used must not totally eliminate possible defense of the victim,
otherwise it will fall under treachery
Requisites:
Examples: accused embraced and kissed the offended party not out of lust but 21. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately augmented by
out of anger in front of many people, raped in front of the husband, raped causing other wrong not necessary for its commission
successively by five men
tend to make the effects of the crime more humiliating
Ignominy not present where the victim was already dead when such acts were Cruelty: when the culprit enjoys and delights in making his victim suffer slowly
committed against his body or person and gradually, causing him unnecessary physical pain in the consummation of
1. Crime must be against chastity, less serious physical injuries, light or grave the criminal act. Cruelty cannot be presumed nor merely inferred from the body
coercion, and murder of the deceased. Has to be proven.
2. The circumstance made the crime more humiliating and shameful for the victim 1. mere plurality of words do not show cruelty
18. That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry 2. no cruelty when the other wrong was done after the victim was dead
Unlawful entry – when an entrance is effected by a way not intended for the Requisites:
purpose. Meant to effect entrance and NOT exit. 1. that the injury caused be deliberately increased by causing other wrong
Why aggravating? One who acts, not respecting the walls erected by men to 2. that the other wrong be unnecessary for the execution of the purpose of the
guard their property and provide for their personal safety, shows greater offender
perversity, a greater audacity and hence the law punishes him with more IGNOMINY CRUELTY
severity
Example: Rapist gains entrance thru the window
Inherent in: Trespass to dwelling, robbery with force upon things, and robbery Moral suffering – subjected to humiliation Physical suffering
with violence or intimidation against persons.
19. That as a means to the commission of the crime, a wall, roof, door or window Art 15. ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES. Their concept. — Alternative
be broken circumstances are those which must be taken into consideration as aggravating or
Requisites: mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime and the other
Applicable only if such acts were done by the offender to effect entrance. conditions attending its commission. They are the relationship, intoxication and
Breaking is lawful in the following instances: the degree of instruction and education of the offender.
1. A wall, roof, window, or door was broken The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into consideration
2. They were broken to effect entrance when the offended party in the spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural,
1. an officer in order to make an arrest may break open a door or window of any or adopted brother or sister, or relative by affinity in the same degrees of the
building in which the person to be arrested is or is reasonably believed to be; offender.
2. an officer if refused admittance may break open any door or window to execute The intoxication of the offender shall be taken into consideration as a
the search warrant or liberate himself, mitigating circumstances when the offender has committed a felony in a state of
intoxication, if the same is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit said
20. That the crime be committed (1) with the aid of persons under 15 years of age, or (2) felony but when the intoxication is habitual or intentional, it shall be considered as
by means of motor vehicles, airships or other similar means. an aggravating circumstance.
Alternative Circumstances – those which must be taken into consideration as
aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime and
Reason for #1: to repress, so far as possible, the frequent practice resorted to by
other conditions attending its commission.
professional criminals to avail themselves of minors taking advantage of their
responsibility (remember that minors are given leniency when they commit a They are:
crime) 1. relationship – taken into consideration when offended party is the spouse,
Example: Juan instructed a 14-year old to climb up the fence and open the gate for him so ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural or adopted brother or sister, or
that he may rob the house relative by affinity in the same degree of the offender
2. intoxication – mitigating when the offender has committed a felony in the state of
Reason for #2: to counteract the great facilities found by modern criminals in
intoxication, if the same is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit the
said means to commit crime and flee and abscond once the same is committed.
said felony. Aggravating if habitual or intentional
Necessary that the motor vehicle be an important tool to the consummation of
3. degree of instruction and education of the offender
the crime (bicycles not included)
RELATIONSHIP
Example: Juan and Pedro, in committing theft, used a truck to haul the appliances from
the mansion. Mitigating Circumstance Aggravating Circumstance
In crimes against persons – in cases realize the consequences of his criminal committing the offense.
where the offender, or when the offender act. Not just mere illiteracy but lack of
and the offended party are relatives of the intelligence.
same level, as killing a brother, adopted
brother or half-brother.
Determined by: the court must consider the circumstance of lack of instruction
Always aggravating in crimes against Exceptions (not mitigating):
In crimes against property (robbery, 1. crimes against property
usurpation, fraudulent insolvency, arson) chastity.
2. crimes against chastity (rape included)
3. crime of treason
Art 16. Who are criminally liable. — The following are criminally liable for grave
Exception: Art 332 of CC – no criminal
and less grave felonies:
liability, civil liability only for the crimes
of theft, swindling or malicious mischief
committed or caused mutually by 1. Principals.
spouses, ascendants, descendants or
relatives by affinity (also brothers, sisters, 2. Accomplices.
brothers-in-law or sisters-in-law if living
together). It becomes an EXEMPTING 3. Accessories.
circumstance.
Example: Minor stole a ring and Juan, knowing it was stolen, bought it. Minor is exempt. c. Must be personal – imposed only upon the criminal
Juan liable as accessory
d. Must be legal – according to a judgment of fact and law
Reference:
Criminal Law Book 1 Reviewer
Ateneo Central Bar Operations 2001