Criminal Law Review 2017 Book 1 PDF

FROM THE LECTURES OF PROF.
VICTORIA GARCIA
Criminal
Law Review I
2017
University of Santo Tomas
Compiled and Edited by: Kaye and Dinty

Bongalon | David | Garvida | Liwanag | Maranan |
Melosantos | Mina | Navarez | Santos (2016)|
Dizon (2017)
Maria Aurora Mon, Carmel Liria, Gretchen Sy, Anne
Rose De Guia, Ma. Althea Raypon, J-ann Javillonar &
Maria Maica Angelika Roman
(2013)
These notes are not intended to substitute textbooks but merely

serve as a guide in learning our Penal Laws. Any errors are
attributed solely to the editors and transcribers. Also, please refrain
from sharing these on online libraries such as Scribd and Acadmia.
God bless and good luck!
Criminal Law Review I 2017
Bongalon | David | Garvida | Liwanag | Maranan | Melosantos | Mina | Navarez | Santos (2016)| Dizon (2017)
GENERAL PRINCIPLES 2. Special Penal Laws enacted by congress

3. Penal Presidential Decrees or Presidential Orders
Criminal Law – branch of division of law which defines
crimes, treats of their nature and provides for their Limitations to the Power of Congress to enact
punishment Penal Laws
Crime - refers to any act committed or omitted in 1. Penal law must be general in application
violation of a public law or compelling law. otherwise it would be violative of the Equal
Two Injuries are Committed: Protection Clause. It must be applied equally to
all.
1.) Injury committed against a person 2. Must not partake the nature of an ex post facto
- civil indemnity is awarded to the offended law. It is a law which makes an act criminal
party on the heirs although at the time it was committed it is not yet
- personal injury against the private offended so.
party 3. Must not partake the nature of Bill of Attainder.
2.) Injury committed against the state It is a law which punishes the accused without the
- Punishment is imprisonment benefit of due process without giving him the
- Social injury against the state for the opportunity to be heard and to present his side.
disturbance of peace 4. Must not impose cruel, unusual punishment and
excessive penalties.
Note: for every crime committed, it is more of an offense 5. Must observe substantive and procedural due
against the state rather than against the private offended process
party. BAR 2015: Distinguish Ex-post facto law from Bill of
Attainder
Example:
A hit B. B sustained a fatal wound but he survived.

Ex post facto Law Bill of Attainder
Thereafter, B filed frustrated homicide. The fiscal found
probable cause. In the information filed by the fiscal, the
title is People of the Philippines vs A. Law which makes the act A law which punishes the
criminal although at the accused without the benefit
The trial continued and the judge found the accused guilty time it was committed, it of due process.
beyond reasonable doubt. was not.
The first penalty of the judge is imprisonment due to social

injury. Aside from this, B will pay a civil indemnity.
Characteristics of Penal Laws:

Crime may be a:
1. FELONY – act/omissions punished by the 1. GENERALITY
Revised Penal Code
➢ binding on all who reside or sojourn in the
2. OFFENSE – punished by a special law
Philippines
3. ACTS/INFRACTIONS – punished by ordinances,
➢ Penal laws shall be applied to all persons on
local legislation
being within the Philippine territory whether they
are Filipino Citizens or foreigners regardless of
Note that all three are under the umbrella term of Crime.
any of their personal circumstances
Legislative Department – power to enact penal laws ➢ Applicable to all so long as within the Philippines
➢ Applies to non-citizens since while they are
In case of emergency, president may issue a Penal within ;the Philippines, they are given protection
Issuance Order provided that there is a law delegating the in the same way that the government protects its
power to the president. own citizen
➢ consuls are not among those who enjoy the
Sources of Philippine Criminal Law diplomatic immunity from suit
1. Revised Penal Code
Compiled and edited by KCL and Dinty 1|P a g e

[Maria Aurora Mon, Carmel Liria, Gretchen Sy, Anne Rose De Guia, Ma. Althea Raypon, J-ann Javillonar & Maria Maica Angelika Roman]
GR: Consuls are subject to penal laws of the country where Because the carrying of dangerous drug is not in any
they are assigned. way connected in the performance of his functions.
XPN: When there is a treaty or an agreement
Q: The President of Country X arrived in the Philippines
between the home country of the consul and the
and was invited to be a judge in the Miss Universe
country where he is designated stating that the consul
pageant. He found Ms. Portugal very pretty and invited
is immune from the criminal jurisdiction of the host
her to his hotel for a date. Of course, Ms. Portugal
country
accommodated. Miss Portugal was brought inside the
hotel room and there, she was raped. Miss Portugal filed a
EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERALITY
case against the President for rape in the Philippines. Will
CHARACTERISTIC:
the case prosper?
1. Generally accepted principles of PIL
A: The case will prosper. The case is no longer within
➢ based on public international law, heads of state, the limits of diplomatic immunity from suit. The act
executives, and other diplomatic representatives performed by the president is beyond his official
are immune from the criminal jurisdiction of the function as President of Country X and to be a judge
country where they sojourned or assigned – to the beauty pageant therefore he should be bound by
diplomatic immunity from suit the penal laws and he can be prosecuted.
➢ these people, while in the territory of the host
Q: The President of Country X woke up late on Monday
country, they need not comply with the penal
morning. He was one of the judges of Miss Universe. So he
laws of the said host country. They cannot be
took his car and hit a pedestrian. Can he be prosecuted?
prosecuted, they cannot be arrested, they cannot
be punished if they violate the law in their host A: He cannot be prosecuted. He is within the
country diplomatic immunity from suit. He was on his way to
➢ However, this diplomatic immunity from suit is perform an official function when he committed the
not absolute. It is subject to the rule that the said crime. Since he was covered by the diplomatic
diplomatic immunity from suit would only apply immunity from suit, he is not bound by the penal
to the acts of these heads of states or diplomatic laws. Therefore the case of Reckless Imprudence
representatives in relation to their official resulting in homicide will not prosper.
functions. Therefore if the act that they
2. Laws of Preferential Application
committed were not related to their official
functions, then they will be subjected to our penal Example: Section 11 of Art. VI of the 1987 Phil.
laws Constitution
Q: A is an Italian Diplomat/Ambassador. From his hotel, Senator X delivered a privilege speech in Senate. Sen.
since his bodyguards were not yet ready, he decided to X called Sen. Y a womanizer, a smuggler. These are
drive his car by himself. He drove the car however, he hit a slanderous remarks to Sen. Y. But Sen. Y cannot file a
pedestrian. The latter died. Can A be prosecuted for case of Slander or Libel against Sen. X because these
reckless imprudence resulting in homicide? slanderous remarks were made in the halls of
congress while the congress is in regular or special
A: The said Italian Ambassador cannot be prosecuted.
session. Hence, he cannot be prosecuted.
He enjoys diplomatic immunity from suit. Hence, he
cannot be arrested, prosecuted and punished.
2. TERRITORIALITY
Q: If the Italian Ambassador arrived at the NAIA Terminal
He has two (2) attaché cases. The sniffing dogs were
➢ law is applicable to all crimes committed within
trained to snif dangerous drugs and the dogs were
the Philippine territory; Place where penal law
following him, which means he has in possession of
shall be applied
dangerous drugs. So the NAIA personnel confiscated the
cases, and when they opened it, it contains drugs in the
GR: Crimes committed outside the Philippine jurisdiction
amount of more or less three-hundred million pesos. Can
cannot be under Philippine courts
he be prosecuted for illegal possession/importation of
XPN: Article 2 of the RPC
dangerous drugs?
A: Yes. Diplomatic Immunity from Suit is not
absolute, it is subject to the exception that the act
must be done in the performance of his function.

3. PROSPECTIVITY Two philosophies under the Criminal Law System:

➢ time when it shall apply
1.) CLASSICAL/JURISTIC PHILOSOPHY
➢ Penal laws shall only be applied from the time of
effectivity. 1.1. Basis of criminal activity is human free will
➢ Penal laws cannot be given retroactive
- Man is a moral creature which
application
understands right from wrong
GR: Penal laws shall apply prospectively
XPN: - When he commits a wrong, he
voluntarily does the same, therefore, he shall
1. when the law itself provides for its be ready for the consequences of his acts
retroactive application (ex. RA 9344 or the
Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act)
2. if favorable to the accused who is not a 1.2. Purpose of penalty is retribution
habitual delinquent (Article 22 of the RPC)
- Evolves from the maxim “an eye for an
Example under Prospectivity Characteristic eye..” therefore, for every crime committed,
there is a corresponding penalty based on
X was arrested for Vagrancy under Art. 202 of RPC in
the injury inflicted on the victim
March 2013. In July 2013, a new law enacted by
Congress decriminalizing vagrancy which amended
Art 202. This new law will apply in favor of X because
1.3. Determination of penalty is done
this new law is favorable to him and X is not a
mechanically
habitual criminal.
- Done mechanically since the
Q: The Anti-Subversion Law had long been repealed.
punishment is
Congress recently revived this law and makes it criminal
for being a member of the CCP-NPA. Upon the passage of proportionate to the severity sustained by the
this new law, the police officers immediately went to the victim
house of X, a known member of CCP during his younger
Punishment is commensurate to severity of the
years and he was arrested. He challenged this new law,
crime or injury caused
what are his grounds?
1.4. Emphasis is on the crime and not on the
A: First, his argument is that this new law is in
criminal - …on the offense and not on the
violative of the prospectivity characteristic of penal
offender
law. This is violative because penal law cannot be
given retroactive application except that if the law 2.) POSITIVIST/REALISTIC PHILOSOPHY
expressly provides and it is favorable to him. Hence, it
2.1. Basis of criminal liability is man’s social
cannot be given retroactive application.
environment
Second, he can invoke the provision in the
“All men are born good, they only become evil
constitution against ex post facto law. It is an ex-post
due to the influence of the community.” - Crimes
facto law because at the time that he was a member of
are a social phenomenon
CCP, there was no law punishing subversion.
Therefore, he cannot be prosecuted under this new
law.
2.2. Purpose of penalty is for purposes of
Another exception to the prospectivity principle is when rehabilitation - Offenderis a socially sick
the Special Penal Law expressly provides for its individual who need to be corrected not to be
retroactivity. An example of which is section 68 of R.A. punished
9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006) the law
Reformatory or correctional institutions
expressly provides that it will apply to all persons that
have been convicted and already serving sentence
provided that they are minors at the time of promulgation.
2.3. Determination of penalty is done on the case
to case basis

2.4. Emphasis of the law is on the offender and 2. DOCTRINE OF PRO REO
not to the offense
- Penal laws should always be construed liberally in
- …..on the criminal not on the crime favor of the accused and strictly against the state.
- great regard to the human element of
the crime 3. LENITY RULE
- takes into consideration why the - Whenever a penal law or a provision of penal law
offender committed the crime is susceptible of 2 interpretations, the one lenient
to the accused which will bring about acquittal
and the other one strictly against the accused
3.) MIXED/ECCLECTIC PHILOSOPHY which will bring about conviction, the lenient
interpretation shall prevail.
- Crimes which are heinous/obnoxious in
- Presumption of innocence unless contrary is
nature-
proven beyond reasonable doubt
classical Maxim: In case of doubt, rule always for the accused.
- Crimes which are social/economic – Constitution: Unless proven guilty, deemed innocent.
positivist
“Guilt must be proven.”
RPC – Classical philosophy 4. EQUIPOSE RULE
Merely copied from Spanish...French espoused - Whenever the evidence of the prosecution is
classical equally balanced with the evidence of the defense,
-Although RPC is molded with classical philosophy, the the scales of justice shall be titled towards the
amendments are geared toward the positivist philosophy accused.
e.g.
Reasons:
a.) INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW – once served the 1. Presumption of innocence
minimum of his penalty, eligible for parole (rehabilitation) 2. Prosecution has the burden of proving conviction
b.) PROBATION LAW – 6 years and below, probation beyond reasonable doubt
report to probation officer
Conviction based on the strength of the evidence of the
c.) RA 9346 –abolished death penalty prosecution.
THEORIES/RULES CONCERNING CRIMINAL
LAW: Q: X is being prosecuted for illegal possession of
dangerous drugs. During the trial, the prosecution
1. UTILITARIAN THEORY/PROTECTIVE THEORY presented a forensic chemist who tested the dangerous
drug, presented the arresting officer and the latter testified
- Purpose of punishment is to protect the society that he got a tip from an informant that X bought a shabu
from actual/potential wrong doing from a drug pusher. They saw X in the canteen, while X
- Even in violation of special penal laws, wherein was eating they arrested X, frisked X and bodily searched
intent does not matter, courts should see to it X and found 2 sachets of shabu. At the time of the
that punishment shall only be imposed to presentation of the evidence for the defense, the defense
actual/potential wrongdoers. counsel presented the accused. He testified that he was not
- Includes crimes which are mala prohibita in possession of dangerous drug. According to him, he was
- Potential wrongdoer was not Magno rather it was merely eating at the canteen when suddenly the Police
Mrs. Heng. She should not have deposited the Officers arrived and arrested him and proceeded in the
check upon withdrawing the machineries. She Police station. While at the station, suddenly, there were 2
was the one who acted in bad faith. plastic sachets of shabu which were taken out and
allegedly this was found from the accused. Aside from the
SC: If Magno will be the one to be punished, then accused, the defense presented the owner and the waiter of
it will bring about opportunism. Magno was the canteen. Both corroborated the testimony of the
acquitted on the ground of good faith. (Magno accused that X was arrested and they did not see any act of
v. CA)

body search, frisking and dangerous drug taken out from

the accused. If you were the Judge, will you convict or
acquit the accused?
A: Here, the evidence of the prosecution is equally
balanced with the evidence of the defense. Therefore,
based on the so called equipoise rule, the accused has
to be acquitted. The prosecution failed to prove the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Q: Where do you file criminal cases?
A: If it is grave felony, those were the penalty
prescribed by law is more than 6 years, cases must be
filed before the RTC.
In case of light and less grave felonies, cases
must be filed before MTCs. This felony carries with it
an imprisonment of 6 years or below 6 years.
Exceptions:
1. When the law specially provides.

Example. Libel- must be filed before RTC even
though it carries a penalty of below 6 years.
2. In cases of crimes committed by public officers (RA
3090) the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and
the Plunder Law. If the public officer who is of salary
grade 27 and above is charged, the Ombudsman must
file the cases before the Sandiganbayan. But if it is
below salary grade 27, it must be filed before the
appropriate trial court (RTC or MTC)
Q: What if what has performed was a perverted/immoral
act but there is no law which punishes the said act. Can the
person be prosecuted in court?
A: No, “nullem crimen nulla poena sine lege” there is

no crime when there is no law which punishes it.
Q: Are there common law crimes in the Philippines?
A: Common law crimes are principles, usages and use

of action which the community considers as
condemnable even if there’s no law that punishes it.
➢ There are no common law crimes in the Philippines

since the Philippines is a civil law country. Penal laws
are enacted. They do not evolve through time.

BOOK I A: This phrase means treaties entered with other

countries, laws of preferential palliation takes
PRELIMINARY TITLE preference over the provision of the RPC.
Article 1. This Code shall take effect on January 1, Therefore, if there is any conflict between any
1932. agreements entered into by the Philippines with
another country, if it is in conflict with any provisions
RPC took effect on January 1, 1932 passed into law on of the RPC, the said agreement shall prevail over the
December 8, 1930. provision of RPC.
Remember the Larranaga Case, based on the RPC, a

Article 2. Application of its provisions. - Except as person who is convicted of a crime shall serve his sentence
provided in the treaties and laws of preferential in the New Bilibid prison, that is the national penitentiary.
application, the provisions of this Code shall be However, the Philippines entered into an agreement with
enforced not only within the Philippine Spain. This agreement was ratified by the Senate. As a
Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior result thereof, after Larranaga has been convicted of
waters and maritime zone, but also outside of its kidnapping and serious illegal detention with rape and
jurisdiction, against those who: homicide, considering that he has 2 citizenship – both
Filipino and Spanish. He was brought to Spain, and there
1. Should commit an offense while on a he is serving his sentence. Because based on that
Philippine ship or airship agreement, Spanish citizens who are serving their sentence
in the Philippines can be brought to Spain and they are to
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or serve their sentence there. Larranaga took advantage
currency note of the Philippine Islands or because definitely, the facilities perhaps are better than
obligations and securities issued by the prison facilities here.
Government of the Philippine Islands;
Extraterritorial Application:
3. Should be liable for acts connected with
the introduction into these islands of the 1st: Those who should commit an offense while on
obligations and securities mentioned in a Philippine ship or airship.
the presiding number;
Q: When is it a Philippine ship or airship?
4. While being public officers or employees,
should commit an offense in the exercise A: If it is registered and licensed in the
of their functions; or Philippines and under the Philippine laws. Even if
totally or wholly owned by a Filipino citizen, if it is not
registered in the Philippines it cannot be considered
5. Should commit any of the crimes against
as a Philippine ship/airship. It is only upon
national security and the law of nations,
registration that this aircraft/vessel can fly the
defined in Title One of Book Two of this
Code. Philippine flag. Therefore, it is registration which is
the operative act which makes it a Philippine
ship/airship.
Two scopes of application of Article 2:
Q: Now the law says, when a crime is committed on board
1. Intraterritorial application a Philippine ship/airship. The extraterritorial application
provides that the RPC shall enforced within the of the RPC will apply. It means even if the crime is
Philippine archipelago, including its atmosphere, committed in another place outside the Philippine
its interior waters and maritime zone jurisdiction, still, the RPC will apply. So what is this
situation?
2. Extraterritorial application
A: This is a situation where a crime is committed on
Q: What does phrase “Except as provided in the treaties board a Philippine vessel while it is outside Philippine
and laws of preferential application” mean? territory but not in the territory of another country.
The Philippine vessel is on waters of the Philippines, a
crime was committed on board.

Q: What country will have jurisdiction? the waters of another country it is the host country which
will have jurisdiction over the said crime.
A: Obviously, the Philippines.
EXCEPT when the crime merely affects the internal
Q: What if that Philippine vessel is on the high seas or management of the vessel, then it is the flag country
international waters and a crime was committed on board which will have jurisdiction. In effect, the English
the said Philippine vessel. What country will have Rule is territorial in nature.
jurisdiction over the said crime?
A: Still the Philippines. Because of the extraterritorial ➢ Philippines adhere to the English Rule which is
application of the RPC.it is the situation referred to as strictly territorial in nature.
the 1st circumstance under paragraph 2 of Art. 2. It is
the situation where the Philippine ship is outside the Example:
Philippine territory but not in the territory of another
country. A foreign merchant vessel is on Manila Bay. A crime
was committed on board, the Philippines will have
Q: What if the Philippine vessel is on the waters on jurisdiction over the said crime and criminal because
Malaysia and a crime was committed on board. What we follow the English Rule.
country will have jurisdiction?
2nd: Those who should forge or counterfeit any
A: Malaysian courts will have the jurisdiction because coin or currency note of the Philippine Islands or
of the territoriality characteristic of criminal law. obligations and securities issued by the
Government of the Philippine Islands.
Q: Any exception?
3rd: Those who should be liable for acts connected
A: If the vessel is a Philippine war vessel or warship. with the introduction into these islands of the
Or it is a Philippine warplane because a Philippine obligations and securities mentioned in the
warship or war aircraft is considered an extension of presiding number.
the Philippine sovereignty. Therefore, wherever they
may be, when a crime is committed on board a Example:
Philippine war vessel or warplane, the Philippines will
always have jurisdiction and the reason is the 1st X was in Japan. He counterfeited Philippine coins. He
paragraph of Art. 2 of the RPC – that is the then introduced these coins in to the Philippine
intraterritorial application of the RPC because it is as Islands. Although the crime has been committed in
the crime is committed within the Philippine territory. Japan, he can be held liable before Philippine courts.
This is necessary in order to maintain and preserve
In so far as foreign merchant vessel is concerned, the financial circulation and financial stability of the
there are 2 rules: Philippines. Otherwise, no other country would be
interested in prosecuting him except the Philippines
1. FRENCH RULE – crimes committed on board while because it is only the Philippines will be affected by
the foreign vessel is on the water of another country is the said counterfeiting of coins.
within the jurisdiction of the flag country. That is the
country where the country is registered. 4th: Those who while being public officers or
employees should commit an offense in the
EXCEPT when the crime committed affects the exercise of their functions.
public order, the peace and security of the host
country, then the host country will have jurisdiction This refers to public officers or employees who are
over the said crime. Therefore, the French Rule working in another country. While they are working in
recognizes the jurisdiction of the country where the another country, they committed a crime. If the crime
vessel is registered. committed by this public officers or employees are in
connection with the exercise of their functions. They can
French Rule = Flag country be prosecuted before Philippine courts. But if the crime
they committed is in no way connected with the exercise of
2. ENGLISH RULE – Host country; when a crime is their functions, then they should be prosecuted in the
committed on board a foreign merchant vessel while on courts of the country where they are assigned.

Q: OFW who lost his passport, he went to the Philippine committed inside the Philippine Embassy. The
Embassy in Japan applying for a new passport. He has Philippine Embassy which is considered an extension
been going there back and forth that it has not it was not of the Philippine sovereignty, then it is as if the crime
yet approved or it was not yet released. On his way out, he was committed within the Philippine territory.
saw the approving authority (AA). He talked to AA Therefore, S should file the case before the Philippine
requesting and begging him that it be immediately courts because it is as if the crime was committed
approved and released. He was invited to a coffee shop, within the Philippine archipelago. The reason for this
while having coffee, AA asked $500 from him and is the intraterritorial application of the RPC. But if the
promised on that same afternoon, his passport would be rape was committed at any other place outside the
released. So the poor OFW gave AA the $500. Where may Philippine Embassy, then PC should be prosecuted
this AA be prosecuted? Before Philippine courts or before before the courts of Japan because rape is in no way
the courts of Japan? connected with the exercise of his functions and a
consul does not enjoy diplomatic immunity.
A: AA may be prosecuted before the Philippine courts.
He did not commit in effect a crime in approving the Q: X is a US citizen born in the USA of Filipino parents
said passport because it his obligation to approve the wanted to visit the Philippines. So he applied for passport
said passport. However, he would not perform his in Phil. Embassy in California USA. The passport has not
obligation without a bribe. He would not perform his yet been approved, so he asked the Secretary when will his
function without the money given by the said OFW. passport be approved. The secretary said that his
So in effect, he committed bribery in its 2nd form – he application is at the bottom of the papers to be signed by
performs an act not constituting a crime in connection the approving authority. The secretary also said that it will
with the exercise of his function in consideration of be approved more than a month. She invited X to a coffee
the bribe money. So here, he committed bribery, he shop and told X that she was the secretary of the
can be prosecuted before Philippine courts. His act is Approving Officer and offered that she can place his
in connection with the exercise of his functions. passport on top of the documents to be approved by her
boss, that is, if X will gave the secretary 500 USD. Then X
Q: What if instead of the AA, here comes a Filipino filing gave her the money. So as promised, she did place it on top
clerk (FC) inside the Philippine Embassy. The FC followed of the documents and was approved immediately. Can the
the OFW, the FC told him that he can facilitate the release said secretary be prosecuted in Phil. Courts? or US Courts?
of his passport if he will him $50. Desperate, the OFW
A: She can be prosecuted before the Philippine
gave him the money. However, that afternoon, the
Courts. As a secretary it is her duty to place the
passport was still not released. He wanted to file a case
documents on the table of the approving authority
against the FC. Where can he file a case? Before courts of
and the latter approved the documents based on
Japan or Philippines?
where they are placed. The secretary committed the
A: It should be filed before the courts of Japan crime of Bribery (Direct Bribery) because she
because the act performed by FC has nothing to do accepted money in exchange of doing it which is not
with the exercise of his official functions. In effect, prohibited under the law but she favored X. It is
what he has committed is estafa because he made this connected with her official function being the
OFW believe that he has the authority to facilitate the secretary of the approving authority.
release of the said passport but he did not have such Q: Under the same case and the same facts but the
qualification. He committed estafa under offender is a Janitor of the Phil. Embassy, Where can the
Art.315(2)(a). Therefore, he should be prosecuted janitor be prosecuted?
before the courts of Japan.
A: In the US Courts because it is not in any way
Q: The PC told his secretary (S) to work overtime. So S connected with his job as a janitor.
followed PC. In the evening, PC gave coffee to S. Unknown Q: What if in the same problem, while the Janitor saw X
to S, there was something mixed in the coffee to make her leaving the embassy, he told X to follow him in the
unconscious. So after drinking the coffee, she became janitorial services room inside the Phil. Embassy and told
unconscious and she was raped by PC. S now wanted to file X that by giving him 200USD he can guaranty that his
a case against PC. Where may she file the case? passport will be released in a week, so X gave the Janitor
the money. Where can the janitor be prosecuted?
A: The act of rape committed has nothing to do with
the exercise of PC’s functions. Therefore, it should be A: In the Philippine Courts. Even if the crime is not in
filed before the courts of Japan. However, it was any way connected to his functions as a janitor, since

it is committed inside the Phil.Embassy it is

considered to have been committed within the
Philippine Territory because the Phil embassy is an
extension of the sovereignty. Even if the crime
committed is not in any way connected with the
function of the public employee, if it is committed in
Phil.Embassy, he can be prosecuted before the
Philippine Courts.
➢ determine whether in connection with public
functions or private capacity
5th: Those who should commit any of the crimes
against national security and the law of nations,
defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code.
Crimes against national security – treason,

conspiracy/proposal to commit treason, misprision of
treason, espionage, enticing to war, etc.
If any of this crime is committed, even if it is done outside

the Philippine archipelago the offender can be prosecuted
before the Philippine courts.
Reason: extraterritorial application of the RPC.
Likewise, if the crime committed is against the Law of

Nations (only 4 crimes – piracy, qualified piracy, mutiny
and qualified mutiny) the said offender can also be
prosecuted before the Philippine courts.

TITLE ONE 1.) Deceit/dolo/intentional felony – when the act is

done with deliberate intent
CHAPTER ONE: FELONIES
Article. 3. Definitions. – Acts and omissions Elements:
punishable by the law are felonies (delitos).
1. Criminal intent on the part of the offender
Felonies are committed not only by means of 2. Freedom of action in doing the act on the part of
deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa). the offender
There is deceit when the act is performed with 3. Intelligence of the offender
deliberate intent and there is fault when the
wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, An intentional felony is a voluntary act because it is
lack of foresight, or lack of skill. committed by means of deliberate intent.
FELONIES - are acts or omissions punishable by the 2.) Fault/culpa/culpable felony– when the wrongful
RPC. When the law says ‘by law’, it means the RPC. act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight
or lack of skill
ACTS - refer to any body movement which has a direct
connection to the felony intended to be committed. It is an Elements:
external act, an overt act in connection with the felony
intended to be committed. Therefore, internal acts or mere 1. Criminal negligence
criminal thoughts will never give rise to a crime. 2. Freedom of action
3. Intelligence
Example:
Under Art. 365, a culpable felony is defined as one wherein
A lusts for his neighbor. Whenever the neighbor the offender, although without malice or deliberate intent
would pass by going to work, A would always look at caused an injury to another by the means of negligence or
the neighbor. And for the whole day, he would think imprudence.
of the neighbor with nothing but lust. No matter how
criminal his thoughts are it will never give rise to a Therefore, even a culpable felony is a voluntary act.
crime because it is merely an internal act unless he
performs an external act or an overt act related to acts In so far as criminal law is concerned, voluntariness is
of lasciviousness or attempted rape or rape. The law actually the concurrence of the three elements of
requires an act. intentional felony and the concurrence of the three
elements of culpable felony. In other words, in so far as
OMISSION - is the failure of a person to perform an act voluntariness of intentional felony is concerned, it is the
or to do a duty which is required by law concurrence of criminal intent, freedom of action and
intelligence. Therefore, without voluntariness, there can
Example: neither be an intentional felony nor a culpable felony.
If a person found, any personal property on the street
A common element of both intentional and culpable
or on any place and he failed to deliver the same to the
felony is freedom of action.
owner or to the local authorities. Under Art.308 he
becomes liable for theft. Or if a person was driving his There is freedom of action when the offender performs the
vehicle, then he bumped and hit another person. And act on his own free will, without force, duress,
instead of helping that person, he increased his speed uncontrollable fear. So note if the offender performs the
and left. It is a hit-and-run situation. Such fact that he criminal act but he did the act because there was this
failed to lend help and assistance to that victim will compulsion and irresistible fear or under the impulse of an
aggravate his criminal liability under Art. 365. So uncontrollable fear. There is no criminal liability. They are
here, for failing to perform an act which is required by exempting circumstances under Art. 12 of the RPC because
law to be done. He commits a felony. So felonies are there is no freedom of action - an element of voluntariness.
acts or omissions punishable by the RPC. There is neither an intentional felony nor culpable felony
because there is wanting of freedom of action, an element
of voluntariness.
2 Kinds of Felonies that may be committed under
Article 3: On the other hand, intelligence is also a common
element of intentional and culpable felony.
Compiled and edited by KCL and Dinty 10 | P a g e

Intelligence - the mental capacity of a person to know he should be acquitted of the crime. Intent to kill must be
wrong from right and to appreciate the consequences of proven.
one’s act. If the person acted without intelligence, there is
no criminal liability. But what if in the course of their fight, A was losing and so
A took out his pistol and he shot B. B was shot on the
So if the criminal act has been committed by an insane, an heart, a fatal wound, a mortal wound was sustained
imbecile or a minor, the said offender is said to be because it was a vital organ which was hit. A immediately
exempted from criminal liability. Under Art. 12, they are bought B to the hospital. However, upon arrival, he was
exempting circumstances, he is free of both intentional pronounced dead. Therefore, the heirs of B filed a case for
and culpable felony because he acted without intelligence, homicide against A. A’s defense, I have no intention to kill
an element of voluntariness. B. According to him, he only intended to threaten B
Intent – is the use of a particular means to achieve the because they were fighting. Will this defense lie?
desired result. You cannot see intent. It is an internal state
of the mind. A: A’s defense that he has no intent to kill B will not
lie. The reason is since the victim died, intent to kill
It is determined by the means employed by the offender in becomes a GCI which is presumed by law. Prosecution
committing the act or by the overt acts of a person need not prove intent to kill in because the victim
constituting the commission of the crime. died. It is only in the attempted and frustrated stages
of the HPMI wherein intent to kill is considered an
Example: element.
The use of a lethal weapon would show intent to kill Q: Why is it only in the consummated stage of homicide,
on the part of the offender although death did not parricide, murder, infanticide that intent to kill is
arise. Taking the personal property of another without presumed?
the consent of the owner would show intent to gain on
the part of the offender. A: Because the best evidence to prove intent to kill is
that the victim died. So it is presumed by law.
Two kinds of intent:
1. General Criminal Intent (GCI) Specific criminal intent must be alleged in the
2. Specific Criminal Intent (SCI) information filed against the accused and must be proven
beyond reasonable doubt either by DIRECT evidence or by
General Criminal Intent is presumed by law by the CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence.
mere doing of an act. Therefore, the prosecution does not Example:
have the burden to prove it.
X and Y are fighting, X is a karate master. X kick boxed the
Specific Criminal Intent is just like an element, an neck of Y, the chest of Y and both legs of Y.
ingredient of the commission of the crime. Therefore, it
Y was rushed to the hospital and survived, but he was
must be proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable
hospitalized for a period of 2 months or 60 days. And so a
doubt.
case of frustrated homicide was filed against X. X however
Example: contended he has no intent to kill, because it was a fight.
He never intended to kill, he only intended to injure.
Intent to kill must be proven in frustrated/attempted Here intent to kill is a specific criminal intent which
homicide. must be proven by the prosecution. If the prosecution
failed to prove specific criminal intent on the part of X
A and B were fighting. A was losing and so A shot B. B was
when he kick boxed the neck, chest and legs of Y, then
hit on the left arm. He was brought to the hospital.
the court can only convict X of Serious Physical
Thereafter, after B’s release from the hospital, he filed a
Injuries. Because said criminal intent was not proven
case against A for attempted homicide. Since the case filed
by the prosecution.
is attempted homicide. The prosecution has the burden of
proving intent to kill on the part of A when he shot B and What if in the same problem. When X kick boxed, the
hit him on the left arm. Otherwise, if the prosecution failed neck, chest and legs of Y. Y was put to the hospitalized, but
to prove intent to kill on the part of A. Then A can only be 2 days after, Y died because of the injuries sustained. And
convicted of serious/less serious/slight physical injuries so, a case of homicide was filed against X.
depending on the date required for medical intervention or

Here, the prosecution need not prove the intent to kill, Who was the last person seen together with the
because the Victim Y died, intent to kill becomes a victim before he was killed? Why was he with the
GENERAL CRIMINAL INTENT which is presumed by victim at that time? What could be the motive
law. behind the kill? All of these must be taken into
consideration because there was no eyewitness,
It is the accused X, who has the burden of evidence to
no direct evidence in the commission of the
prove that when he inflicted physical injuries to Y,
crime.
there was no intent to kill.
The best evidence of intent to kill is when the victim
died. ➢ Motive alone, however strong, will never bring about
conviction. But motive + circumstantial evidence,
Motive – the moving power which impels a person to do motive + supporting evidence = conviction.
an act to achieve the desired result
In these 3 instances, proof of motive becomes material to
GR: You don’t need proof of motive if the crime committed determine the criminal liability of the offender.
is an act malum prohibitum. As a general rule motive is
immaterial to prove the criminal liability of the offender. Example:
There are however instances when motive is material to The victim was found on a vacant lot. He has 5 stab
determine the criminal liability of the offender. wounds. He was already dead. With 5 fatal stab
wounds. No one saw who stabbed the victim. But the
XPNs: intent becomes material in determining the
mother said, X Y and Z fetched the victim from their
criminal liability of the offender –
house at 10oclock in the evening. A neighbor said, he
1. When the act of the offender would result to saw X Y and Z on board in the same jeepney with the
variant crimes (to know what crime should be victim. Another neighbor appeared and made a
charged) statement, he said, he saw X Y and Z having a heated
argument with the victim about 5 meters away from
Example: where the victim was found dead.
Here motive is material to determine the criminal
City mayor (CM) was jogging near the seashore.
liability of the offender because since no one has
Here comes X who went to CM and him. CM was
seen, there was no eye witness to the commission
not in the performance of his official duty when
of the crime, proof is done solely by
he was shot. Therefore, the act of X in killing and
circumstantial evidence.
shooting CM may result to variant crimes
depending on the motive, depending on the Who has motive to kill the victim?
reason of X of killing. If the reason is a personal
Based on circumstantial evidence, X Y and Z had
grudge/vendetta, murder is committed. But if the
the motive to kill the victim.
reason is because of CM’s past performance of his
duty, then the crime committed is direct assault The victim was found lying at the staircase of the house,
with homicide. when the wife arrived, the victim told the wife that “it was
PEDRO who killed me” and thereafter, he died. There were
2. When the identity of the offender is doubtful 3 Pedros in the area. Who is the Pedro that should be
charged? A witness said, he saw PEDRO-A arguing with
the victim in front the house and he saw PEDRO-A entered
Example: the house of the victim. Therefore, motive is material to
determine the criminal liability of the offender because
There are so many suspects, A, B, C, D and E.
there is doubt to the identity of the offender.
There’s doubt as to who among the committed
the crime. Then motive will become material in How is intent established? How is motive established?
determining the criminal liability of the offender.
Q: A was walking. Then here comes B with a lead pipe and
3. When the prosecution only has circumstantial hit the head of A with it. B hit it hard and thereafter ran
evidence to prove the commission of the crime away. A went to the hospital, however, based on the
medical certificate no injury whatsoever was sustained by
the head of A. So there was no injury. Nevertheless, A filed
Example: a case for attempted homicide against B. Therefore, intent

to kill is incumbent to be proven by the prosecution would have the motive because of his acts prior to the
because the case filed is attempted homicide. Will B be commission of the crime. Or right after the killing of A, a
held liable for attempted homicide? Was there intent to witness saw B running away from the scene of the crime
kill? laughing saying “finally, I have my revenge” there is the
motive. So here motive is established by the acts or
A: There was no intent to kill. Intent to kill is statements made by the accused prior to or after the
determined by the following factors: commission of the crime.
1. The nature and number of the weapon used by NOT DURING because in motive, there is no direct
the offender in the commission of the crime evidence. The witness did not see how the crime was
2. The nature, number and location of wounds committed.
inflicted/sustained by the victim
3. The manner of committing the crime Intent v. Motive
4. The acts, deeds or words stated by the offender
INTENT MOTIVE
before, during or immediately after the
moving power which
commission of the crime
impels a person to do a
5. Evidence of the motive (before or after but NOT
during the commission of the crime – direct use of a particular means specific act to achieve the
evidence is not available) to achieve a desired result desired result, therefore it
is the reason behind intent
Let us apply this in the case –
a material element in immaterial to determine
B hit A with a lead pipe. Was there motive? In the determining the criminal the criminal liability of the
problem, there was no motive. liability of the accused offender
established/proven by the established by the
Nature and number of weapon used? B used a lead
overt act of the offender acts/statements made by
pipe.
or by the means employed the accused prior to or
immediately after the
Nature, number and location of wound inflicted on
the victim? The victim did not sustain any wound
despite the fact that it was hit with a lead pipe.
Manner of committing the crime? After hitting A

once, B ran away. If he had intended to kill the victim, MISTAKE OF FACT – is the misapprehension of facts
he would have hit A several times. on the person who caused injury to another.
Act, deeds and words made by the offender before, Q: What negates criminal intent? What may be a defense
during or after the commission of the crime? He just against criminal intent?
saw the victim, hit the victim thereafter ran away. All
of these would show there was no intent to kill on the A: It is mistake of fact.
part of said offender. Therefore, B should not be
convicted of attempted homicide. If a person acted under mistake of fact, he is absolved of
criminal liability because he acted without criminal intent.
People v. Mapalo That is, had the facts been as he believed them to be, his
act done would have been lawful and justifiable.
SC convicted him only of ill treatment of another by deed,
a form of slight physical injury. Ill treatment of another by Before one may be absolved of criminal liability for having
deed is the circumstance wherein a person was hit or there acted under mistake of fact, the following are elements:
was injury caused to the person but there was no (?may
umubo sa class at nasapawan boses ni Ma’am o.O) 1. That the act done would have been lawful and
justifiable had the facts been as the accused
On the other hand, how is motive proved? Motive is believed them to be - had it been as he believed,
proved by the testimony of the witnesses as to the acts or the act performed would’ve amounted to a
statements made by the accused before or immediately justifying or exempting circumstance
after the commission of the crime. Ex. Before the killing of
A, a witness saw B threatening to kill A. Therefore, B

2. That the intention of the accused in doing the act

must be lawful - he must be ignited by a noble 3rd element: wanting. A was negligent, there was fault
or lawful or justifiable intent or carelessness on his part in ascertaining the true
3. That the mistake must be without fault, facts of the case. He was asking for the license and X
negligence, careless on the part of the offender - said he has one. Definitely, what would be shown to
the offender cannot be negligent in ascertaining him would be the license not the gun. Therefore, since
the true facts of the case and at the same time 2 elements are absent, A cannot invoke mof and he
invoke mistake of fact should be convicted for homicide for killing X.
* mistake of fact although a defense in intentional
felony cannot be a defense in culpable felony Q: Can a crime be committed without criminal intent?
US v. Ah Chong A: Yes. There are 2 instances:
Ah Chong was acquitted because he acted under mistake of 1. Culpable Felony

fact. [M’Garcia: BUT that was because the case was 2. When the crime is in violation of special penal
decided a long time ago. If the case is decided now, I doubt laws
if there will be an acquittal. Q: It was around 12o’clock at midnight. The security guard
was already very sleepy when he heard a noise. He saw 2
Let’s go by the elements: 2nd and 3rd elements are present. persons jumped inside the premises he is guarding. He
called on these 2 persons, but these 2 persons did not
However, the 1st element is wanting - that the act done mind the security guard. These 2 persons were armed with
would have been lawful and justifiable had the facts been guns, long firearms. And so the he followed them, opened
as the accused believed them to be - the victim was only the warehouse and the lights. Since the door was open,
trying to enter. there was a guy coming from a room, and the security
guard saw a shadow of a man pointing a gun at him. And
Q: Will that act already constitute unlawful aggression? so the security guard fired at the said man, and the man
died. It turned out that the man was not among those
A: No. There is no unlawful aggression because there persons who jumped but rather, he was a worker in the
was no imminent or immediate danger on the life and said warehouse who slept there without permission.
property of the said offender. 1st element is wanting.
He was prosecuted. Security guard said he acted under
Q: The police officers A, B and C were dining in a mistake of fact. Was there mistake of fact on the part of the
restaurant when they noticed a group of men who are so offender?
noisy. And so A looked at them and noticed that one of A:
them, X had a gun tucked on his waist. So A went on the
back of X and told him “I can see that you have a gun 1. That the act would have been lawful and
tucked on your waist. Do you have a license? I’m a police justifiable had the facts been as the accused
officer.” X said “Yes sir, I have a license.” And A said believed them to be
“Show me your license.” So X stood up and he tried to get - Had the facts been that the man who jumped was
his wallet from his pocket in order to show his license as
pointing a gun at him. Then the security guard is
requested by A. As he was picking his wallet, he was
justified to shoot the said person.
turning around to look at A. The moment he faced A, A
shot him. X died. Prosecuted for homicide, A said he acted 2. The intention of the security guard was lawful.
under mistake of fact. He thought, what X was picking was
3. The mistake was without fault and negligence.
his gun and that he would be shot by X. Therefore, in self-
defense he shot X first. Will his defense of mistake of fact - The said person didn’t ask for permission to sleep
lie in his favor? there. As the security guard believed, there was
A: 1st element: wanting. Granting for argument that no person inside. There was no fault and
what X was picking was the gun, will it constitute negligence in ascertaining the true facts of the
unlawful aggression such that self-defense would lie? case.
NO. because the gun was not yet pointed at A, it will
Therefore, the security guard must be acquitted
not yet bring an immediate danger on the life
because he acted under Mistake of Fact.
2nd element: present. Let’s say that A has the ACTS MALA PROHIBITA
good intention.

- Acts which are only wrong because there is a law added to any candidate. So it did not favor any candidate.
that prohibits and penalizes it So according to him, he acted in good faith, no criminal
- Not inherently wrong intent. But according to the other side, it is a special penal
e.g. illegal possession of unlicensed firearms law, therefore they should be held criminally liable. What
did the SC say? The act of decreasing or increasing a
ACTS MALA IN SE candidate’s vote although punished by special penal law is
- Acts which are inherently evil or wrong a malum in se. It is inherently evil or wrong.
- Wrong per se, even if there’s not law, it is evil
e.g. killing another, taking the thing of another What about in this case? It is a malum in se and Garcia
and company said, they acted in good faith, they were
Mala in se v. Mala Prohibita already so tired, because of the counting. So how come
they were still convicted? According to the SC: They should
MALA IN SE MALA PROHIBITA
exercise extraordinary diligence in the counting of the
Inherently evil, Not inherently evil or votes. Hence, they are still held criminally liable. The
wrong per se wrong defense of good faith would not lie in their favor as board
Criminal liability is based Criminal liability is based of canvassers.
on the intent or morality on the mere doing of the
of the offender prohibited act Can an act mala in se absorb an act mala prohibita
and vice versa?
Good faith/lack of Good faith/lack of criminal
Lonely v. People
criminal intent is a valid intent is not a
defense valid defenses
Lonely and company, the head of marcopper company
Modifying circumstances Modifying circumstances were charged 4 cases – violation of the water code of the
such as mitigating and are not considered in the Philippines, violation of the Philippine mining act,
aggravating are imposition of penalty violation of national pollution control degree – all three
considered by the court in UNLESS otherwise are acts mala prohibita and one act malum in se – that is
the imposition provided by the special violation of Art.365 reckless imprudence resulting to
of penalty penal law damage to property. Their contention was that the 3 other
Degree of the Degree of participation by informations involving violation of spl should already be
participation of the the offender not quashed because they are absorb by Art. 365. Anyway, the
offender (principal, considered all perpetrators incident resulted from the same act of polluting. What did
accomplice or accessory) of the act are punished the SC say?
is considered in the equally
imposition of the penalty SC: Acts mala in se cannot absorb acts mala prohibita.
What makes an act malum in se is the presence of intent,
deceit or dolo or fault or culpa. On the other hand, what
Stage (attempted, The only stage considered
makes an act malum prohibitum is the fact that it’s in
frustrated or is the consummated stage.
violation of a special penal law. Therefore, one cannot
consummated) is taken No attempted or frustrated
absorb the other. So they have to be prosecuted on all 4
into consideration in the stage.
cases.
imposition of penalty
Q: X killed B with the use of motor vehicle. X hit and
➢ Not all acts punishable by special penal laws are mala bumped B. X was charged with murder. So the information
prohibita!! There are some special penal laws which charges an intentional felony of murder. Trial on merits
punish acts mala in se. ensued, after the prosecution presented evidence, the
defense presented evidence. The defense was able to show,
Example: Plunder is a special penal law yet the SC to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the reason for the
said plunder is malum in se. criminal intent matters. said act of killing B was because X lost control of his brake.
Therefore, according to them, there was only imprudence
Garcia v. CA and so X should only be held liable for reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide. The judge believed the
Garcia was the head of the board of canvassers. The defense. So in an information for an intentional felony of
number of votes of Sen. Pimentel was decreased. In murder, the said court convicted X only of reckless
decreasing the number of votes, the said votes were not imprudence resulting in homicide, a culpable felony. Is the

judge correct? Can the judge convict a person of a culpable The cause that sets in to motion all other causes and
felony in an information that charges him of intentional which unbroken by efficient intervening cause
felony? produces the felony without which the felony would
have not been committed.
A: Yes. The reason is that a culpable felony is
necessarily included in an intentional felony because a Therefore, for one to be criminally liable under the
culpable felony is of lesser offense than that of PCD, it is necessary that the felonious act and the
intentional felony. resulting felony must not be broken by any efficient
intervening cause. No efficient or supervening
➢ A malum prohibitum is not necessarily included in intervening cause must have broken the causal
malum in se. Therefore, one cannot absorb the other. connection between the felonious act of the offender
But a culpable felony by an intentional felony. and the resulting felony.
EFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSE
Article 4. Criminal liability. — Criminal liability An active force which is a distinct act absolutely
shall be incurred: foreign from the felonious act of the offender.
Therefore, in order that an act is considered an EIC, it
1. By any person committing a felony (delito) is necessary that it is totally foreign from the felonious
although the wrongful act done be act that is performed by the offender.
different from that which he intended.
2. By any person performing an act which
would be an offense against persons or PC is not always the immediate cause. At times it may be a
property, were it not for the inherent remote cause.
impossibility of its accomplishment or an
account of the employment of inadequate Ex. A was driving his car along SLEX followed by B, by C,
or ineffectual means. by D, by E. When A reached the tollgate, he stopped to pay
the toll, so B stopped as well as C and D. E however was
Proximate Cause Doctrine very sleepy, he did not put to stop so he hit D, D hit C, C hit
By any person committing a felony (delito) although the B, B hit A. Because of the impact the car of A sustained
wrongful act done be different from that which he serious damage.
intended.
Elements: Q: What is the PC of the damage sustained by the car of A?
1. The intended act is a felonious act A: The PC was E because it was the car of E which sets
2. The resulting act is a felony into motion all other cars to bump each other. It was
3. The resulting act is the direct, natural and logical not the immediate cause because the immediate cause
consequence of the felonious act of the offender was the car of B because it is the car of B which hit the
For one to be criminally liable under the PCD, it is car of A. So a PC is not always the immediate cause, at
necessary that the offender is performing a felonious act times it may be the remote cause.
and since he is performing a felonious act, he becomes Ex. A bus was going to Quezon, suddenly 4 men boarded a
liable for all the resulting crime although different from bus, 2 mean seated at front seats and the other 2 seated at
that which he intended. Provided that the resulting felony back. While they were traversing a zigzag portion on the
is the direct, natural and logical consequence of his road, the 4 men stood up and announced a hold up. One
felonious act. Otherwise stated, his felonious act must be passenger was so afraid of holduper as he has a previous
the proximate cause of the resulting felony. experience of holdupers. He was so afraid that he opened a
For one to be criminally liable under the PCD, it is not window and he jumped out of a window, he fell on a cliff
necessary that the offender should have even touch the and he died.
body of the victim. It suffices that the felonious act Q: Are the holdupers liable for the death of the passenger?
performed by the offender has generated in the mind of
the victim, fear for his life. By reason of that fear for his life A: Yes. The holdupers in announcing a holdup are
the victim performed acts, made risk that injured himself. committing a felonious act. The resulting act was a
The accused will become criminally liable. felony, the resulting felony was the direct, natural and
logical consequence of the feloniuos act of the
PROXIMATE CAUSE offenders. Were it not for the holdupers announcing a

hold up, there would be no fear on the mind of the Urbano and Villacorta were both not convicted of
passenger. But because of the announcement, there homicide. The two cases have almost similar facts.
was fear on the mind of passenger and by reason of
that fear, he made risk that caused his death. The People vs. Villacorta
holdupers are liable for robbery with homicide
because they are liable for the death of the passenger. January 23, 2002, there was a stabbing incident. Cruz was
stabbed by Villacorta on the left side of his body with a
Q: X was having a siesta on the terrace of their house on a sharpened bamboo stick. He was brought to the Tondo
rocking chair. Suddenly he was awakened by the noise of Medical Center. He was released on the very same day as
the children. He found out that it was coming from the outpatient because his wound was not fatal. February 14,
backyard of their house, saw 4 boys harvesting his mango 2002 he was brought to San Lazaro Hospital. He was
tree. So he told the boys to come down the tree, otherwise, already suffering from tetanus infection. A day after
he will be calling the police and let them be arrested. The February 15 he died. The cause of his death was tetanus
boys hurriedly went down the tree. One boy from the top infection. Villacorta was prosecuted for the crime of
most portion of the tree jumped down and his head hit a homicide for the death of Cruz. The lower court convicted
big stone. He suffered hemorrhage, thereafter he died. Is X him.
criminally liable for the death of the boy?
SC: Citing Urbano case, he cannot be convicted of the
A: First element, the intended act is a felonious act.
crime of homicide. Based on the expert testimony of the
He was not committing a felonious act. He was just
doctor, the incubation period of the tetanus virus is within
acting on his right when he said he will call the police
14 days. In the case, it took the victim 22 days before he
considering that the boys were taking his mangoes,
died. Therefore the stab wound was without tetanus virus.
they were committing theft. Therefore, he was just
Cruz may have performed acts which brought about the
acting within his right. Since X was not committing a
tetanus virus. The stabbing was only a remote cause and
felonious act, he cannot be held criminally liable for
the tetanus infection was the proximate infection which
the resulting felony.
brought about the death of the victim.
➢ So if you are given a problem, the first thing you So Villacorta was only convicted of slight physical injuries
should do is to determine if the person is committing because they were not able to prove intent to kill. First, no
a felonious act. If not, a person cannot be held liable evidence of motive. Second nature and number of weapon
for the resulting felony. If he is, then he is liable for used. A sharpened bamboo stick, not even a lethal weapon
the resulting felony. made of metal. Third, the nature, number and location of
wound. It was only on the left side of the body. Fourth,
manner of committing the crime. After one stabbing, there
Q: In the same case, X told the boys, if you will not come was no more. So from homicide, he was only convicted of
down I have here my shotgun, I will shoot each one of you slight physical injury punished by the lowest penalty
and he fired shots in the air. The boys were so afraid and arresto menor, 1-30days or fine of not more than P200.
hurriedly went down, one of them jumped, fell and
suffered serious physical injuries because of his broken Urbano vs. IAC
legs. Is X criminally liable for the injuries sustained by the
boy? Javier was hacked by Urbano on his right palm. Javier
suffered an incised wound and brought to the hospital.
A: Yes. Because this time he was committing a There was settlement. Thereafter he was released.
felonious act. He was threatening to shoot the However, after 22 days he was brought to the hospital, he
children. It is a felonious act amounting to grave was already suffering from tetanus poisoning. The next
threats. Therefore, this time he is criminally liable for day he died.
the resulting felony although different from that
which he intended. SC: same reasoning by the SC. The act committed by
Javier after he was released from the hospital, the fishing,
For one to be criminally liable under the PCD it is going to the farm was considered as the proximate cause
necessary that there is no efficient intervening cause that brought about the tetanus virus on his incised wound.
that has broken the chain between the felonious act Therefore he was not convicted of the crime of homicide
and the resulting felony. but only physical injuries.

So it is necessary that there no EIC that will rate the causal negligence or careless treatment of the doctor, this not
connection between the felonious act of the offender the serious wound became a very serious wound which later
resulting felony. on caused the death of B. The relatives of B filed a case of
homicide against A. Is A liable of homicide for the death of
Q: A and B, they are bf and gf. The bf promised to marry B
B? Or would you consider the careless treatment of the
at night. But B waited in vain, A did not arrive. Instead she
doctor as an EIC?
only received a text message saying that A would not be
able to come, A could not marry B because A is already a A: A is liable for the death of B. The negligence or
married man with 5 children. So B became so sad. careless treatment of the doctor cannot be considered
Frustrated, she began crying terribly and went out of the as an EIC. The negligent treatment of the doctor was
house, walked on the streets, not on her own rightful self. an active force but it is not a distinct act or fact
She fell on a canal and she died. Is A the bf, then author of absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the
the death of the said victim? offender. Because precisely he needed medical
intervention, he needed treatment of the doctor
A: In the first place, the bf, when he divulged that he
because he sustained a stab wound from A. Therefore,
is a married man and could not marry the girl is NOT
there is a connection between the felonious act and
committing a felonious act. Since in the first place he
the medical treatment. It there for cannot be
is not committing a felonious act, therefore, he cannot
considered as an EIC. The doctors negligence would
be liable for any resulting felony. As such, the said bf
only make him liable administratively but not
cannot be liable for the death of the said girl.
criminally.
Q: Same problem, but with added facts. So this time,
Q: A and B were friends. After farming while they were
when the girl learned that the man could not marry her.
having a drinking spree, they had a political discussion, A
She went on the top most portion of the building, decided
was pro Pnoy and B was pro GMA. Their agreement
to commit suicide to take her own life. She jumped.
heated, B stood up and broke a bottle of beer, stabbed A. A
However, as she was falling, she fell on a child. The girl
was wounded. They parted ways. A was on his way home
was saved but the child was pinned down and died. Is A
when suddenly it rained. After it rained there was
the bf liable for the death of the child? How about the
lightning and A was hit by lightning. A died. The heirs of A
woman, is the woman liable for the death of the child?
filed a case of homicide against B. Is B criminally liable for
A: Again, the man is not liable. He was not the death of A?
performing any felonious act; therefore he is not liable A: Under the PCD, B is not criminally liable for the
for any resulting felony. death of A because there was an EIC that is the
Q: How about the said woman? lightning. The lightning was an active force which is a
distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the
A: When the said woman was committing suicide, she felonious act of the offender which was the stabbing of
was not committing a felonious act, because suicide is the victim. Therefore he cannot be held liable for the
not a felony either the RPC or any special penal law in death of A but only physical injuries sustained by the
the Philippine jurisdiction. It is not a felonious act. victim.
However, in performing said lawful act, she did not do THREE SITUATIONS WHEREIN A PERSON
so with due care. Since she did not do so with due BECOMES CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR THE
care. Since she did not do so with due care, she RESULTING FELONY ALTHOUGH DIFFERENT
becomes liable for a CULPABLE FELONY. FROM THAT WHICH HE INTENDED:
So here there is a simple negligence on the part of the 1. ABBERATIO ICTUS
said woman, therefore, the said woman may be held
liable for simple negligence resulting to homicide for Mistake in the blow; situation wherein the
the death of the said child. Although she was offender directed a blow at his intended victim
performing a lawful act, she did not do so with due but because of poor aim, the blow landed on
care, she caused an injury by an accident on the part another victim.
of the offended party. Hence she can be liable for Effect:
simple negligence resulting to homicide.
Ex. A saw his enemy B walking on the pedestrian lane.
Q: A and B were fighting. A stabbed B. B sustained a less With intent to kill, A pulled out his pistol and shot B.
serious physical injuries. B was brought to the hospital, it However, he has poor aim, he is not a sharp shooter, so
was not a serious wound, however, because of the

instead of hitting his target B, the bullet landed on C. C Q: X molested the daughter of Y. Y wanted to kill X, to
died. B was not hit at all. take a revenge. Y looked for X, Y saw X on board a tricycle.
And so Y went near X and fired a shot at X. but because of
Q: What are the crimes or crime committed by A?
lack of precision, the bullet landed on the driver of the
A: In so far as B is concerned, A is liable for attempted tricycle and not on X. the driver died. What crime or
murder because he intended to kill B. he already crimes have been committed by Y?
performed an overt act when he fired the gun with
A: In so far as X, the intended victim is concerned, the
intent to kill against B. there was treachery, the victim
crime committed is attempted murder. There was
was totally defenseless. However because of poor aim
intent to kill X, however X was not injured because of
it was C who died. In so far as C is concerned, the
poor aim.
crime committed is homicide.
The actual victim is the driver, since the driver died, the
Q: Therefore, of what crime will you charge and convict A?
intent to kill becomes a general criminal intent. Therefore
A: There are two crimes committed. Against B in so far as the driver is concerned, the crime committed is
attempted murder, against C homicide. But since this MURDER.
2 crimes were brought about by a single act, it will
These are 2 grave felonies arising from a single act of
give rise to a complex crime under Art. 48. Under Art.
shooting. Therefore, Article 48 comes in – the crime
48 when a single act constitutes two or more grave or
committed is MURDER with ATTEMPTED MURDER.
less grave felonies, we have compound crime or a
complex crime. The crime committed by A is ***(murder sabi ni ma’am, but check page 10 ng senior
attempted murder with homicide. This is because it notes. Almost same facts, pero homicide lang dun sa
results from the single act of the crime. actual victim and not murder)***
Q: A fired B, but because of poor aim, C was hit. C Q: X wanted to kill Y, so he waited in a corner behind an
sustained a fatal wound, a mortal wound. However, C was unlighted electric post, he knew that every day, Y would
immediately brought to the hospital and he survived pass by the said place. when a man arrived, resembling Y,
because of immediate medical intervention. X immediately appeared and stabbed the man. It turned
out that the man was not Y. it turned out to be his own
A: In so far B is concerned, the crime committed is
father. So X can be prosecuted for the crime of parricide,
attempted murder.
the crime he actually committed? But the crime he
In so far as C, what crime is committed? Is it intended to commit is murder, because in waiting behind
frustrated homicide? It is not frustrated homicide an unlighted electric post, there was treachery. Therefore
because in so far as Cis concerned, there was no intent the crime he intended to commit is murder.
to kill on the part of C but since C suffered a fatal
Would art. 49 apply? Would the lesser penalty be
wound but survived, he is liable for serious physical
imposed?
injuries. Therefore the crime committed by A is a
complex crime of attempted murder with serious - Art.49 would not apply because both murder and
physical injuries. A single act constitutes one grave parricide have the same penalties Reclusion
felony which is attempted murder and one less grave perpetua.
felony which is serious physical injuries.
- Therefore, even if there is variance in the title of
Q: What if he sustained a less serious wound? the felonies, they have the same penalties. Hence,
Art.49 will not apply. It will not mitigate the
A: Attempted murder with less serious physical
criminal liability of the offender.
injuries.
Q: What if when C was hit by the bullet, C only sustained a
slight physical injury which is a light felony, are you going 2. ERROR IN PERSONAE
to complex?
mistake in the identity
A: This time you cannot complex because under Art.
It is a situation wherein the victim actually
48, you can only complex grave and less grave
received the bullet but he was mistaken to be the
felonies. You cannot complex a light felony. Therefore,
intended victim. The intended victim was not at
there would be 2 cases filed separately. Attempted
the scene of the crime.
murder in so far as B is concerned. Slight physical
injury in so far as C is concerned. So 2 informations, 2 Effects: It depends
cases must be filed in the court.

If there is variance between the intended and actual What crime would you charge him of? After trial on the
crime committed, mitigating merits what penalty will you impose?
If none, no effect on the criminal liability of the A: The penalty of homicide. Since there is no variance
offender between the intended felony and the felony actually
committed. In this case, Error in Personae will not
Q: A and B were fighting A boxed B. It was a strong box
mitigate the liability of the offender. Art. 49 will not
that B fell on the ground, his face facing the ground. A left
apply.
the scene of the crime. At that precise moment when A left,
here comes the father of B who saw his poor son boxed by
A so he came to the rescue of his son and went near him.
3. PRATER INTENTIONEM
To retaliate, B took out his balisong and stabbed the
person next to him thinking that it was still his opponent A ➢ When the consequence went beyond the
but in truth it was already his father. Let's say the father intention; injurious result is greater than that
died. What was the intended crime committed by B? intended.
➢ it is a situation wherein the offender directed the
A: Homicide because he intended to kill A, the person
blow at his actual victim, the victim received the
who boxed him.
blow. However, the injurious result is far greater
What crime did he commit? Parricide because he killed his than what is intended by the victim.
own father.
Effect: it is always a mitigating circumstance because of
Of what crime will you prosecute B? Parricide because that Art. 13. The offender has no intention to commit so grave a
is the that he actually committed. wrong as that committed.
Let's say that he is now charged of parricide. Trial on the For Praeter Intentionem to be considered as a mitigating
merits proceeded. The Judge found him guilty beyond circumstance, the prime element or requisite is that:
reasonable doubt of parricide. What penalty as a Judge
There must be a notable disparity between the
would you impose on him?
means employed by the offender and the resulting
A: The penalty for parricide under Art. 246 is felony. That is out of the means employed by the
reclusion perpetua to death whereas the penalty for offender, no one could have anticipated or foreseen
homicide under Art. 249 is reclusion temporal. that injurious result.
Although he committed parricide. You have to impose
Q: H arrived home and asked W what was their dinner
upon him the penalty which is lesser and that is
and the W answered that she has not yet cooked because
reclusion temporal but in its maximum period.
she was watching teleserye. Since the H was so tired, he
Under Art. 49, in case of Error in Personae or Mistake in got mad and elbowed the W. The W fell on floor and her
the Identity, when there is a variance between the head hit the edge of the table and so she suffered
intended crime and the actual crime committed, you have hemorrhage. Thereafter, she died. What crime should H be
to compare the two. Whichever has a lesser penalty, that prosecuted?
penalty has to be imposed.
A: parricide
In the case the intended felony is homicide but the actual
H said he had no intention of killing his W, he only
felony is parricide. Compare the penalty of the two,
elbowed her. However, since death is the result, it is a
although B should be convicted of the crime of parricide,
general criminal intent which is presumed by law.
the penalty will be that of the crime with a lesser penalty.
That is reclusion temporal for homicide. Would you give him the benefit of Praeter Intentionem?
In the same problem, instead of the father coming to the A: Yes, because no one could have foreseen that the
rescue of B, it was the friend of B who came to his rescue. mere act of elbowing the W, death would result. There
So when A left, the friend of B arrived and was the one was a notable disparity between the means employed,
stabbed by B and died. the act of elbowing the W, and the resulting felony
which is death or parricide. Therefore, he should be
Therefore, B killed his own best friend. The crime
given the benefit of mitigating circumstance.
committed is homicide
Garcia vs. People
What was his intended crime? Homicide
Garcia was convicted for the death of the victim.
What crime did he actually commit? Homicide because he
killed his own best friend

SC: His act of mauling him was the proximate cause of his because of his criminality and dangerousness. So
heart attack. However, he was given the benefit of Praeter although objectively, no crime is committed, still
Intentionem. Who would have anticipated that the mere the offender shall be punished that is why he is
act of mauling or boxing him death would result. convicted only of IC.
Therefore, there was Praeter Intentionem.
➢ the penalty of IC is only arresto mayor or a fine of
People vs. Noel Sales
P200-P500 depending on the criminality or
Praeter Intentionem was not considered by the court. dangerousness of the offender.
The son was hit by a thick piece of a wood while he was

tied on a coconut tree. There was a crack on his head, Elements for a person to be liable of IC
became unconscious and then he died. The father was
1. That the act done would have been an offense
convicted for parricide. According to him he cannot be
against persons or property
held liable for parricide. He claimed that he has no
2. That the act was done with evil intent
intention to kill the child, he only intended to discipline his
3. That the act was not accomplished because of its
children. However, since the victim died, death is
inherent impossibility or the employment of
considered a general criminal intent which is presumed by
inadequate or ineffectual means 4. That the act
law. Therefore, he should be held liable of parricide.
done should not constitute any other violation of
Does the PCD apply? Yes. The father in beating the son the RPC
with a thick piece of wood while the child was tied on a
1st element
coconut tree was already a felonious act. Therefore the
father should be liable for the resulting felony although ➢ Crimes against persons under Title 8, we have
different from that which he intended. Should the father parricide, murder, homicide, abortion,
be given the benefit of Praeter Intentionem? > No. infanticide, duel, physical injuries, rape.
According to the SC, there was no notable disparity ➢ Crimes against property, we have robbery,
between the act of the father hitting the said son with a brigandage, theft, usurpation or occupation of
thick piece of wood while being tied on a coconut tree and real property, estafa or swindling, malicious
the resulting felony which is death. Considering the age of mischief, arson.
the child, such act of the father would produce and indeed ➢ Only crimes against persons and property would
produce the death of the child. Therefore it cannot b said constitute an Impossible Crime
that there is no intention to commit so grave a wrong as
2nd element
that committed.
➢ It is necessary that the offender in doing the act
must be incited by an evil intent.
IMPOSSIBLE CRIME DOCTRINE
3rd element:
➢ Committed by any person performing an act
Intod vs. CA
which would be an offense against persons or
property, were it not for the inherent Killing a person when it is already dead.
impossibility of its accomplishment or an account
SC: discussed 2 kinds of inherent impossibility
of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual
means. 2 KINDS OF INHERENTLY IMPOSSIBILITY
1. Legal Impossibility - there is legal
➢ one where the act would have amounted to a
impossibility when all the intended acts even if
crime against persons or property but it is not
committed would not have amounted to a crime.
accomplished because of its inherent
impossibility or because of the employment of Ex. Intod vs. CA - Killing a person when he is already dead
inadequate or ineffectual means.
Ex. X saw his enemy Y lying on a bench. He went to Y and
stabbed Y 10x not knowing that Y had already long been
➢ it is not really a crime in the legal sense of the
dead for 2 hrs due to a heart attack. Even if X performed
word because a crime requires a substantive
all the acts amounting to murder, still murder would not
change in the outside world. Here the act dis not
arise which is a crime against persons because the victim is
ripen into a crime. It was not accomplished into a
already deceased. He is no longer a person in the eyes of
crime because of its inherent impossibility.
Nevertheless, the offender is being punished

criminal law. Therefore there is IC and what we have is qualified theft against he employee. She was convicted
legal impossibility. before the lower court up to the CA. SC: it was impossible
crime citing the case of Intod vs. CA. They acted
2. Physical and Factual Impossibility - when
amounting to qualified theft. However, unknown to the
an extraneous circumstance unknown to the
said offender the check was not funded. Therefore, she was
offender prevented the consignation of the crime.
not able to get the face value of the said check. Hence,
Here, there are circumstances unknown to the
physical circumstances unknown to the offender prevented
offender, the inadequate control of the offender
the consummation of the crime. We have physical or
which prevented the consignation of the crime.
factual impossibility.
Example given by SC in the case of Intod vs. CA
What about the fact that the check was taken, was not
A person placed his hands inside the pocket of the polo of remitted to Megaphone?
another, intended to get the wallet of the said person but
> According to the SC theft has been defined under Art.
the pocket was empty. It is an IC. Extraneous
308 as the taking of a property with intent to gain the
Circumstances unknown to the offender prevented the
personal property of another. Therefore it is necessary that
consignation of the crime. Unknown to him the wallet was
the property taken must have value because the taking
not inside his pocket. S it is an IC because it would have
must be with intent to gain. The mere taking of a check
amounted to theft, a crime against property.
without value would not amount to theft because the check
4th element: without value is a worthless check. Hence, the SC said that
the crime committed is only an IC.
It is necessary that the act done must not be a violation of
any crime under the RPC. Otherwise that person would be The penalty is arresto mayor or a maximum penalty of 6
held liable of that crime and not of an Impossible Crime. months. > the SC erased, did not include the 4th element
So an impossible crime is a crime of last resort. One should of IC. That the act done should not constitute any other
only file a case of IC if the act of the offender does not violation of the RPC. Perhaps because of the ruling in
constitute any other violation of the RPC. Intod vs. CA. It was deliberately deleted.
Intod vs. CA Q: X The public officer filed his SALN, the said SALN has
Intod accompanied by other men, wanted to kill been filed before the appropriate government agency. It
Palampangan, peppered the room his room with bullets. turned out later that the administering officer in the SALN
However, the intended victim was not there. Only son in is not a notary public, but only a secretary of the said
law and children were there but they were not hit. Intod notary public. The person who signed the same is only the
and his company were charged with the crime of secretary and not the person competent enough to
attempted murder up to the CA. administer the said oath. X the public officer knew this. Is
X liable for an impossible crime?
SC: it was only an IC and what is present is only factual or
physical impossibility. Unknown to the offenders the A: X is not liable for an impossible crime
intended victim was not at the scene of the crime. It could The first element requires that the act done would
have amounted to a crime against persons which is have been an offense against person or property
murder. But it was inherently impossible because the
victim was not there. - Had it been accomplished, the act done would
have amounted to perjury
This decision of the SC were criticized because under the
4th element, the act must not constitute any other - However perjury is not a crime against person or
violation of the RPC. When this accused peppered the property. It is under title 4, crimes against public
house of Palampangan with bullets, they did peppered the interest.
house with bullets. So they said, they should be liable with
- Therefore the first element is absent.
malicious mischief because damage was done to the house
and not IC. SC retained its decision that it is an IC and this Q: What then is the crime committed?
case of Intod vs. CA was cited in the case of Jacinto vs.
A: The crime committed is falsification. Making an
People.
unlawful statements in a narration of facts.
Jacinto vs. People
Q: Why not perjury?
A check which was supposed to be remitted was not
remitted by the offender, instead it was deposited. Since
the check was not remitted, Megaphone filed a case of

A: Because the solemnizing officer is not duly Justice, such statement as may be deemed proper,
authorized to receive and administer, therefore it without suspending the execution of the sentence,
cannot be perjury. when a strict enforcement of the provisions of this
Code would result in the imposition of a clearly
Q: X lost his cellphone 2 days ago while going to work.
excessive penalty, taking into consideration the
Now, while he was working, he saw his officemate with a
degree of malice and the injury caused by the
new cellphone like his old phone. He waited for his
offense.
officemate to go to the CR and when the officemate went
to the CR, X covered his face with a handkerchief, went There are no common law crimes in the Philippines.
near the officemate, pointed a balisong and told him “this
is a holdup, give me your cellphone, I am going to stab you After trial on the merits, the judge has found the accused
if you don’t give it to me”. Afraid, the officemate gave the guilty, but based on the facts and circumstances, the
cellphone. It turned out that it was his cellphone that he penalty prescribed by law for the crime committed is too
lost 2 days ago. Is X liable of an impossible crime? harsh. No matter how harsh the penalty prescribed by law,
A: it is the duty of the judge to impose the said penalty. But
he may give a recommendation to the president through
1st element – the act done would have amounted to a the DOJ that executive clemency be granted to the
crime against person or property. Had it been offender.
accomplished, would it have been a crime against
property? Article 6. Consummated, frustrated, and
attempted felonies. — Consummated felonies as
- NO, because the said thing taken happens to be well as those which are frustrated and attempted,
his own property. are punishable.
2nd element – the act done was done with evil intent A felony is consummated when all the elements
3rd element - was it inherently impossible to necessary for its execution and accomplishment
accomplish the crime? Yes, because in case of robbery are present; and it is frustrated when the offender
or theft, it is necessary that the thing must belong to performs all the acts of execution which would
another person. And here, thing taken is his own produce the felony as a consequence but which,
property. nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of
causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.
4th element – the act does not fall under any other
provision of RPC. Does the act fall under any There is an attempt when the offender commences
provision of the RPC? Yes, therefore it is not an the commission of a felony directly or over acts,
impossible crime. and does not perform all the acts of execution
which should produce the felony by reason of
What provision of the RPC? some cause or accident other than this own
spontaneous desistance.
A: It amounted to grave coercion by compelling
someone to do something against his will, whether Two Phases in the Commission of the Crime:
right or wrong by means of violence or intimidation.
Therefore, the offender is not liable of an impossible 1. Subjective Phase - portion in the commission of the
act wherein the offender commences the commission of
crime, rather, he is liable for grave coercion.
the crime after the time that he still has control over his
Article 5. Duty of the court in connection with acts acts. He may or may not proceed in the commission of the
which should be repressed but which are not crime. He still has control over his acts.
covered by the law, and in cases of excessive
2. Objective Phase - from the moment the offender uses
penalties. — Whenever a court has knowledge of
control over his acts it is already in the objective phase of
any act which it may deem proper to repress and
which is not punishable by law, it shall render the the commission of the crime.
proper decision, and shall report to the Chief IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CRIME WE HAVE
Executive, through the Department of Justice, the BOTH THE INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL ACT
reasons which induce the court to believe that said
act should be made the subject of legislation. 1. Internal Acts - are not punishable. Mere criminal
thoughts will never give rise to criminal liability.
In the same way, the court shall submit to the There must be an external act.
Chief Executive, through the Department of 2. External Act - includes preparatory acts and acts of
execution

DIRECTLY BY OVERT ACT - means that the overt act

a. Preparatory Acts - as a rule are not yet performed by the offender must be directly connected to
punishable because they are not yet connected to the intended felony. The attempted felony that is punished
a particular felony. by law is one which is directly connected to the over act
performed by the offender although he has admitted the
Ex. Conspiracy to commit a crime, proposal to crime
commit a crime -> merely preparatory acts.
Poeple vs. Lamahag
Hence, as a rule they are not punishable
A case cited in Baleros vs. People
b. Acts of Execution - this is the actual act of
A person intending to rob a store made an opening on the
committing the crime and we have 3 stages,
wall of the store sufficient for his body to enter. His
attempted, frustrated and consummated.
intention was to rob.
ATTEMPTED STAGE
Before he could enter he was already apprehended.
There is an attempt when the offender commences the
Can he be liable of attempted robbery? No. Because his
commission of a felony directly or over acts, and does
OA of making an opening on the wall of the store is not an
not perform all the acts of execution which should
OA directly connected to robbery. It is only an OA directly
produce the felony by reason of some cause or
connected to trespassing. Hence, he can only be held liable
accident other than this own spontaneous desistance.
for attempted trespassing.
the offender is still in the subjective phase, the
Although his intention was to commit robbery, once inside
offender has still control over his acts, he may proceed
he may rob, he may rape, he may kill, he may injure the
in the commission of the crime or he may desist. The
owner of the store.
moment he desist on his own spontaneous desistance
then he will no longer be held criminally liable. Therefore, it is not an act directly connected to robbery.
Desistance negates criminal liability in the attempted Baleros vs. People
stage but not in the frustrated or consummated stage.
The woman was awakened by a man pressing a cloth
The offender commences the commission of the soaked with chemical on her face. The man was on top of
felony directly by overt acts. her, she struggled, she was able to kick the man, the man
jumped out of the window. She called on the guard and
The attempted felony that is punished by law is one then everyone came up to her. The case filed against the
that is directly connected to the overt act performed man was attempted rape. The man was convicted up to the
by the offender even if he has a different crime in CA of attempted rape. Was there attempted rape?
mind. SC: it is not attempted rape. The OA of pressing a cloth
soaked with chemical on the face of a woman is not an OA
Elements:
directly connected to rape. The obvious intent was to make
1. The offender commences the commission of the the woman unconscious but once the woman is made
felony directly by overt act unconscious, the man may rape, may touch the private
2. That he does not perform all acts of execution parts of the woman, or he may injure the woman, or may
that would have produced the felony rob the property of the woman. Therefore he cannot be
3. That his act was not stopped by his own held liable for attempted rape.
spontaneous desistance
SC: when the OA of a person is ambiguous in so far as the
4. That he was not able to perform all acts of
intended felony is committed, what we have is an attempt
execution by reason of some cause or accident
to commit an indeterminate offense which is a juridical
other than his own spontaneous desistance
standpoint insofar as the RPC is concerned
OVERT ACT - refers to any external act which if allowed
INDETERMINATE OFFENSE - the overt act of a
to continue will naturally and logically ripen into a crime.
person in relation to the intended felony is ambiguous. It
What the law requires is that the overt act must be directly
is necessary that the OA must be necessarily connected to
connected to the intended felony. The offender
the felony. Only then he will be punished of the said
commences the commission of the crime directly by overt
attempted felony.
act.
Rivera vs. People

The victim was mauled, hit with hollow blocks, Rivera Q: A shot B with intent to kill, B sustained a wound, so he
brothers were able to pin him down on the ground. was hit. However, the wound sustained by B was a non-
Suddenly there was the siren of the police, so the Rivera fatal wound. What crime was committed by A against B?
brothers fled. The medical certificate showed that the
A: Attempted homicide or murder as the case may be.
victim only suffered superficial injuries, only slight
Because the wound sustained was not fatal or non-
physical injuries, yet they were charged of attempted
mortal. It requires another act for the crime to be
murder. SC: it is attempted murder. The first element was
consummated. No one would die by a non-mortal or
present, they boxed the victim, they mauled him, their
non-fatal wound.
intention was to kill him. Second, they were not able to
perform all acts of execution because of the arrival of the Q: A shot B with intent to kill. B was hit on a vital organ.
police. Therefore, the non consummation of the crime was So he sustained a fatal, mortal wound. However, he
because of a cause or accident other than the accused's survived due to a immediate medical intervention. What
own spontaneous desistance. crime was committed by A against B?
Why attempted murder? Why not slight physical injuries? A: It is already frustrated homicide or murder as the
case may be.
SC: there was intent to kill.
Valenzuela vs. People
FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN INTENT TO
KILL: SC: if the wound sustained by the victim is a mortal wound
but he survived due to immediate medical intervention,
1. Evidence of motive
the crime is in the frustrated stage.
2. The nature and number of weapons used by the
offender If the wound sustained by the victim is a non-fatal or non-
3. The nature, number and location of the wounds mortal wound, then the crime is only in the attempted
inflicted on the victim stage. The reason is that it is only when the wound
4. Manner of committing the crime sustained is mortal or fatal that it can be said that the said
5. Acts and statements made by the offender before, offender has already performed all the acts of execution
during and after the commission of the crime which would produce the felony. However, the felony was
not produced by reason of a cause independent of his will
SC:
that is the immediate medical intervention.
1. There was an altercation, day prior to the said act
If the wound sustained is non-fatal, non-mortal, the
was committed, therefore the motive was to kill
offender has not yet performed all acts of execution, he
the victim
must perform another act of firing in order to consummate
2. They mauled him all at the same time, he was
the crime. Therefore it is only in the attempted stage of
totally defenseless
committing the felony.
3. Wounds inflicted were only superficial but the SC
said that was is because of the sudden arrival of Baleros vs CA.
the police
In that case the Supreme Court cited People vs
4. They were all in conspiracy with one another
Lamahang
5. Hence, it is attempted murder and not merely a
slight physical injury A woman was awakened. There was s man on top of her.
The man was pressing a cloth on her face. The man was
charged with the crime of attempted rape. Is the man
Q: A shot B. B evaded the blow. He was not hit. What liable of attempted rape? The Supreme Court said no
crime was committed? because the overt act performed by the man, that of
pressing a cloth soaked with chemicals on the face of the
A: The crime committed was attempted homicide or
woman is not an overt act directly connected to rape. It is
murder as the case may be. Even if the victim was not
not an overt act directly connected with rape even if the
hit, since the act of discharging the firearm was with
intent of the offender would have been to rape the victim
intent to kill the victim, it was already in the
since his overt act is not directly connected with rape so he
attempted stage. Such act of firing the fire arm was
cannot be held liable of attempted rape. He was convicted
already an OA directly connected to the act of
only of the crime of unjust vexation.
homicide or murder as the case may be.
The Supreme court said the act of the offender would
amount to an attempt to commit and indeterminate
offense which has no juridical standpoint in the RPC. The

intent of the offender was to render the woman Q: A wanted to kill his own father to get his inheritance
unconscious but once she is unconscious the offender may immediately and wanted to be rich. Went to drug store and
perform other acts not only to rape the victim hence it is bought poison. Before going home, he went to the house of
not an act directly connected with rape. his friend and told his friend "tonight I will be rich, I will
be poisoning my father, I will be a millionaire." After
Example:
telling that to his friend, A ran to his house. Upon reaching
X removed the jalousies in the window of the house of Y. his house he was already taking the poison out of the
The intent of X is to rob the house of its valuable things. plastic. Meanwhile, the friend went to the police and told
After slowly removing the jalousies and placing it on the plan of A to kill the father. The friend and the police went
ground, he was about to enter, but he was arrested, he was to the house of A and the father. Upon reaching the house,
apprehended. He was charged of attempted robbery. Yet, they saw A in the act of taking out the said poison from the
he cannot be held liable of the crime charged although the plastic bag. A was arrested. Is A liable of attempted
intent of the offender is to rob the house since his overt act parricide?
of removing the jalousies and trying to enter the house are
A: No. He is not yet liable of attempted parricide. The
not overt acts directly connected to robbery, he cannot be
act of buying poison, taking out of the plastic are only
convicted. Instead, it is only attempted trespass to
preparatory act. It is not yet an OA directly connected
dwelling because the overt act of removing the jalousies
to parricide. He may use the poison not really to kill
and trying to enter are overt acts directly connected to the
the father, he may use it to kill insects or pests.
act of entering the dwelling.
Therefore, he cannot be liable of attempted parricide.
Second element: The offender was not able to perform all
Q: A mixed the poison to the juice of the father and then
the acts of execution. What is the reason? Some cause
he gave it to his father. The father was about to drink the
Other than his spontaneous desistance.
juice with poison. However, since the father was clumsy,
People v. Lizada the glass fell from the hands of the father. Is A liable of
attempted parricide?
It was when the father looked at the door and he saw his
son looking at them. That caused the father to stop from A: Yes. He already liable. The moment he poured the
consummating the crime of rape. The offender was only poison in the juice of the father and he gave it to the
convicted of attempted rape. father for him to drink, he already performed an OA
directly connected to parricide. However, parricide
Attempted Felony vs Frustrated Felony
was not consummated and he was not able to perform
In the attempted felony, the offender merely commences all the acts of execution by reason of an accident. It
the commission of the felony by overt acts. In a frustrated was purely accidental because the father was clumsy
felony, the offender has already performed all the acts of and the glass slipped from his hands.
execution.
Q: In the same problem, after mixing the poison in the
In an attempted felony, the felony was not consummated juice, he gave it to his father. The father was about to drink
by reason of some cause or accident other than the the juice with a poison when A took pity on his father and
offender's spontaneous desistance. In a frustrated felony, had a change of heart. He immediately grabbed the juice
the felony was not consummated by reason f some cause and threw it on the garden. Is A liable of attempted
independent of the will of the perpetrator. parricide?
In an attempted felony, the offender is only in the A: No. He is not liable of attempted parricide. The act
subjective phase of the felony. He still has control over his of mixing of the poison with the juice is an OA directly
acts. Whereas in the frustrated stage of committing a connected to parricide, however, he was not able to
felony, the offender is already in the objective phase of perform all acts of execution by reason of his own
committing the felony. He no longer has any control over spontaneous desistance. Therefore, he is absolved of
his acts. criminal lability. Because for one to be liable in the
attempted stage, the reason for the non-
FRUSTRATED STAGE
consummation of the crime must not be his own
when the offender performs all the acts of spontaneous desistance.
execution which would produce the felony as a
Q: In the same problem, A mixed the poison with a juice
consequence but which, nevertheless, do not
and gave it to his father. The father drank the juice and
produce it by reason of causes independent of the
was poisoned. Suddenly, he was already showing signs of
will of the perpetrator.
being poisoned, he was chilling. Upon seeing his father in

that condition, A immediately administered an antidote to saleslady arrived and gave her the perfume. She was about
his father, after that he immediately rushed his father to to leave Rustans when suddenly this certain device
the hospital. The father survived. The doctor said, were it detected and made a sound, so the unpaid lipstick was
not for the antidote given by the son, the father would have discovered. What crime was committed?
died. Is the son liable of attempted parricide?
A: Consummated Theft. Even if she has not yet left
A: He is not liable of attempted parricide. Because the Rustans, the moment she took the lipstick from the
moment the father drank the juice, all the acts for the glass shelf, taking is already complete, theft is already
performance of the crime has already been done. The consummated.
offender has already performed all acts of execution
Q: In the same problem, woman took a lipstick and
necessary to consummate the crime. However, the
slipped it inside her bag. Suddenly she has a change of
crime was not consummated.
heart. She took the lipstick from her back and placed it
Q: Is the son liable of frustrated parricide? back on the glass shelf and the closed the glass and locked
it. Did she commit any crime?
A: He is NOT also liable of frustrated parricide
because in frustrated parricide although the offender A: Yes. She is already liable of consummated rape.
has already performed all the acts of execution, the The moment she took the lipstick from the glass shelf
reason for the non-consummation of the crime must and placed it inside her bag, taking is already
be a cause independent of his will. The reason for the complete, therefore, theft is already consummated.
non-consummation of the crime is the own will of the Her change of heart would not amount to desistance.
son. Therefore, the son is not liable of frustrated Too late. Desistance will only lie in the attempted
homicide. stage but never in the consummated nor in the
frustrated stage.
Definitely he is also not liable of consummated
parricide. Q: What is the effect of returning back the lipstick?
The son is liable of physical injuries depending on the A: There will only be NO civil liability. She will not be
required medical intervention. 1-9 days - slight made to pay the lipstick because she returned it but
physical injuries. 10-30 days less serious physical nevertheless, she is already liable for consummated
injuries, more than 30 days serious physical injuries. theft because unlawful taking is already committed.
Is there such crime as frustrated theft? Q: In the same case, the woman opened the glass shelf.
She was about to take the lipstick when suddenly there was
People vs. Valenzuela
this hand placed on top of her hand before she could even
SC: there is no such thing as frustrated theft. Under Art. get the lipstick. Unknown to her, her acts were being seen
308, theft is committed when the person takes the on a CCTV camera and the head of the administrative
personal property of another with intent to gain without office immediately went to her upon seeing that she was
violence, force or intimidation upon persons or things about to take the lipstick. Is the woman liable of any
without the consent of the owner. crime?
Theft can admit only either an attempted and A: Yes. She is already liable of attempted theft. A note
consummated stage because the moment the offender was posted on the glass shelf saying, do not open, ask
gains possession of the personal property of another, for assistance. The moment she opened it with use of
unlawful taking is already committed. Even if he has no the key, it shows her intent to gain. It is on the
opportunity to dispose of the property and the moment the attempted stage because she has not yet taken
unlawful taking is complete, theft is already consummated. possession of the personal property of another.
Hence, there can be no instance of frustrated theft. Up to
Rape has no frustrated stage.
2006, there is attempted, frustrated and consummated.
But in 2007, the SC said no, there can be no frustrated Q: A woman was raped. She filed a case of rape against the
theft. man. In her open court testimony, she said she was not
sure if the penetration was complete. Likewise in the
Q: A woman went to Rustans and bought perfume. While
medical certificate it shows that her hymen was not
she was sitting and the saleslady was taking the perfume in
lacerated, it was intact. Can the said man be liable of
the counter, she saw a new line of lipsticks on a glass shelf.
consummated rape?
She went there but it was locked. Saw the key on the table
and opened it, took one and slipped in inside her bag, A: Yes. Because according to the SC, Rape does not
closed the glass, placed the key back on the table. The admit of any frustrated stage. Rape is consummated

the moment the penis has touched the lips or the labia X saw his enemy Y. He went to his house to get his
of the podendum of a woman's genitalia. It is not pistol, pointed the gun at the head of Y and pulled the
necessary that there is full or complete penetration trigger. However the gun jammed, no bullet came out.
nor a hymenal laceration. The hymen may remain X is liable of attempted homicide.
intact yet rape can be committed because what is
The act of X of pointing the gun and pulling the
required is the penis must touch lips or the labia.
trigger with intent to kill are overt acts directly
People vs. Lizada connected to homicide. He was unable to perform all
the acts of execution because it is purely accidental
The man was still in his shorts. His penis has not yet even
that the gun did not fire. It was not by reason of his
touch the genitalia of the girl. He only touched the private
desistance. Therefore, he is liable for attempted
parts of the girl. How come the conviction was for
homicide.
attempted rape and not mere acts of lasciviousness?
Same problem:
SC: Attempted rape because the SC take into consideration
the 3 other consummated rape that has been done by the Q: With intent to kill X pointed the gun to Y. He pulled the
stepfather on the daughter. Considering that in these 3 trigger, no bullet came out. He again pulled the trigger but
former acts rape had been consummated, the obvious no bullet came out. Then he looked at the gun, it was
intent of the stepfather is to rape the girl. It just so happen unloaded. Is X liable of attempted homicide?
that he saw the son peeping and so he went out of the
A: X is liable of an impossible crime.
room. That is the reason given.
It is not attempted homicide because when the gun
If that is the reason given without the said facts that there
has no bullet, there is inherent impossibility to
has been consummated rape for the past 3 acts, it should
consummate the crime. Here, what is present is
only be acts of lasciviousness or at least attempted rape if
physical or factual impossibility unknown to the
there in an intent to lie. In the case, the stepfather was still
offender. There was physical impossibility and the
in his shorts, the penis has not yet touched even the outer
same was not known to the offender. Under any and
portion of a woman's genitalia. Absent the facts that there
all circumstances, it will never fire. Hence, what we
were 3 former consummated rape, it should only be acts of
have now is an impossible crime and not anymore an
lasciviousness. Because to amount to at least attempted
attempted felony.
stage, it is necessary that the penis must touch at least the
outer portion to show intent to lie. The man was still in his Impossible Crime v. Attempted Felony
shorts, how can you know that there was intent to lie. It is
Impossible Crime Attempted Felony
only a different ruling because there were 3 previous
consummated rape and the SC considered all these saying the act of execution of the the act of execution is
that the obvious intent of the stepfather was also to rape felony is not possible of possible of
the daughter. accomplishment accomplishment.
People vs. Jalosjos the act was not

the act was not consummated by reason of
Jalosjos was charged with many cases. In one case, the accomplished because of some cause or accident
penis has only touched that outer portion which becomes the inherent impossibility other than offender's
spontaneous desistance
hairy during puberty, not yet the lips but that outer
portion which becomes hairy.
SC: it was only acts of lasciviousness. Q: X in the course of a fight stabbed Y but Y was able to
evade. What crime is committed by X?
How did the SC distinguish acts of lasciviousness from
attempted rape. If the penis touches the said outer portion A: Attempted homicide. The act of X in trying to stab
and there was an obvious intent to lie with the girl, it is Y with the use of a knife is an overt aft directly
attempted rape. If no obvious intent to lie or have carnal connected to homicide yet he was not able to perform
knowledge of the girl, it only acts of lasciviousness. all the acts of execution because it was purely
accidental that Y was able to evade the blow.
That is only one of the cases because in other cases he was
convicted of consummated rape. Q: Y was hit and sustained a wound. The wound was in the
chest. Doctor said that it would heal within a period of
CONSUMMATED FELONY
60days. What crime was committed?
Example:

A: Attempted homicide. The act of stabbing Y and People v. Quinanola

hitting him with the effect of Y sustaining a wound
There is no frustration in rape because as defined by the
which would heal within 60days are overt acts directly
law rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a
connected with the crime of homicide. However, he
woman against her will. Since the law uses the word carnal
was not able to perform all the acts of execution
knowledge and not sexual intercourse, therefore the mere
because the wound he inflicted on Y is a non-fatal
touching by the penis of the man of the lips of the labia of
wound.
the woman's genitalia would already consummate the
Q: Y was hit and the knife pierced through the heart. The crime of rape.
wound was fatal but he survived because of the immediate
People v. Pareja
medical operation performed. What crime?
It is settled in jurisprudence that the slightness of
Frustrated homicide. When he stabbed Y, he hit a vital
penetration already consummates the crime of rape. But if
organ thereby inflicting upon him a mortal wound. He
what the penis has touched is not even the labia of the
has already performed all the acts of execution but
podendum of the woman's genitalia but only the outer
still the victim survived because of a cause
surface, the crime can either be attempted rape or acts of
independent of his will which is the immediate
lasciviousness.
medical intervention.
When the penis of the woman touched the surface of the
People v. Labiaga
woman's genitalia, there is intent to lie with the victim.
The SC said that if the wound inflicted on the victim is a The crime committed is attempted rape. But absent intent
non-fatal wound, the crime is only in the attempted stage. to lie, the crime committed is acts of lasciviousness.
But if the wound is a mortal wound and the victim
In that case, the man went inside the bedroom, undressed
survived, the crime is in the frustrated stage. If the wound
the girl, undressed himself, tried to insert his penis into
is non-fatal, it cannot be said that the offender has
the genitalia of the girl. The girl cried and cried, the man
performed all the acts of execution. If it is a mortal wound,
left. Supreme Court said these acts of the man show that
the offender has performed all the acts of execution. There
he has the intent to lie with the girl. Attempted rape not
is nothing left to be done.
merely acts of lasciviousness.
Crimes which do not admit of Frustrated stage:
As opposed to:
1. Theft
Cruz v. People
Valenzuela vs People
In this case the SC said that the mere act of a man of
Theft does not have frustrated stage, only attempted and climbing on top of a naked woman absent any evidence
consummated stages. that his erected penis has the capability to penetrate the
genitalia of the woman does not bring about the crime of
As held in that case, in case of theft, there cannot be
rape. Those acts do not show intent to rape absent said
frustration because the moment unlawful taking is
evidence. Crime committed was acts of lasciviousness and
complete, theft is consummated. The unlawful taking is
not attempted rape.
complete when the offender gains possession of the
personal property of another even if there is no Material Crimes
opportunity to dispose of the said property.
If a crime admits stages of attempted, frustrated and
Q: The husband and the wife went to the department consummated
store. The husband took 5 pairs of shorts, went to the
Formal Crimes
fitting room. After 10 minutes, he got out, went to the
saleslady. He was stopped. It was discovered that he was If a crime does not admit of any stage, it only
wearing the shorts. What crime? punishes a consummated stage
A: Consummated theft. Even if he has no opportunity 1. Adultery is a formal crime, it is a crime of
to dispose because he was discovered by the guard consequence, a crime of result, it admits no
before leaving the store. The fact that he had already stages. There is no such thing as attempted or
taken it and wore it, he had already gained possession frustrated adultery, only consummated.
of the personal property of the store hence he is 2. Physical injuries does not admit attempted or
already liable for consummated theft. frustrated stage because it is based on the injury
sustained by the victim.
2. Rape
3. Slander

4. False testimony make the offenders co-conspirators but they are not yet
punishable, they are not yet criminally liable.
Art. 7. When light felonies are punishable. — Light

felonies are punishable only when they have been TWO KINDS:
consummated, with the exception of those
1. Direct or Express Conspiracy - when the offenders
committed against person or property.
or conspirators met, planned, agreed, decided to commit a
GR: Light felonies are punishable only when they are on crime. There is a preconceived plan prior to the
their consummated stage. commission of the crime.
XPN: Against person or property For one to be criminally liable, it is necessary that he is not
only a part of the agreement, he must also be present at
the time of the commission of the crime. Even if he is part
Art. 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony. of the agreement if at the time of the commission of the
— Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are crime he failed to appear, such failure on his part to appear
punishable only in the cases in which the law at the scene of the crime would be construed by law as a
specially provides a penalty therefor. desistance. Therefore, even if he part of the agreement he
will not be liable as a conspirator.
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons
come to an agreement concerning the commission Ex. A, B and C decided to kill X on a particular date and
of a felony and decide to commit it. time. Onthe said date and time, A and B arrived and killed
X. However, C failed to appear.
There is proposal when the person who has
decided to commit a felony proposes its execution Although C was part of the agreement , he cannot be held
to some other person or persons. criminally liable as a conspirator for the crime of murder
because he failed to appear at the scene of the crime. His
Conspiracy is a bilateral act. The must be at least 2 persons
failure to appear is construed by law as a desistance on his
who agreed to the commission of the crime. Proposal to
part.
commit a crime is a unilateral act. Only 1 person who has
decided to commit the felony proposes it to another In the same problem but all were present. A and B were
person. Is that another person agreed to the commit the about to kill X but C performed acts preventing A and B
crime, there is now conspiracy. from committing the crime.
Conspiracy as rule is not a punishable act, likewise Although C was a conspirator, part of the agreement,
proposal to commit a crime is not a punishable act because although he appeared at the scene of the crime. Since C
they are mere preparatory acts. performed acts trying to prevent A and B from committing
the crime, he cannot be held criminally liable as a
Exception to the rule as provided for in the first paragraph
conspirator for the crime of murder in the said case.
of Art 8 when the law specially provides a penalty
therefore. When the law specially provides a penalty for For a conspirator to be held liable, he must be part of the
the mere conspiracy or for mere proposal then conspiracy agreement and he must be present at the scene of the
and proposal to commit a crime are crimes by themselves. crime to commit the crime. His failure to appear is
They are punishable act. desistance and therefore, he cannot be held criminally
liable. Likewise even if he appeared at the scene of the
If conspiracy or proposal to commit a crime are provided
crime but he performed acts to prevent others from
in penalties by law, it is not necessary that there be an
committing the crime, he is also not criminally liable.
overt act committed. The mere act of conspiring or
proposing will already give rise to a crime. Ex. conspiracy GR: Conspirators are liable only for the crime agreed
to commit treason, rebellion, sedition. In SPL conspiracy upon. They are not liable for any crime which is not agreed
to commit terrorism. It is mot necessary that there be upon.
overt acts. They are punishable acts by themselves.
Ex. A, B and C decided to kill X. Went to the place where X
CONSPIRACY AS A MEANS OF COMMITTING A will be passing at night time. When they saw X, A B and C
CRIME surrounded X and they all stabbed X. When X was lying on
the ground, A and B left. C remained and took the
If conspiracy is only a means of committing a crime it is
valuables of X.
not yet a punishable act. The mere act of conspiring will

What is or are the criminal liabilities of A, B and C? A, B Thus, based from the examples given, in case of direct
and C are all liable for the crime of murder as conspirators or express conspiracy, the conspirators are liable only
because it is the crime agreed upon. for the crime agreed upon.
Only C will be liable for the crime of theft. A and B cannot XPNS:
be held liable for the crime of theft because theft was not a
1. When the other crime was committed in the
crime agreed upon by all of them. Also, theft was
presence of the other conspirators and they did
committed in the absence of A and B. Therefore, only C
not perform acts to prevent its commission.
will be held liable for theft.
2. When the other crime committed was the natural
It cannot be robbery because the victim is already dead. consequence of the crime agreed upon.
There is no longer force or intimidation to be used upon 3. When the resulting crime is a composite crime or
person or upon things if the victim is already dead. The a special complex crime or a single indivisible
taking from the person is only theft not robbery. complex crime.
In the same problem, C took the valuables of X in the Under the exceptions, the other conspirators are liable for
presence of A and B. While he was taking them, A said the crime committed although not agreed upon.
what about the cellphone, B what about the ring, here take
In case of direct or express conspiracy, for one to be
it also.
conspirator, it is not necessary that he actually participate
Although theft was not a crime agreed upon, all of them in the actual execution of the crime. The participation of
will be held liable of the crime of theft because although the conspirator may be direct or indirect in the execution
theft was not agreed upon, it was committed in the of the crime. Since there was a prior agreement, mere
presence of A and B and they did not perform acts to presence at scene of the crime, mere exercise of moral
prevent C from committing theft. ascendancy over the others will already bring about
criminal liability as a conspirator because there was a prior
Q: A, B and C decided to injure X to teach him a lesson.
agreement, there was a pre conceived plan.
When X arrived, they surrounded him, boxed, punched,
hit X. While X was lying on the ground, seriously People v. Carandang, Milan, and Chua
wounded, A inflicted a fatal wound by kicking the neck of
All of them were charged of 2 counts of murder and 1
X. X died. Who is liable for the death of X?
count of frustrated murder. The only participation of
A: All of them are criminally liable for the death of X. Milan was to close the door. It was only Carandang who
They all agreed to injure X. That was their agreement. shot the 3 police officers. Chua instructed Milan to finish
The death of X however was the natural consequence the 3rd police officer and Milan followed him.
of their agreement to injure X. Therefore, even if it is
SC: Although the participation of Milan was only to close
not their intended act, since it is the natural
the door, Chua was only to order Milan to shoot the 3rd
consequence of the crime, they are all criminally liable
police officer, such act of Chua showed that he exercised
for the death of X.
moral ascendancy over Milan. Therefore, since what is
Q: A, B and C decided to rob the house of X. They went present here is a prior agreement to kill the police officers,
inside the house of X. They have already taken the mere exercise of moral ascendancy will already make one a
valuables. On their way out however, C pushed a chair. The conspirator. It is not necessary that they actually
chair fell on floor and created a noise. The owner of the participate in the execution of the crime. Thus, all of them
house was awakened and began shouting upon seeing A, B are held criminally liable.
and C. C shot the owner of the house. The owner died.
People v. Garchitorena
What is or are the criminal liabilities of A, B and C? Who is
SC: Direct proof is not necessary for one to become a
liable for the death of X? Are all of them liable for the
conspirator because conspiracy can be proven from the
death of X or is it only C?
acts done or performed prior, during or subsequent to the
A: The crime agreed upon was robbery. However, by commission of the crime.
reason or on the occasion of robbery, homicide was
Q: A, B and C alighted in the house of X, they were all
committed. Therefore, the resulting felony is a special
armed with armalites. They all went in front of the door. A
complex crime. Under Art. 294, it is robbery with
knocked at the door. When X opened the door, B fired at
homicide. Since the resulting felony is a special
X. X fell on the floor. C kicked his body inside and closed
complex crime, which cannot be separated from each
the door. All of them left still armed. Are they all
other, all of them can be held criminally liable of the
special complex crime of robbery with homicide.

criminally liable or conspirators for the death of X? Are Q: X was trying to stab Y. When Z saw that X was stabbing
they conspirators for the crime of murder? Y he shouted "sige tirahin mo pa, sa kaliwa sa kanan..." X
kept on stabbing Y. Is Z a conspirator of X?
A: Yes. It is evident here that there is a pre conceived
plan prior to the commission of the crime. Although A: No. Absent any active participation, mere
the only participation of A was to knock at the door approval, mere acquiescence, mere knowledge of the
and the only participation of C was to close the door, it commission of the crime will not make one a
was obvious, there was a pre conceived plan. All of conspirator in case of implied or inferred conspiracy.
the, arrived at the same time armed with armalites.
When conspiracy is established whether direct or express,
They went in front of the door, one knocked, one
implied or inferred, the act of one is the act of all.
fired, one closed the door, left together still armed. All
Therefore, all the perpetrators in the crime will have one
of these showed that there was a pre conceived plan to
and the same penalty. The same penalty will be imposed
kill X. As such they are all liable as conspirators
regardless of the quantity and quality of the participation.
regardless of the quantity and quality of their
The moment conspiracy is established, it is immaterial to
participation.
determine who inflicted because all of them will have the
same penalty.
2. Implied or Inferred Conspiracy - deduced from If however, conspiracy is not established, the penalty will
the mode and manner of committing the crime, there is no be individual in nature depending on the act that they
pre conceived plan but the offenders acted simultaneously performed.
in a synchronized and coordinated manner, their acts
People v. Bokingco
complimenting one another towards a common criminal
objective or design. They are all liable as conspirators. Bokingco killed Pasyon inside the apartment. At the time
that he was killing, Reynante was inside the main house,
It may happen that the conspirators do not know each
he was asking the wife to open the vault of the pawnshop.
other. Since the offenders acted in a synchronized and
After killing the husband, Bokingco called Reynante and
coordinated manner, a conspiracy was established
said "tara na, patay na siya!." They fled at the same time.
instantly, impulsively, at the spur of the moment.
They were both charged for the crime of murder.
Q: X was trying to stab Y. Y evaded all the blows. Z saw Convicted both of murder in the CA.
that X was having a hard time stabbing Y. Z was an enemy
SC: there was no conspiracy between Bokingco and
of Y. So Z went at the back of Y and held both hands of Y at
Reynante in killing the husband. While one is killing the
the back and told X to stab Y which X did. Is Z a
victim the other was trying to commit another crime. They
conspirator of X?
did not act in a synchronized and coordinated manner.
A: Yes. An implied conspiracy was established, There was no evidence that there was a pre conceived plan
instantly, impulsively, at the spur of the moment. because one was committing another crime different from
There was no pre conceived plan but the act of Z of the other.
holding the hands of Y is a direct and positive overt
They are one in escaping but not in the commission of the
act showing that he has the same criminal design as
crime. Since conspiracy was not established, the most that
That of X which is to kill Y.
is established is that they planned to commit 2 crimes
People vs. simultaneously at the same time. But the charge was only
murder, there was no charge for robbery. Therefore,
In case of implied conspiracy, for one to be considered as a
Bokingco was convicted, Reynante was acquitted of the
conspirator, it is necessary that the offender actually
crime of murder. So absent any evidence of conspiracy, the
participates in the commission of the crime. Mere
liability is invidual.
presence at the scene of the crime, mere approval, mere
acquiescence, mere knowledge of the commission of the TWO KINDS OF MULTIPLE CONSPIRACY
crime will not make one a conspirator absent any active
1. Wheel or Circle Conspiracy
participation. Because the basis is on the acts performed
by the offender. Unlike a preconceived plan there was a When a single person or group of persons known as a
prior agreement, therefore mere presence or exercise of hub, deals individually with another person or group
moral ascendancy will make one a conspirator. In implied of persons known as the spokes.
the conspiracy is established based on the acts performed.
2. Chain Conspiracy
Therefore, if you do not perform an act, if you are merely
present then you cannot be held a conspirator.

Usually involving the distribution of narcotics or other 3. Light felonies

contraband, in which there is successive
communication and cooperation in much the same Art. 10. Offenses not subject to the provisions of
way as with legitimate business operations between this Code. — Offenses which are or in the future
manufacturer and wholesaler, then wholesaler and may be punishable under special laws are not
retailer, and then retailer and consumer. subject to the provisions of this Code. This Code
shall be supplementary to such laws, unless the
Fernan v. People
latter should specially provide the contrary.
SC said what is present is a wheel or circle conspiracy. 4
persons headed by the chief accountant acted as the hub. Q: What if a person convicted of a violation of a SPL? A
They enticed all other 36 employees of the DPWH to be issued a check to B for payment of an obligation. B
one with them in committing fraud against the deposited but the check bounced. Notice of dishonor was
government. They falsified LAA's and would negotiate it at sent. After the trial on the merits, A was found guilty of the
a certain percentage, then one of them would compute the violation of BP 22 beyond reasonable doubt. Fine and
general voucher, funds then will be issued as if materials payment of the value of the check. The court said in case of
will be delivered for the construction. Fernan and non- payment of the fine, the said convict shall suffer
Torevillas were civil engineers of the DPWH, they signed subsidiary imprisonment.
tally sheets, saying that there were deliveries when in fact
these were ghost deliveries. No actual deliveries of the Is the Judge correct? Can a person who violated a SPL and
materials. was imposed with fine be made to suffer subsidiary
imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine?
➢ Conspiracy also applies in case of violations of special
penal laws. Subsidiary imprisonment is under Art. 39 of the RPC. Can
you apply the RPC to violations of SPL?
There are some special penal laws which expressly provide
that perpetrators can be held liable when they acted in A: Yes because of Art. 10. As a rule, the RPC shall
conspiracy. apply suppletorily or supplementarily to the
provisions of SPL unless the SPL provides otherwise.
Section 26 of RA 9165
Example of "unless"
As held in the case of People v. Morillo, it is the law
itself that provides that there is mere conspiracy in the act Sec. 98 of RA 9165. It is expressly provided that the
of transporting dangerous drugs. Among the acts specified provisions of the RPC shall not apply to the violations RA
in RA 9165 wherein conspiracy would lie is in case of 9165 or the 2002 Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act.
transportation of dangerous drugs. The law uses the word shall. XPN: If the offender is a
minor. In that case if the minor is penalized with life
Art. 9. Grave felonies, less grave felonies and light imprisonment to death, it will be considered as reclusion
felonies. — Grave felonies are those to which the perpetua to death and the nomenclature of the penalties in
law attaches the capital punishment or penalties the RPC will now be applied
which in any of their periods are afflictive, in
accordance with Art. 25 of this Code. If the law expressly provides that the RPC shall not apply
in a supplementary manner, then it will not.
Less grave felonies are those which the law
punishes with penalties which in their maximum Section 98 of RA 9165
period are correctional, in accordance with the
above-mentioned Art.. It is expressly provided that the provisions of the RPC
shall not apply to violations of RA 9165 except when the
Light felonies are those infractions of law for the offender is a minor offender.
commission of which a penalty of arrest menor or
a fine not exceeding 200 pesos or both; is
provided.
3 kinds of felonies according to severity
1. Grave felonies
2. Less grave felonies

CHAPTER TWO: JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES 5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or
AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH EXEMPT FROM in the lawful exercise of a right or office.
CRIMINAL LIABILITY
6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH AFFECT THE issued by a superior for some lawful purpose.
LIABILITY OF THE OFFENDER
1. Justifying circumstances Justifying circumstances

2. Exempting circumstances Those circumstances, if present in or attended the
commission of a felony, would mean that the offender
3. Mitigating Circumstances
is said to have acted within the bounds of law. He has
4. Aggravating Circumstances not yet transgressed the law. Therefore, there is no
crime committed, there is no criminal, there is no
criminal liablity, there is no civil liability because the
Art. 11. Justifying circumstances. — The following offender did not commit a violation of a law. His act is
do not incur any criminal liability: justified.
The moment the offender or the accused invokes any of
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or
the acts amounting to justifying circumstance, he is in
rights, provided that the following circumstances
effect admitting the commission of the wrongful act but he
concur; First. Unlawful aggression.
is avoiding criminal liability by invoking justifying
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means
circumstances. It is both an admission and avoidance. He
employed to prevent or repel it.
is both admitting to the commission of the crime and an
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of
avoiding criminal liability.
the person defending himself.
A killed B. A case of homicide was filed against A. A
2. Any one who acts in defense of the person or pleaded not guilty during the arraignment. During the pre-
rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or trial, the counsel of A invoked self-defense. The moment
legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, the counsel said that their defense is self-defense, a kind of
or his relatives by affinity in the same degrees and justifying circumstance, the procedure in trial would be
those consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, inverted.
provided that the first and second requisites
As a rule it is the prosecution that must first present
prescribed in the next preceding circumstance are
evidence, it is only after the prosecution has presented
present, and the further requisite, in case the
evidence that the defense would present evidence.
revocation was given by the person attacked, that
the one making defense had no part therein. If however the defense invokes any of the justifying
circumstances, the trial will be inverted. It is the defense
3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights that must first present evidence because he in effect
of a stranger, provided that the first and second admits the commission of the crime. He only wanted to
requisites mentioned in the first circumstance of avoid liability by saying that his act was justifying.
this Art. are present and that the person
Therefore the burden of evidence is upon the defense to
defending be not induced by revenge, resentment,
prove all the elements, all the requisites of the justifying
or other evil motive.
circumstance that he is invoking.
4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or If the defense failed to prove the evidence or requisites of
injury, does not act which causes damage to justifying circumstance that he is invoking, that will
another, provided that the following requisites are amount to conviction because he already admitted the act
present; alleged in the information.
First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually
I. SELF-DEFENSE
exists;
Second. That the injury feared be greater than that SD does not only include defense of one's life. It also
done to avoid it; includes defense of one's honor or chastity, defense of
Third. That there be no other practical and less one's property coupled with an attack on the person
harmful means of preventing it. entrusted with the said property. It is an
encompassing term.

The primordial element in self-defense is unlawful 2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
aggression because without unlawful aggression, there prevent or repel the unlawful aggression
is nothing to repel and self-defense will not set in.
What the law requires is rational equality. Rational is
Elements of self-defense: the means employed. Rationally necessary to prevent
or repel it. Rationally necessary does not mean that
1. Unlawful Aggression
the weapons must be equal to each other. It suffices
There must be an unlawful aggression coming from that means used by the accused is necessary to
the victim. The person attacked by the person prevent the unlawful aggression coming from the
defending himself. victim.
Aggression is said to be unlawful or present if the Factors to be considered in order to be said that the means
attack is material, actual and places the life of the employed is rationally necessary:
accused in imminent and immediate danger. It must
a. Nature and the kind of the weapon used by the
not only be a threat. It must be present, about to
aggressor
happen.
b. Physical condition, size, weight and other
People v. Fontanilla personal circumstances of the aggressor versus
that of the person defending himself
The Supreme Court said that the elements of unlawful c. Place and location of the assault
aggression are the following:
All of these would determine if the means employed of
a) There must be a physical or material attack or the person defending himself is reasonably necessary
assault; to prevent or repel the aggression.
b) The attack or assault must be actual or at least 3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
imminent. person defending himself
c) The attack or assault must be unlawful.
Provocation - refers to any improper or unjust conduct,
The Supreme Court also said that there are two kinds of capable of inciting a person to do a wrongful act.
unlawful aggression.
Sufficient provocation - adequate to stir a person to do
a) Actual or Material unlawful aggression - the the wrongful act and when it is proportionate to the
attack is by means of physical force or with the gravity of the act
use of a weapon;
There may be provocation, what is not allowed is sufficient
b) Imminent unlawful aggression - the attack is
provocation coming from the accused, the person
impending, at the point of happening.
defending himself.
In one case, the Supreme Court said that in case of defense
SC held in the following circumstances that there is no
of property, it is necessary that the attack was coupled
sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending
with an attack on the person entrusted with the said
himself:
property. In that case, the accused allegedly saw the victim
trying to get the property and then he fired at the said ➢ when no provocation at all was given
victim. The Supreme Court said that it is not enough. Even ➢ when although provocation was given, it was not
if his property was in danger, since it was not coupled with sufficient - when although the provocation was
an attack on the person of the owner of the property or the sufficient, it did come from the person defending
person entrusted with the property there can be no valid himself
self-defense. (no discussion of this/not in the syllabus for ➢ although provocation came from the person
AY 2016-2017) defending himself, it is not immediate or
imminent to the aggression.
Legal Maxim on self-defense
Q: It was payday. X was walking home after withdrawing
"Stand ground when in right." money from the ATM when suddenly five men armed with
knives appeared pointing at X. They wanted to get the bag
He is not required by law to retreat when the assailant is of X that contained his salary. Of course X wouldn’t want
close approaching, otherwise, he would run the risk of to give the bag. He ran away but the men followed him and
being stabbed or shot at the back. circled around him. Thereafter, all of these men, at the
same time, boxed him, kicked him, mauled him until X
was pinned on the ground. Meanwhile, one of the men, A,

took his knife and was about to stab X. X pulled out his Did the unlawful aggression cease? No. The unlawful
balisong and stabbed A, piercing through his heart causing aggression continued to exist because the holdupper
his death. X is now being prosecuted for homicide. He said ran away taking the wallet and cellphone. The
he acted in self-defense. Is there self-defense? unlawful aggression continued.
A: Yes. Second, reasonable necessity of the means employed.
Was it reasonable to fire at the holdupper? Yes. In
First, there was unlawful aggression. After he was
order for X to get back his property. Note that he did
mauled, A, was about to stab him but X was able to
not kill Y, he only fired at his leg in order to make him
pull out a balisong. The act of A placed the life and
stay. As a result, the moment Y fell on the ground, X
limb of X in actual and imminent danger.
only took his wallet and cellphone and thereafter left.
Second, reasonable necessity of the means employed
Third, lack of sufficient provocation on the part of X -
to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression. It is
there was no provocation coming from X. all the
necessary for X to make use of the balisong. A was
elements are present, therefor X should be acquitted
about to stab him with his knife and there were these
for acting in self-defense.
five men surrounding him, mauling him at the same
time. First, the nature and number of weapons – A Q: X tried to stab Y with a knife. Y evaded the blow. Y
was about to stab him with a knife. Second, personal asked X what was the problem. Instead of answering, X
circumstances – there were five men, all at the same tried to stab Y three times. Y evaded the blow. X tried a
time attacking him. Third, place and location of the fourth time, Y jumped and they struggled for the
assault – he was alone at the time when these five possession of the knife in the course thereof, Y gained
men mauled and surrounded him. Therefore, the possession of the knife. Now that Y was in possession of
second element was present. the knife, Y stabbed X. X died. Prosecuted for homicide, Y
invoked self-defense. Was there self-defense?
Third, lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
person defending himself. There was absolutely no A: No. First, unlawful aggression – X tried to stab
provocation coming from X. He was merely walking three time constitutes unlawful aggression, however,
toward home. the moment they grappled for the possession of the
knife and Y gained possession thereof, whatever
Since all the elements were present, X should be
inceptive unlawful aggression commenced by X has
acquitted for acting in self-defense.
ceased to exist. The moment Y gained possession,
Q: X was walking toward home when Y appeared in front whatever inceptive unlawful aggression had been
of him and Y has a gun. Y told X, “This is a hold up, give commenced by X, it has already ceased to exist.
me your cellphone, your wallet, and your beautiful watch.” Therefore, the first element is absent.
X, afraid, gave his valuables to Y. While X was removing
Since the unlawful aggression ceased to exist, the
his watch, suddenly, in the guise of removing the watch, X
second element – reasonable necessity of the means
was able to get the gun. He was now in possession of the
employed in order to prevent or repel the unlawful
gun, pointing the gun at Y and told him to return his
aggression – is necessarily absent because there is no
valuables. But Y, instead of returning the same, ran away.
more reasonable necessity for Y to repel anything.
X fired a shot at the right leg of Y. Y fell. X went to Y and
There is no unlawful aggression, there is nothing to
took his cellphone and wallet. X is prosecuted for serious
repel.
physical injuries. X said he acted in self-defense. Is there
self-defense? Although the last element is present – lack of
sufficient provocation on the part of Y – since the first
A: First, unlawful aggression is present. The act of the
and second requisites are absent, self-defense will not
holdupper, pointing the gun, getting X’s valuables
lie. X should be convicted of homicide.
constitutes unlawful aggression because if he wouldn’t
give his things, the life and limb of X will be placed in Q: A saw his enemy B. B was fast approaching to A with a
imminent danger. gun on his hand. Upon seeing that B was about 10 feet
away, A immediately pulled out his balisong and he spin B
However, because of the turn of events, X was able to
who was hit on the neck and died.
get the gun from the hold-upper. He was now in
possession of the gun. Now that he is in possession of A: There was no unlawful aggression. The mere act of
the gun, he told Y to return his things but Y wouldn’t holding a gun will not constitute imminent and
give so X fired at Y’s leg. immediate danger on the life of the person unless the
said gun is aimed at the said person. Same with bolo

or any weapon. If it is just being held by a person, it Yes, I would convict the accused for the crime of
will not yet produce any imminent or immediate homicide, but I will give the said victim the mitigating
danger. circumstances of immediate vindication of a grave
offense and sudden impulse of passion and
SC: For a bolo to produce imminent and immediate
obfuscation. This to lower the imposable penalty.
danger, it must be held in a hacking position. Only
then that it will produce unlawful aggression. A tried to stab B. B evaded the blow. In the course of said
struggle, B gained possession of the bolo or gun and fired
In the example, B was only walking with a gun on his
at A. A died. There was no self-defense. Even if the
hand and it was not yet pointed or aimed to the
unlawful aggression was started by A, the moment B
offender. Therefore, there was no unlawful
gained possession of the bolo or gun, the unlawful
aggression.
aggression has already ceased to exist. There was no more
If there is no unlawful aggression, that means that two danger on the life of B. so when B fired, it was not an act of
is not present. Although three would be present retaliation which is justifying circumstance.
because there was sufficient provocation on the part
Q: A woman was on her way home. Suddenly a man
of the B.
appeared, boxed her, dragged her on a portion of a vacant
Therefore, A should be convicted of homicide. Self- lot, boxed her again, pinned her down, undressed her.
defense would not lie in his favor. When the man stood up to undressed himself, the woman
took the moment to get the balisong in her bag. When the
People v. Regalario
man placed himself on top of the woman, the woman
The moment the inceptive unlawful aggression cease to stabbed the man. The man died. Prosecuted for homicide,
exist, the person defending himself must not kill or wound the woman invoked self-defense particularly defense of
the aggressor. Retaliation is not a justifying circumstance. ones honor and chastity. Is there self-defense?
The offended party or the victim, Roland shot allegedly the A: First, unlawful aggression. Was there unlawful
barangay official Ramon. Ramon hit the back of the head aggression? Yes, the man boxed her, dragged her,
of Roland with an ice pick and continued hitting him so he undressed her, pinned her down. This is unlawful
would not gain balance. When the accused hit the victim aggression sufficient to mean that she would be raped.
whatever inceptive unlawful aggression has been started Second, reasonable necessity of the means employed
by the victim, it has already ceased to exist. Therefore, the to prevent or repel the aggression. The man was
accused has no more right to wound or kill the victim. unarmed.
In the cases of People v. Regalario, People v. Is it reasonably necessary for the woman to make use
Fontanilla, dela Cruz v. People, Supreme Court said of the balisong?
that the moment unlawful aggression commenced by the
Yes, because of the factors to be considered. Although
victim has ceased to exist, the accused had no more right
the said man has no arms, you must take into
to kill the victim because otherwise, he becomes the
consideration of the personal circumstances of the
unlawful aggressor because what he will be doing is an act
woman versus that of the man, the physical
of retaliation.
circumstances. Likewise, you must take into
Q: Same reasoning in the case where the Neighbor had consideration the place and the occasion. It was 3
sexual intercourse with the Wife when the Husband left to o'clock in the morning, nobody could give help to the
go fishing. The W allowed it thinking he was her H but woman. The only means she could do to help herself
when the N finished, dressed himself up and he told the W, and prevent the act of rape would be to stab the man.
"Osang, salamat!. " Upon hearing the voice, the W realized
The second element is present.
that he is not her H so she immediately jumped out of the
bed, took the bolo and hacked the N. The N died. Third, lack of sufficient provocation. It is present. The
Prosecuted for homicide. She invoked self-defense, woman was merely walking on her way home.
particularly defense of honor and chastity. Was there self- Absolutely there was no sufficient provocation coming
defense? If you were the judge, would you convict or acquit from the woman. Therefore, the woman was justified
the accused? in killing the man. She acted in self defense.
A: There was no self-defense. The unlawful Q: When the father went home, his son was crying. When
aggression already ceased to exist because the sexual he was asked by his father why he was crying, he said he
congress was already finished. There was no more was slapped by the neighbor. When he was asked why he
honor to protect. was slapped, the son did not answer. The father decided to

inquire from the neighbor why he slapped his son. Such II. DEFENSE OF A RELATIVE
inquiry angered the neighbor. The neighbor who was at
In defense of the person or rights of his:
that time was gardening tried to hit the father with a rake
that he was using for gardening. The first blow and the 1. spouse
second blow were evaded. The neighbor tried to hit again 2. ascendants
the father for the third time, the father saw a pointed stick 3. descendants
on the ground, took it and stabbed the neighbor. The 4. legitimate, natural, or adopted brothers & sisters
neighbor suffered a fatal wound, brought to the hospital 5. relative by affinity of the same degree or by
and survived. The father was prosecuted for frustrated consanguinity within the 4th civil degree
homicide. He invoked self-defense. Is there self-defense?
Elements:
A: First, there was unlawful aggression. The neighbor
1. Unlawful aggression;
tried to hit him with a rake 3 times. There was an
image of danger from his life. Second, reasonable 2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel prevent or repel it;
the aggression. The father went to the house of the
3. In case the provocation was given by the person
neighbor without any arms and at the time he was
attacked, the one making the defense had no part
attacked, he just saw a pointed stick. That is the only
therein.
means that he could avail at the moment to protect
himself. Therefore it was reasonably necessary to use Even if the relative, who was defended by the
the said means. offender, was the one provoked the offended party, as
long as the relative making the defense is not a party
Third, lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
to the provocation, there’s still could be a valid and
person defending himself. The act of the father
legitimate defense of a relative.
inquiring from the neighbor why he slapped his son
was an act within his right. It cannot be considered as III. DEFENSE OF A STRANGER
sufficient provocation. It is the right of the father to
Elements:
know why his son was hurt or injured by the neighbor.
1. Unlawful aggression;
Toledo v. People
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
There is no such thing as accidental self- prevent or repel the unlawful aggression;
defense. An accused cannot invoke self-defense and 3. The person defending is not induced by
accident at the same time as means of defenses revenge, resentment, or motive.
because the two are inconsistent with each other.
The third element requires that the said offender must be
When you say accident, it means that the offender was
disinterested and not induced by revenge, resentment or
performing a lawful act but outside the sway of things,
any other evil motive, otherwise, defense of a stranger will
he committed an act against his will without fault or
not lie.
negligence on his part. In self-defense, it is deliberate
and positive overt act on the part of the person For defense of a stranger to lie, it is necessary that the
defending himself, in the name of self-preservation. offender is ignited solely by a noble and disinterested
The offender killed the victim so as to preserve his motive of helping a total stranger.
own life. Here, the offender knowingly and willfully
Q: What if one night, A and B were on board a jeepney.
killed the victim for self-preservation. He had to kill
Said jeepney was flagged down by X. Upon reaching a dark
the victim because otherwise, he himself will be killed.
portion of the street, X pulled a balisong and declared a
It is direct and positive. It cannot be done out of
hold-up. X poked A with his balisong and said “give me
negligence. Therefore, it is inconsistent with accident.
your cellphone”. A did not want to give her cellphone to X.
The reason behind self-defense: stand ground when in the X was about to stab A when B, upon seeing that the latter
right. Stand ground in the right means that where the said was about to stab B, immediately kicked X out of the
accused is where he should be and his assailant is fast jeepney. X, who fell from the jeepney suffered physical
approaching with a weapon, the law does not require him injuries. B was prosecuted for serious physical injuries. B
to retreat because the moment he retreats he runs the risk invoked defense of a stranger.
of being stabbed at the back.
A: We should go by the elements:
First, unlawful aggression is present. X was about to
stab A because A did not want to give her CP.

Second, there was reasonable necessity of the means the life of the mother or the foetus. Therefore the
employed to prevent or repel said aggression. B was doctor should be absolved from criminal liability.
unarmed. All that he did was he kicked X out of the
Q: X was driving in EDSA, within LTO rules and
jeepney. It was necessary for him to do said act in
regulations, when suddenly, there appears a big 6-wheeler
order for him to prevent the aggression
truck with no light saying that it was under repair. It was
Third, the offender was not induced by revenge, already in front of it. If he would go on, his car would
resentment, or motive because in the problem, there collide, he will die. If he will turn to the right, he will be
was no showing that B knows X, so it cannot be said hitting three persons standing, if he will turn to the left, he
that B is induced by any motive. will be hitting an island and it will cause death. He turned
to the right, hitting three persons. These three persons
IV. STATE OF NECESSITY
were seriously injured. X was charged with reckless
Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or an imprudence resulting in multiple physical injuries. X said
injury, does an act which causes damage to that he acted in state of necessity. Are all the elements
another provided the following elements are present for this defense to lie?
present:
A: First, the evil he sought to avoid actually exists –
1. The evil sought to be avoided actually exists the collision between his car and the truck that has no
2. The injury feared be greater than that done to early warning device.
avoid it
Second, that the injury feared be greater than that
3. That there be no other practical or less harmful
done to avoid it – fear of his death is greater than the
means of preventing it
three persons injured because between him and the
DOCTRINE OF STATE OF NECESSITY three persons, his life is more precious.
It is noted that justifying circumstances are exempt Last, that there be no practical or less harmful means
from criminal as well as civil liability. of preventing it.
However, this paragraph of Art. 11 is an exception This is a state of necessity. He was driving within LTO
when it comes to civil liability. Civil liability is born rules and regulations when suddenly, there was this
not only by the accused, but all those people who big truck with no lightning or early warning device.
benefitted in this state of emergence. Under Art. 101
Since all the elements are present, X acted in a state of
of the RPC, “In cases falling within subdivision 4 of
necessity, he incurs no criminal liability. His act is
Art 11, the persons for whose benefit the harm has
justified.
been prevented shall be civilly liable in proportion to
the benefit which they may have received. However, there is civil liability which shall be borne
by the persons who had benefited from the act. In this
Q: A pregnant woman met an accident. She was
case, he was the only person benefited. Therefore, he
immediately brought to the hospital. Because of the said
shall borne the civil indemnity.
dire situation, the doctor who was in charge of the
pregnant woman has to make a decision that is to save Q: What if on a taxi a family was on board? Said taxi was
only one life, either the life of the woman or the baby that traversing ESDA during nighttime. Suddenly, without any
she is carrying. The doctor chose to save the life of the warning, a truck appeared in front of him. If he would go
woman. Because of that, the foetus died. Prosecuted for forward, he would be hitting the buses. If he swerved to
abortion, the doctor invoked the doctrine of state of the right, he would be hitting bystanders. If he swerved to
necessity. Can his defense lie? the left, he would hit a store. So the taxi driver chose to
swerve to the left, hit the store thereby causing damage.
A: Yes. First, that the evil sought to be avoided
Prosecuted for reckless imprudence resulting to damage to
actually exists. In this case, the life of the baby and the
property, the taxi driver involved the 4th justifying
mother is in danger
circumstances. Can he invoke state of necessity?
Second, that the injury feared be greater than that to
A: No.
avoid it; the injury (death of the pregnant woman) is
greater than that of the death of the fetus. First, that the evil sought to be avoided actually exists
– there was a collision
Third, that there be no other practical and less
harmful means of preventing it. The situation was an Second, that the injury feared be greater than
emergency. The woman had no relatives with her so that to avoid it – there would be death or injury.
the doctor has to decide immediately—either to save

Third, that there be no other practical and less The problem with the hold-upper – look at what X did, he
harmful means of preventing it – Yes only fired at the leg of the hold-upper to prevent Y from
running so that X will be able to get back his things. But
However, this time the taxi driver would be liable.
here, the police officers could have fired just one shot.
Aside from these 3 requisites stated by the law, it
Firing several shots, inflicting several fatal wounds, this
should be added that the necessity must not be
would immediately rule out an act of self-defense.
due to the negligence or violation of the law by
the actor. In this case, there was a warning to the They are not also acting in the fulfillment of their duty.
taxi driver not to enter the street, yet he proceeded. It The police are numerous. They could have arrested the
is through his negligence that caused the state of drug pusher or the drug addict, instead of firing shots.
necessity, therefore he is criminally and civilly liable.
Therefore, these are not valid defenses in case of raids,
V. PERFORMANCE OF A DUTY especially in tokhang because in tokhang, there is no
search warrant. There’s so much violation of due process.
Any person who acts in a fulfillment of a duty or in the
They could not even be heard by court.
lawful exercise of a right or office
Q: X is a convict in the New Bilibid Prison. During an
Elements:
opportunity X escaped. Prison guards learned of it and
1. Accused acted in the due performance of a duty sought the assistance of the police. They followed X. He
or in the lawful exercise of a right or office. went to the public market because he saw the guards and
policemen following him. X took a child as a hostage and
2. The resulting felony is an unavoidable
pointed an icepick at the neck of the child. He told them
consequence of the due performance of his duty
that if they would come near he would attack the child.
or the lawful exercise of such right or office
The child sensing that his life is in danger started to cry.
In this situation, it is necessary that the offender must be The convict was annoyed by the crying and tried to attack
in the actual performance of his duty, then a felony the child with the icepick. Policeman shot the prisoner. He
resulted. If this resulting felony is an unavoidable died. The police officer was prosecuted for the crime of
consequence of the due performance of his duty, then his homicide. As his defense, he acted in the lawful
act is justified. He incurs no civil or criminal liability. performance of duty. Was he right?
VI. OBEDIENCE TO AN ORDER A: First element: the police officer acted in the
performance of his duty. He had an order to arrest
Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a
and bring back to prison the prisoner.
superior for some lawful purpose.
Second element: it is a necessary consequence of the
Elements:
due performance of his duty. He was preventing the
1. An order has been issued by a superior danger posed by the imminent attack against the boy.
2. Such order must be for some lawful purpose
He should be acquitted.
3. Means used by the subordinate to carry out
said order is lawful Note that the injury is the necessary consequence of
the lawful exercise of duty
Here, it is not only necessary that the order coming from
the superior must be lawful, it is also necessary that the Q: What if a warrant of arrest was issued by the court
means used by the subordinate to carry out the order given against X. The chief of police handed the warrant to a
by the superior must also be lawful. Otherwise, this group of police and instructed them to arrest X, and if X
justifying circumstance will not lie in favor of the accused. would refuse to be arrested, they can immobilize X. So the
group headed by Police Officer Y received an information
This is the common defense of General Bato. He always
that X lived in a certain province. Police Officer Y, together
states this in national television. For every tokhang, the
with his group went to said province and was able to verify
drug addict or pusher will always be found lying on the
that X actually lived there. Police Officer Y thereafter went
floor. His defense was the drug addict or pusher put up a
to the location of X. Police Officer Y, upon seeing X who
fight because of which, we fired at him. We were acting in
was at that time was cultivating the soil, immediately fired
self-defense and in the fulfillment of our duty. Are these
at X. Thereafter, X dies. Prosecuted for murder, Police
defenses valid? You see these persons lying on the ground
Officer Y invoked two justifying circumstances: lawful duty
with five, ten gunshot wounds all over their body. By the
and acted in obedience to a lawful order.
mere number of wounds inflicted on the victim, it cannot
be an act of self-defense.

A: Elements: should be proven is that the wife is suffering from

battered woman syndrome. It is through the expert
In performance of a lawful duty
testimony of the psychiatrist who will prove that the
1st element: Accused acted in the performance of a wife is suffering from battered woman syndrome. If
duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office. this is proven, she is absolved from criminal and civil
liability.
Yes, it is present. Accused acted in the performance of
his duty. He was ordered to arrest X by the chief of People v. Genosa
police by virtue of the warrant of arrest issued by the
The wife was prosecuted for parricide. However, in this
court
case, RA 9262 was not yet enacted, so the wife was
2nd element: Injury caused or offense committed be convicted for parricide, but she was entitled to mitigating
the necessary consequence of the due performance of circumstances.
duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office.
RA 9262 Section 26
No. Said element is absent. The killing of X is not
Victim survivors who are found by the court to be suffering
necessary in the performance of his duty.
from battered woman syndrome do not incur any criminal
Therefore, it cannot exempt him for liability. liability nor civil liability notwithstanding the absence of
any justifying circumstances.
Q: How about obedience to a lawful order?
A: 1st element: An order has been issued by a But before the court may acquit the accused by reason of
superior Yes, it is a lawful order by his superior. The battered woman syndrome, there must be the presentation
order was arrest and immobilize X if he refuses to be of expert witnesses. There must be testimonies coming
arrested from psychiatrists or psychologists that at the time of
commission, the victim was indeed suffering from battered
2nd element: Such order must be for some lawful woman syndrome. Courts or judges cannot by themselves
purpose. Yes, he was ordered to arrest X by virtue of a determine if indeed the woman was suffering battered
warrant of arrest. woman syndrome.
3rd: Means used by the subordinate to carry out said
order is lawful The 3rd element is absent in this case. Q: A and B are husband and wife. They had been living for
The means employed is not present. The means 12 years. In the course of their relationship, A would be hit
employed by Police Officer Y, where his order was by B for every minor mistake that she commits. The wife
arrest and in case of resistance is to immobilize X was would always suffer physical injuries and would often go to
not performed. her psychiatrist. One time, the husband arrived home and
drunk. This time, he did not beat his wife, but immediately
Anti-Violence against Women and their Children went to the bedroom and slept. The wife took this
Act of 2004 (R.A. 9262) opportunity to kill her husband. She took a bolo and
hacked her sleeping husband. Upon seeing her husband
BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME
dead, she wrapped him with their blanket. Thereafter, she
Battered woman took her children and left the house. After some time, the
neighbors of the husband and wife noticed a foul smell
She is woman who is repeatedly subjected to any
coming from the house. When they opened the house, they
forceful physical or psychological behavior by a man
saw the body of the husband. The wife was prosecuted for
in order to coerce her to do something he wants her to
parricide. If you were the counsel, what will be your
do without concern for her rights. Battered women
defense?
includes wives or women in any form of intimate
relationship with men. Furthermore, in order to be A: You can have the defense of the Battered Woman
classified as a battered woman, the couple must go Syndrome.
through the battering cycle at least twice. Any woman
may find herself in an abusive relationship with a man Q: X and Y are married. It was blissful until X lost his job.
He stayed home but every night he went out to drink with
once. If it occurs a second time, and she remains in
his friends. When he comes home at night, he would
the situation, she is defined as a battered woman.
verbally abuse the wife – scold her, uttering bad words,
➢ The battered woman syndrome is akin to justifying. It humiliating her. After verbally abusing the wife, he would
is even better that self-defense because in self- fall asleep. This happens for months. One night, the
defense, you have to prove that the elements are husband verbally abused the wife then slapped her
present. However, in battered woman syndrome, what repeatedly. After, X fell asleep. The following morning,

when he saw the contusions, he asked for forgiveness Y was asleep when Y hacked him to death, there was no
and promised that it will never happen. However, after a unlawful aggression coming from the husband, still,
week, he drank again and verbally abused his wife. Then considering that this woman was suffering from
he fell asleep. The wife, looking at the husband’s sleeping battered woman syndrome, she shall be acquitted.
form became afraid that he will wake up and verbally
Provided, under Section 26 of the same law, that if
abuse her. She went to the kitchen and got a knife and
indeed, the woman was suffering from battered
stabbed the husband with it causing his death. She
woman syndrome at the commission of the crime,
surrendered and was thereafter prosecuted for parricide.
there must be expert testimony coming from
She invokes the battered woman syndrome as a defense.
psychiatrist and psychologist.
Will it lie?
Battered woman syndrome is akin to a justifying
A: The defense will not lie. Battered Woman
circumstance – no civil and criminal liability shall be
Syndrome is a scientifically defined pattern of
incurred by the woman.
psychological and behavior symptoms found in
women living in battering relationship as a result of
cumulative abuse.
Under Section 3 of RA 9262, battery has been defined
as an act of inflicting physical harm upon the woman
or her child that will cause physical, psychological, or
emotional distress. Therefore, in order to amount to
battery, there must be infliction of physical harm.
Mere verbal abuse will not suffice. The Supreme Court
has ruled that there must be two cycles of battery –
two cycles of physical harm or battery. In the problem,
there is only one instance where X physically abused
Y. All other abuses were done verbally. Hence,
Battered Woman Syndrome will not lie as a defense in
favor of Y. She shall be convicted as charged of the
crime parricide but she is entitled to mitigating
circumstances.
Q: X and Y had been married for ten years. During those
ten years, the husband had always been beating the wife.
Whenever he comes home, he would always beat his wife
that the wife talked to the psychologist. One time X came
home and upon seeing the wife, he physically abused the
wife. While he was sleeping, the woman saw him and
became afraid that the moment he wakes up, he would
again beat her. So she took a bolo and hacked the husband
causing is death. She surrender and subsequently being
prosecuted for parricide. Will the defense of Battered
Woman Syndrome lie in her favor?
A: Yes. Y had been subjected to cycles of battery not
only one, not only twice but many times during their
ten years of marriage. All that the law requires is a
cycle of two batteries. Here, for ten years, he had been
physically abusing her. Therefore the woman shall be
acquitted because she is suffering from Battered
Woman Syndrome.
Under Section 26 of RA 9262, the law provides that
victims-survivors found by the court to be suffering
battered woman syndrome do not incur any criminal
liability or civil liability notwithstanding the absence
of the elements of self-defense. So even if the husband

Art. 12. Circumstances which exempt from intelligence. Therefore, he is free from criminal
criminal liability. — the following are exempt from liability but since a wrong is done, he is civilly
criminal liability: liable as a general rule.
I. IMBECILITY AND INSANITY
1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless
the latter has acted during a lucid interval. Imbecile
When the imbecile or an insane person
➢ when he performs a wrongful act, he acted
has committed an act which the law
without intelligence (mental capacity of a child
defines as a felony (delito), the court shall
between the age of 2 to 7)
order his confinement in one of the
➢ One who is already advance in age but he has
hospitals or asylums established for
only the mental thinking of a 2- 7 year old child,
persons thus afflicted, which he shall not
therefore if he committed a crime, he acted
be permitted to leave without first
without intelligence – an element of
obtaining the permission of the same
voluntariness, he is exempted from criminal
court.
liability.
2. A person under nine years of age.
➢ Imbecility is exempting under all circumstances.
3. A person over nine years of age and under
No lucid interval in imbecility unlike insanity
fifteen, unless he has acted with
discernment, in which case, such minor Insane
shall be proceeded against in accordance
➢ The offender is totally deprived of reason. He
with the provisions of Art. 80 of this Code.
cannot appreciate the consequence of his act
When such minor is adjudged to be
(could not distinguish right from wrong)
criminally irresponsible, the court, in
➢ Not exempting under all and any circumstances.
conformably with the provisions of this
The law says he is exempted unless he acted in
and the preceding paragraph, shall
lucid interval, therefore if he acted in lucid
commit him to the care and custody of his
interval, he becomes criminally liable for the
family who shall be charged with his
crime committed.
surveillance and education otherwise, he
shall be committed to the care of some Insanity and imbecility, to be exempting, must be present
institution or person mentioned in said immediately prior to or during the commission of the
Art. 80. crime NOT after. If he becomes insane or imbecile after
4. Any person who, while performing a the commission of the crime he becomes liable criminally
lawful act with due care, causes an injury and will be prosecuted. Only, he will not be placed behind
by mere accident without fault or bars, instead, he shall be places in a mental institution. He
intention of causing it. can only be placed behind bars when he regained his
5. Any person who act under the compulsion sanity except when the crime has already prescribed.
of irresistible force.
Q: What if A killed B. A stated that a week prior to the
6. Any person who acts under the impulse of
killing, he could not sleep and there was a voice that kept
an uncontrollable fear of an equal or
nagging him, “Kill B, kill B.” And so he killed B, so he
greater injury.
followed the voice. He pleaded guilty but his defense was
7. Any person who fails to perform an act
insanity.
required by law, when prevented by some
lawful insuperable cause.
A: The Supreme Court ruled that he is not insane.
Mere mental disturbance, mere craziness is not the
Exempting Circumstances
insanity contemplated by the law. It is the insanity
➢ Those circumstances if present or attendant in which would deprive the offender the capacity to
the commission of a felony would serve to exempt distinguish right from wrong and the consequences of
the offender from criminal liability but not from his act.
civil liability.
➢ Although a wrong is committed, the offender is In an old case, sleep walking or somnambulism is also
exempted from criminal liability because he acted considered as akin to insanity. He did not know what he
without voluntariness. There is absence of any of was doing at that time when he killed the victim.
the elements of voluntariness. There is absence of Therefore, there is no criminal liability.
either criminal intent or freedom of action or

II AND III. MINORITY regular penal institution, in an agricultural camp and

other training facilities that may be established,
The effect of minority on the criminal liability would
maintained, supervised and controlled by the BUCOR,
depend on the age of the minor offender.
in coordination with the DSWD.
If the child in conflict with the law is age 15 years
X was arrested for committing a crime, he was 17 at the
or below
time. Based on investigation, he acted with discernment
➢ He is totally exempted regardless whether he and so he was prosecuted. After trial on the merits, the
acted with discernment or not. So if 15 or below, judge convicted him. After conviction, the judge must fully
do not anymore look for discernment. Just by the state or pronounce the civil liability arising from and based
fact that he is 15 or below, he is totally exempted. solely on the crime committed. There shall be no
pronouncement of his guilt. Instead, the judge shall place
If the child in conflict with the law is over 15 but
him under suspended sentence without need of
less than 15
application so long as he is a minor at the time of the
➢ Look into the facts of the problem whether he commission of the crime even if at the time of
acted with discernment or not. promulgation of judgment, he is no longer a minor.
➢ If without discernment, he is totally exempted However, the suspended sentence has an age limit. Under
from criminal liability Section 40, the juvenile or minor offender can only be
➢ If acted with discernment, he shall be prosecuted given a suspended sentence until he reaches the age of 21.
in court. Therefore, the moment the offender is beyond 21, he can
no longer be given a suspended sentence.
Effect of conviction if the child in conflict with the
law over 15 but under 18 acted with discernment: People v. Sarcia and People v. Mantalaba
➢ It will be considered as a privileged mitigating Offenders are both minors at the time of the commission
circumstance of the crime. They committed heinous crimes. Sarcia for
➢ Minority, if not exempting, is always a privilege rape. Mantalaba for illegal sale of dangerous drugs. While
mitigating circumstance – you have to lower the their cases were under review by the Supreme Court, RA
imposable penalty by one degree because under 9344 took into effect.
Article 68 of the RPC provides that if the minor
Can the provisions of RA 9344 be given retroactive effect?
is over 15 but below 18, the penalty shall be one
degree lower from the penalty prescribed by law SC said yes. Because it is expressly provided in the
in its proper period. law. Under Section 68 of RA 9344, those who are
already convicted and serving sentence shall be given
Under sec. 38 of RA 9344, once the child who is under 18
retroactive application of the law. Sarcia and
years of age at the time of the commission of the crime was
Mantalaba’s cases were still under review, there was
found guilty of the offense charged the court shall
still no final judgment, therefore the more that the law
determine and ascertain any civil liability which may have
applies to them.
resulted from the offense committed. Instead the court
shall place the child in conflict with the law under Does it apply even in cases of heinous crimes?
suspended sentence, without need of application even if he
SC said that even if the crime is a heinous one, Sarcia
is already 18 or above at the time of the pronouncement of
and Mantalaba are entitled to a suspended sentence.
his guilt. Provided, he is not yet beyond 21 years of age
Section 38 does not distinguish as to the nature of the
(sec. 40).
crime committed. Therefore, even if the crime
SC: section 38 does not distinguish as to what crime was committed is a heinous crime punishable by a lower
committed. Therefore, the court shall also not distinguish. penalty, regardless of its nature, the child in conflict
Provided, his age is not over 21 years. Section 51 is the only with the law may be given suspended sentence.
provision that may be given retroactive application to the
Can they be given suspended sentence although at the
accused. So he need not be placed in prisons but instead in
time that the cases were being reviewed by the SC, Sarcia
agricultural camps, etc.
was already 31 while Mantalaba was already 25?
SEC. 51. Confinement of Convicted Children in
SC said that they cannot be given suspended sentence
Agricultural Camps and other Training
because of their age. They are way beyond the
Facilities. - A child in conflict with the law may,
maximum limit of 21 years old.
after conviction and upon order of the court, be made
to serve his/her sentence, in lieu of confinement in a What is the proper penalty to be given to them?

Section 51. Instead of serving their sentence in a Therefore, accident will lie which will exempt him
regular penal institution with hardened criminals, from criminal liability.
they can serve their sentence in agricultural camps
Q: X went to the forest. In the said forest, hunting birds is
and other training facilities established by Bureau of
allowed. He was going to hunt birds in the forest. He
Corrections in coordination with the DSWD.
forgot his rifle so he passed by a nipa hut to borrow a rifle.
People v. Gambao He was given an armalite. He went back to the forest and
in the middle of the forest, he saw birds so he pulled out
SC said that even if at the time of the promulgation of
the said armalite and fired at the birds. But a bullet hit a
judgment, the offender is already 30 or 60 or 50 years
stone and the stone flew hitting Y, one of those manning
old, as long as he was a minor at the time of the
the forest. Y died. X was arrested and prosecuted for
commission of the crime, he need not serve his
reckless imprudence resulting to homicide. X said he
sentence in a regular penal institution but in
cannot be held liable because it was merely an accident.
agrictultural camps and training centers.
Will the EC of accident lie in his favor?
IV. ACCIDENT
A: No, there was no accident and he should be held
Elements: liable for reckless imprudence resulting to homicide.
The first element, he was performing a lawful act.
1. Offender is performing a lawful act
Hunting was allowed and he went there precisely to
2. He was performing the lawful act with due care
hunt birds. Second, he must be performing a lawful
2. He causes injury to another by mere accident
act with due care. This element is absent because in
3. The injury is without fault or intent on the part of
hunting birds, even if allowed, you do not use armalite
the offender
to hunt birds.
➢ Even if the actor is performing a lawful act but there Even if a person is performing a lawful act, if he does not
was no due care, the offender is liable for a culpable do so with due care, he would be held criminally liable for
felony – reckless imprudence, simple imprudence, a culpable felony (negligence on the part of accused).
simple negligence because, even if he is performing a
Q: X tried to hack Y. Y evaded the blow. When X tried to
lawful act, he did not do so with due care, there is
hack Y again, they grappled for the possession of the said
negligence
bolo. Y with all his might tried to obtain possession of the
➢ There is both no criminal and civil liability. There is
bolo and he did. However, the tip of the bolo hit C, who
no civil liability just like in justifying circumstance
was at the back of Y. C unknown to Y was at the back. C
because, in the first place, the offender was
obtained a fatal wound but survived. So Y was prosecuted
performing a lawful act.
for frustrated homicide. He said it was purely an accident.
Q: X went to a public marker and saw his brother Will accident as an EC lie in favor of Y?
engaging in a fight against D. D was about to hack X’s
A: Y was performing a lawful act, he was trying to
brother at the back. Upon seeing this, X immediately
defend himself so he was trying to get the bolo from X
kicked the man and because of the impact, the man fell on
who was trying to hack him. Was he performing it
a vendor who was pinned down, hitting the pavement. The
with due care? There is no other way to get that bolo
vendor died. X was charged with homicide. Can X invoke
but to wrestle for its possession. He was performing it
accident as a defense?
with due care. The injury was caused by accident. He
A: Going by the elements, first, X was performing a did not know that C was passing by. There was no
lawful act – he was defending his brother. His brother intent or fault on the part of Y so he is not civilly and
was about to be hacked to death. X acted in defense of criminally liable.
his brother
Police officer firing shots in the air as warning shots
Second, there was due care in performing such lawful
➢ Not considered as performance of a lawful act
act. He merely kicked D. That was the best thing that
with due care. A police officer should not fire
he could do at the time since D was at the point of
shots in the air while chasing hold-uppers,
hacking his brother.
snatchers, criminals because any stray bullet
Third, he caused the injury by mere accident because could hit an innocent person. The exempting
there was no intent on the part of X to injure or kill circumstance would not lie.
the vendor.

V. IRRESISTIBLE FORCE uncontrollable fear and irresistible force. Will he be

exempted? Was there a physical force employed on him?
Elements:
Was the physical force irresistible and did it come from a
1. The compulsion is by physical force third person?
2. Physical force must be irresistible A: The said physical force was irresistible that he
3. Physical force must come from a third person would be killed is irresistible. He knew that the
employee was shot and he too can be shot. And it
➢ It is necessary that the physical force is employed comes from a third person
on the doer of the act, the accused, and because of
this irresistible physical force, he has no recourse Likewise, there was uncontrollable fear. All the
but to do the criminal act. elements were present. The bank robber already shot
➢ It is irresistible force when the accused is reduced the employee and he too could be shot. The fear is real
as a mere instrument, that he is not acting in his and imminent and it is not in the future, it is in the
will. Therefore, if he is acting against his will, present. It is about to happen. And the fear for his life
voluntariness is absent. is greater than all the money in that vault. Therefore,
he is exempt.
VI. UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR Q: What if in the same problem, the head of the robbers
Elements: told the manager instead, “Open the vault or else we will
kill your entire family.”? Afraid, the managers opened the
1. Existence of an uncontrollable fear vault and the robbers took the money. Later, he was
2. Fear must be real and imminent arrested with the said robbers charged with robbery. His
3. Fear of an injury is greater than or equal to that defense was he acted under the impulse of uncontrollable
committed fear of equal or greater injury. Will it lie?
➢ The fear is uncontrollable when it has reduced
A: Uncontrollable fear – fear of losing his entire
the actor to a mere instrument in such a way that
family is sufficient to reduce him as a mere
he not only acted without will but also against his
instrument.
will.
➢ Real or imminent – the fear must be happening Second, the fear is imminent or real – this element is
or about to happen. If it is a mere speculative absent in the case. It is not real, it is not imminent
fear, this circumstance would not lie because the members of his family were not in the
bank. Therefore before the robbers could kill his
BASIS OF PARAGRAPH 5 and 6
family, they still need to get out of the bank. Hence,
➢ the basis of both would be lack of freedom of the fear was not real, it was not even imminent – it
action – an element of voluntariness. There must was not about to happen. The second element being
be totally no freedom of choice. If although there absent, the defense will not lie in favor of the
is uncontrollable fear or irresistible force, if he manager, he has to be convicted as charged.
still has a choice, these circumstances will not lie.
Q: A farmer and his carabao was on his way home. On his
Q: Five robbers entered a bank and they told the way home, he heard gun shots, so he went to the place
employees to lie on the floor. One of the bank robbers was where he heard the gun shots. He hid behind a tree and
guarding the employees. Then a robber took hold of an saw two men shooting X. X way already lying on the
employee and placed him before the bank manager. He ground. The farmer was so shocked and afraid that he
threated the general manager that he will shoot the tried to leave the place. However, when he was about to
employee if he does not open the vault. Only the manager leave, he stepped on the dried leaves and caused a noise.
knew the combination of the said vault. The manager did The two men saw him. One of the men pointed the gun at
not believe so he did not open the vault. A who was true to the farmer and told him to come near them. Afraid for his
his word shot the employee who immediately died. He life, the farmer obeyed. The men, pointing the gun at the
then pointed the gun to the manager and said that if he did farmer told him to bury X lying on the ground. The farmer
not open the vault, the next bullet would be on his head. said, “No, I don’t want to.” “If you will not bury X, we will
Afraid, the manger opened the said vault and the robbers shoot you”, said one of the men. The farmer was so afraid
were able to take all the money. The robbers escaped but and so he dug the ground and buried X. Is the farmer
were later apprehended. The manager was arrested and criminally liable together with the two men?
charged as a principal by indispensable cooperation.
A: Let’s go by the elements
Manager however said that he acted based on

1st Existence of an uncontrollable fear killing of X. So his fear is not real imminent.
Imaginative not present.
There was an uncontrollable fear. The farmer saw that
the two men shot X. If the two men can shoot X, they This happened in the case of Vicky Ty. She was
can also shoot him. accused of issuing bouncing checks. Vicky Ty’s
defense was that she feared that her ailing mother
Therefore, there was an uncontrollable fear
who was confined in the hospital would commit
2nd: Fear must be real and suicide because of the hospital’s ill treatment. So she
imminent It was present. was compelled to issue unfunded checks for her
And the fear was present. mother to be discharged. In this case, yes there is an
uncontrollable fear. However, her fear was not real
3rd Fear of an injury is greater than or equal to that
and imminent. It is mere imaginative, speculative. It
committed It was also present; his fear for his life
is not now, or not present.
satisfies this element. His life is more important.
Q: How about state of necessity?
Therefore all the elements are present, he is not liable
A: Let us go to the elements:
Q: In the same problem - “If you will not bury X, we will
shoot and kill your carabao”. The farmer was so afraid. His That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists
carabao was his only means of living. And so, he buried X.
Is the threat of the mother actually exist? No, because
Is he criminally liable together with the two men?
the threat is in the future. Therefore state of necessity
A: 1st: Existence of an uncontrollable fear is not present. The Supreme Court ruled that she was
not in state of necessity. Because she has several
There was an uncontrollable fear, it is real and
jewelries. She could have sold the jewelries to pay for
imminent. The farmer saw that the two men shot X. If
the hospital expenses
the two men can shoot X, they can also shoot the
carabao. Therefore, there was an uncontrollable fear
2nd: Fear must be real and imminent VII. LAWFUL AND INSUPERABLE CAUSE
It was present. Fear was present in this case, as the ➢ This is based on omission. Here the offender is
men will shoot his carabao, his only means of living. required by law to perform an act but was
prevented by some lawful insuperable cause.
3rd Fear of an injury is greater than or equal to that
➢ Here, there is both no criminal and civil liability.
committed The third element is wanting. The death of
➢ The law requires the person to require a lawful
the carabao is not equal to or greater than the life of
act, but was prevented because of an insuperable
the human.
cause.
Q: What if in the same problem, the two men told the ➢ Note that it is one of the instances in exempting
farmer that if the farmer will not bury X, they will go to his circumstances that the actor is exempt from both
house, rape his wife, thereafter kill her and his children criminal and civil liability. It is akin to a justifying
and burn his house. His family is the most important circumstance because what prevented the offender
people in his life. Therefore, he was constrained to bury X. from performing a lawful act is a lawful cause.
is he criminally liable?
Elements:
A: 1st Existence of an uncontrollable fear 1. An act is required by law to be done.
2. A person fails to perform such act.
Yes, it is present. Imagine, his wife would be raped,
3. Failure to perform such act was due to some
his children would be killed and his house would be
lawful or insuperable cause.
burned. Poor farmer.
2nd: Fear must be real and imminent Q: Officers arresting the accused in the actual act of
committing a crime in any of the instances under a valid
The 2nd element is not present. The fear is not
warrantless arrest are required to file the case within 12 or
present. It is in the future, speculative. Imagine, the
36 hours before the office of the public prosecutor.
two men would still have to go to the house of the
However, the police officers failed to comply because of an
farmer and look for his wife and children. By that
insuperable cause. Waters or a river were in between their
time, the farmer had already gone to his house and
place and the office of the public prosecutor and there was
warned his family. He could also have reported the
typhoon therefore the waters were high and they were not

able to file the case within the prescriptive period required.

Can they be held liable for arbitrary detention?
A: They cannot be held liable for arbitrary detention
because they have a reason for not complying with the
law since there was a storm that caused high waters.
The defense of lawful and insuperable cause will lie in
their favor.
Q: For example, there is a war in which the Philippines is
involved. A, B, and C conspired to commit treason against
the government. A, one of the conspirators went to the
priest and confided to the priest that there was conspiracy
between B and C to commit treason against the
government. Despite knowledge on the conspiracy to
commit treason, the priest did not immediately divulge it
to the police.
A: Under Art 116, the priest is criminally liable for
misprision of treason, for not divulging the conspiracy
to commit treason. However, the priest failed to
perform such act due to a lawful cause. Under your
rules on evidence, a confession made to a priest is
considered as a privileged communication. Therefore
the priest does not incur any criminal liability.
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE v. EXEMPTING
CIRCYMSTANCES
Justifying Exempting
Circumstance Circumstance
Affect the act not the Affect the doer of the act
doer but not the act itself
Perform an act which is A wrong has been

lawful in nature committed
There is no crime and no There is a crime but no

criminal criminal because offender
acted without
voluntariness
GR: No criminal liability GR: No criminal liability

and no civil liability but with civil liability
because a crime has
indeed been committed
May be a defense only in Defense both in

intentional felonies intentional and culpable
felonies

CHAPTER THREE: CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH 10. And, finally, any other circumstances of a
MITIGATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY similar nature and analogous to those
above mentioned.
Article 13.Mitigating circumstances. - The
following are mitigating circumstances;
Mitigating Circumstances
1. Those mentioned in the preceding ➢ Are those circumstances which if present or
chapter, when all the requisites necessary attendant in the commission of a felony would
to justify or to exempt from criminal reduce the imposable penalty because it shows
liability in the respective cases are not lesser perversity or criminality of the offender.
attendant. ➢ There is a lesser criminality on the part of the
offender because the offender acted with the
2. That the offender is under eighteen year of diminution of any of the elements of
age or over seventy years. In the case of voluntariness. There is a diminution on criminal
the minor, he shall be proceeded against intent, freedom of action or intelligence.
in accordance with the provisions of Art. ➢ In exempting, there is a total absence of any of
80. these elements of voluntariness. That’s why the
offender is exempted from criminal liability.
3. That the offender had no intention to ➢ In mitigating circumstances, the offender is of no
commit so grave a wrong as that absence of voluntariness but there is a
committed. diminution in voluntariness because of
diminution in any of the elements of
4. That sufficient provocation or threat on voluntariness – criminal intent, freedom of action
the part of the offended party immediately or intelligence.
preceded the act.
Ordinary Mitigating Privilege Mitigating
5. That the act was committed in the May be offset by generic Cannot be offset
immediate vindication of a grave offense aggravating circumstances
to the one committing the felony (delito),
his spouse, ascendants, or relatives by If not offset, would serve to Lower the impossible
affinity within the same degrees. lower the impossible penalty by one to two
penalty to the minimum degrees depending on the
6. That of having acted upon an impulse so period of the penalty rules on Art. 68 and Art. 69
powerful as naturally to have produced prescribed by law
passion or obfuscation.
7. That the offender had voluntarily I. INCOMPLETE JUSTIFYING OR INCOMPLETE

surrendered himself to a person in EXEMPTING
authority or his agents, or that he had
This is the case when all the elements necessary to justify
voluntarily confessed his guilt before the
the act or to exempt the criminal liability in their
court prior to the presentation of the
respective cases are not attendant. In other words, we have
evidence for the prosecution;
incomplete justifying or exempting circumstances.
8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind
How would you know if an incomplete justifying or
or otherwise suffering some physical
eexempting circumstance should be treated as an
defect which thus restricts his means of
ordinary mitigating or as a privilege mitigating
action, defense, or communications with
circumstance?
his fellow beings.
RULES:
9. Such illness of the offender as would
diminish the exercise of the will-power of 1. If majority of the elements necessary to justify the
the offender without however depriving act or to exempt from liability are present, then
him of the consciousness of his acts. it’s treated as privilege mitigating circumstance.

2. If less than the majority is present, then it is an The 2nd element – that the injury caused is an
ordinary mitigating circumstance which can be unavoidable consequence of the due performance of a
offset by a generic aggravating circumstance. duty. The 2nd element is absent. The act of X in
3. If the elements necessary to justify the act or to shooting the head of A is not a necessary consequence
exempt from criminal liability are only two, the of the due performance of his duty. Therefore, based
presence of one element is already a privilege on the rule that if there are only 2 elements necessary
mitigating circumstance. to justify the act and the presence of 1 is already
considered as the majority and it is considered as a
In case of incomplete self-defense, incomplete defense of a privilege. Therefore, in this case, there is an
relative, incomplete defense of a stranger, there must incomplete fulfillment of duty which is a privilege
always be unlawful aggression in order for the mitigating mitigating circumstance which may lower the
circumstance to mitigate. If only the element of unlawful imposable penalty by degrees not only by period.
aggression is present, the incomplete self-defense should
be treated as an ordinary mitigating circumstance. If aside Q: X was walking when suddenly A, B and C surrounded
from unlawful aggression, another element but not all is him. A, B and C attacked and mauled X until X laid on the
present, it is to be treated as a privilege mitigating ground. X was defeated and so he pulled out an ice pick
circumstance. If all elements are present, then it is a and thereafter he hit A. The ice pick pierced through the
justifying circumstance heart of A. A died instantly. B and C left. X was arrested
and thereafter he was charged in court. If you were the
Q: A was running in a subdivision with a bolo, he was judge that convicted X of homicide, what mitigating
hacking all those he passed by. So the residents called for circumstances may be considered in order to lower the
police assistance. The police arrived headed by police imposable penalty?
officer X. They called on A to put down his weapon but A
A: 1st we have incomplete self-defense. There was
instead of laying down his weapon, advanced towards the
unlawful aggression coming from the said victim. The
police with the bolo in his hands in a hacking position in
victim together with B and C attacked and mauled X
the act of hacking the police officers. So X immediately
until he fell on the ground. The life of the accused was
fired at A. He hit the hands and legs of A. non-fatal
place on imminent danger. The second element was,
wounds. A slam on the ground face facing the ground. At
however, absent. There was reasonable necessity for
that particular moment, X went to A, got his bolo and then
him to use an ice pick hitting the heart of the said
fired shot at the head of A and A died. X was prosecuted
victim. Therefore, unlawful aggression was present
for murder, police officer invoked two justifying
but the reasonable necessity is absent. As for the
circumstances. We have self-defense and fulfillment of
sufficient provocation, there was no sufficient
duty. Is there self-defense or at least incomplete self-
provocation on the part of X. He was merely walking
defense?
when he was attacked. Here of the three elements, two
A: There’s no self-defense because at the time X shot
are present and one of them was unlawful aggression.
the head of A, A was already lying on the ground.
For as long as unlawful aggression was present, there
Whatever inceptive unlawful aggression he has
is incomplete justifying. This would be considered a
commenced, it has ceased to exist from the time the
privilege mitigating circumstance due the presence of
fatal blow was inflicted on him. Therefore, there was
2 out of 3 elements of self-defense.
no unlawful aggression. Since unlawful aggression is
the element that is wanting. There’s no self-defense, Aside from that, you can also consider sufficient
neither is there inc. self-defense. provocation on the part of the offended party. There
was provocation on the part of the offended party and
Second, is there fulfillment of duty or at least inc. the said commission of the crime was immediate to
fulfillment of duty? the said provocation.
There are only 2 elements in fulfillment of duty, By the presence of the privilege mitigating, it will lower it
1stelement - that the accused acted in the due by one degree and since there is an ordinary mitigating, it
performance of his duty or in lawful exercise of his would be to the minimum period.
proper office. It is present right because the police
officer went there because the residents asked for
II. MINORITY AND OVER 70 YEARS
police assistance. They went there to maintain peace
and order. The 1st element is present. ➢ Remember that if minority is not exempting, it is
always and always a privilege mitigating circumstance

because of Article 68. It is a privilege mitigating Q: But can he be given the benefit of praeter intentionem
circumstance. You have to lower it by one degree. that he has no intention to commit so grave a wrong as
that committed?
So if the offender is over 15 but below 18, and he acted A: Yes, because there was a notable disparity between
with discernment – not exempting but a privilege the means employed by the offender and the resulting
mitigating circumstance. felony. Who could have anticipated that by the mere
act of boxing death would result. Therefore, he should
If the offender is over 70 – ordinary mitigating be given the benefit of praeter intentionem.
circumstance
Q: What if in the same problem A and B were fighting by
[Prosecutor Garcia: In your book there are instances means of fist, the suddenly, A who was losing pulled out a
wherein seniority shall be considered as a pmc, when the balisong or a fan knife and stabbed B on the neck, a fatal
crime committed by the person over 70y/o is punishable wound. B died. A was prosecuted for homicide. He said he
by death, death shall not be imposed on him. Or when he had no intention to commit a wrong so grave as that
has already been convicted it shall be computed to committed, no intention to kill B. Will his defense lie? Will
reclusion perpetua. These provisions of the RPC are no the mitigating circumstance lie in his favor?
longer applicable at the moment. At the moment because A: No, because there was no notable disparity in the
we have RA 9346 which prohibits the imposition of death between means employed – stabbing on the neck
penalty on whoever be the offender. Then seniority, at the using a balisong or fan knife resulting to death. In
moment is only an omc. I am emphasizing ‘at the moment’ fact, the act of the victim of stabbing would produce,
because at the moment the reign of P.Noy ends, the new and did produce the death of the victim. Therefore,
president may bring back death penalty. Then there will praeter intentionem would not lie in favor of the
now be again a circumstance where seniority will be a pmc. accused.
But at the moment, we have no death penalty that may be
imposed.] IV. SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION OR THREAT
III. PRAETER INTENTIONEM ➢ There must be a sufficient provocation or threat

on the part of the offended party and it must
We have already studied this in Art. 4. This is praeter immediately precede the commission of the crime
intentionem.
Elements: Elements:
1. that the offender committed a felony
2. there must be a notable or notorious disparity 1. the provocation must be sufficient
between the means employed by offender and the 2. it must originate from the offended party
result felony. 3. requires that the commission or the provocation
must be immediate from the commission of the
➢ For praeter intentionem, for this mitigating criminal act by the person who was provoked
circumstance to lie, it is necessary that there must be
a notable or notorious disparity between the means PROVOCATION – is any unjust or immoral act or
employed and the resulting felony. That is, out of the conduct on the part of the offended party which is capable
means employed by the offender, no one could have of inciting or exciting another.
anticipated that the resulting felony would come.
The word immediate here does not allow a lapse of time.
Q: A and B were fighting, A boxed B, B boxed A, A There must be no lapse of time between the provocation
retaliated and boxed B again. When A boxed B, B’s head and the commission of the crime. Right after the
hit a cemented wall and so he suffered cerebral provocation given by the offended party, the offender must
hemorrhage and thereafter caused his death. Is A have performed the said criminal act.
criminally liable for the death of B? Provocation must be from the offended party NOT a third
person.
A: Yes, because when he boxed B, he was committing
a felonious act. Therefore he is criminally liable for When is provocation sufficient?
the resulting felony although it be different from
which he intended. ➢ For provocation to be sufficient, there must be 2
elements.

1st – it must be adequate to stir a person to offender has no intention to commit so grave a wrong as
commit a wrongful act that committed. Who could have anticipated that out of
2nd – it must be proportionate to the gravity of one lucky punch, death would result? There was a total
the crime. disparity on the means employed by the offender and the
The 3rd element requires that the provocation resulting felony.
must be immediate to the commission of the
crime. How about sufficient provocation, is it present?
The word immediate here does not allow a lapse
of time. There must be no lapse of time between The SC said yes. The provocation was on the part of the
the provocation and the commission of the crime. victim. He would always call names and defame Urbano. Is
it sufficient? Yes, because what Urbano only did was to
Q: There was this long line of evacuees, victims of Pablo confront the victim verbally. That was his first act, later on
who are to be given reliefs. A was 5th on the line, suddenly, only did it ensue to a fight.
X inserted himself in front of A. This angered A, A told X
to place himself at the end of the line but X didn’t want
because he was so hungry. This angered A, and so A pulled V. IMMEDIATE VINDICATION OF A GRAVE
out his bolo and hacked X at the back. A was prosecuted OFFENSE
for homicide, is the mc of sufficient provocation on the
part of the offended party justified? This time the word immediate allows a lapse of time.
Why? SC said it suffices that the said grave offense must be
A: Yes, there was on the part of X. Nakakainis kaya. the proximate cause of the commission of the crime. The
Nakapila ka tapos may sumingit. Sinong hindi grave offense need not be a punishable act. It suffices that
maiinis, sinong hindi mae-excite. So the 1st element is it be any act unjust act, immoral act which cause the
present, it is adequate to stir a person to commit a offender sleepless nights and move him to vindicate
wrongful act. However the 2nd element is absent – it is himself.
not proportionate to the gravity of the act. The act of
So this is the immediate vindication of a criminal offense.
killing is not proportionate to the act of X of placing
himself in front of A in a long line. Therefore, Elements:
sufficient provocation as a mc is not present so as to
reduce the imposable penalty. 1. that there be a grave offense done to:
a. the one committing the felony,
Urbano v. People b. his spouse,
c. ascendants,
The victim has always been calling and teasing on the d. descendants,
accused Urbano. So there was a confrontation because e. legitimate, natural, or adopted brothers
whenever the victim was drunk, he would defame Urbano. or sister, or
So there was a verbal confrontation and ensued into a f. relatives by affinity within the same
fight. In the said fight, Urbano was losing because he was degree
just a small man. However, he was able to land one lucky 2. It requires that the said act or grave offense must
punch on the face of the victim. Because of the said lucky be the proximate cause of the commission of the
punch, the said victim was about to fall unconscious on the crime.
ground. However, the other employees were able to ➢ It is necessary that the commission of the crime was
prevent him from falling on the ground. Nevertheless, he in immediate vindication of the grave offense done to
became unconscious and later on regained consciousness. the one committing the felony. This grave offense
In and out of the hospital, later on he died. need not be a punishable act. It suffices that it be any
act unjust act, immoral act which cause the offender
Is Urbano criminally liable for the death of the victim? sleepless nights and move him to vindicate himself.
➢ The 2nd element requires that the commission of
Yes, under Art. 4, because he was committing a felonious
crime was in immediate vindication of the grave
act. Therefore he is criminally liable for the resulting
offense. This time the word immediate allows a lapse
felony although different from that which he intend.
of time.
But there are two mitigating circumstances considered by
Why?
the court to reduce the imposable penalty. 1st according to
the court, there was sufficient provocation. 2 nd, that the

According to the SC, very funny reasoning, there was equanimity. Four days is enough time within which
an erroneous Spanish translation. Our RPC was the accused could have regained his composure and
copied from the Spanish Codigo Penal, in there, the self-control
word used there was proximate. Yet when it was
People v. Ignas
translated in the RPC, the word used was immediate.
SC said wrong translation. It is sufficient that the said In this case, the offender raised the defense of
grave offense must be the proximate cause of the vindication of a grave offense and sudden impulse of
commission of the crime. Immediate allows the lapse passion and obfuscation. The SC said that both
of time, but not too long a time that would cause the mitigating circumstances cannot be considered in
offender to recover his normal equanimity. favor of the accused. From the time of the discovery of
the adultery of the wife to the time of the killing, two
VI. IMPULSE SO POWERFUL AS NATURALLY TO
weeks had already lapsed. The SC said such two weeks
HAVE PRODUCED PASSION OR OBFUSCATION.
is too long a time for such offender to have recovered
Paragraphs 4 and 5 are related to that is paragraph – already his normal equanimity.
otherwise known as sudden impulse of passion and
In this case, SC also said that paragraph 4 – sufficient
obfuscation.
provocation – and paragraph 5 - immediate
Elements: vindication – and paragraph 6 – passion and
obfuscation – are related to each other such that if
1. there be an act both unlawful act sufficient to these three circumstances arose from the same facts
produce passion and obfuscation and circumstances, they shall be treated and
2. the commission of the criminal act and the said considered by the court only as one mitigating
sudden impulse must not be far removed from circumstance. They shall not be appreciated as three
each other by the considerable length of time mitigating circumstances but only as one.
during which the offender might have recovered
his normal equanimity Q: In the case of People v. Romera, the SC said par.4 -
➢ It is necessary that there must be some unlawful or sufficient provocation on the part of the offended party,
unauthorized act done on the said offender and by par.5 - immediate vindication of grave offense, par.6 –
reason of this the offender has done an unlawful act. sudden impulse of passion and obfuscation are related to
The acts of the offender arose from lawful sentiments each other such that in the commission of the crime, all
because an unlawful act was committed against him. three present, or any 2 are present, if they are based on the
Again, it must be sudden. same facts and circumstances they should be appreciated
➢ 1st element requires that there must be an unlawful act only as 1 mc, not 2 or 3. Why is it important?
sufficient to produce passion and obfuscation on the
A: It is important because in the computation of the
part of the accused. Therefore, passion and
penalties, if you consider them as 3, you will be wrong
obfuscation on the part of the accused must arise from
in the penalties. So again note, if 4, 5, and 6 are all
a lawful sentiments because an unlawful act was
present or if any two is present and they are all based
committed against him.
on the same facts and circumstances, they should only
➢ 2nd element requires also the immediateness. It is
be treated as one mitigating circumstance.
necessary that it must be done immediately because
the law says the commission of the act which Q: Husband and wife were about to have dinner. Then
produced the passion and obfuscation must not be far someone was calling the name of the husband outside
removed from the commission of the crime by a their house. The wife opened the door, upon opening, the
considerable length of time. neighbor who was calling the name tried to hack the wife.
Good enough, the wife was able to reach and close the door
Q: What if A attempted on the virtue of the wife of B, B
and the wife was not hacked. The neighbor however with a
learned about this from a neighbor. When B learned about
use of a bolo continuously hacked the wooden or the
this, 4 days after, he went to A and hacked A to death. Is
bamboo door and walls of the house. And so, considering
the crime committed, or is the mc of sudden impulse of
that his house was being damaged, the husband was forced
passion and obfuscation and immediate vindication of
to go outside to confront the neighbor. He used the kitchen
grave offense present?
door. He called the neighbor and asked what the reason
A: In the case of People v. Resbucan, the SC said why he was hacking. The neighbor instead of answering
NO because 4 days had already lapsed. According to tried to hack the husband. They struggled for the
the SC, 4 days is already a long time for the said possession of the bolo, and in the course the husband
offender to have recovered from his normal gained possession of the bolo. Once in the possession of

the bolo, the husband hacked the neighbor. The neighbor If both are present, you have to consider always two
suffered a fatal wound but was brought to the hospital by mitigating circumstances. They have different elements
the husband and so he survived. Husband was prosecuted and would always arise from different set of facts and
for frustrated homicide. circumstances. Therefore, they are always separate and
distinct from each other.
The husband raised the following mitigating
circumstances: 1) there was sufficient provocation; 2) he VOLUNTARY SURRENDER
acted in immediate vindication of a grave offense; 3) there
was sudden impulse of passion and obfuscation; 4) he Elements:
voluntarily surrendered. Are all these present? How would
you consider the mitigating circumstances that are 1. that the offender had not actually arrested
present? 2. that the offender had voluntarily surrendered
himself to a person in authority or his agent
A: There is sufficient provocation because of the act of 3. such surrender must be voluntary
the neighbor trying to hack the wife. And his act of
continuously hacking the wooden door and walls of So it is necessary that the offender has not yet been
the house – that is sufficient provocation. Also, the arrested, that the police officers have not yet gone out to
hacking of the husband was done right after the arrest him. No efforts yet were made. It is necessary that
provocation. he surrender to a person in authority – mayor, governor,
judge – or his agent.
Vindication of a grave offense – the act done by the
neighbor trying to hack the wife and continuously
The surrender must be voluntary.
hacking the door of the house constitute grave offense
and the act of husband was done in immediate Surrender is voluntary when it is done spontaneously
vindication. and unconditionally either because he has this feeling of
Sudden impulse of passion and obfuscation is also remorse and wanted to admit his guilt or he wanted to
present. The act of the neighbor trying to hack the save the government that much needed time or effort and
wife and his act of continuously hacking the wooden funds which will be incurred in looking for him.
door and walls are sufficient acts to naturally produce
Q: A case was found against B in the fiscal’s office. A
passion or obfuscation and were also done
warrant of arrest was requested, the fiscal found probable
immediately.
cause. The information filed in court, the court agreed with
There is also voluntary surrender because right after the fiscal, a warrant of arrest was issued. B got a tip from
the act, he surrendered. No warrant of arrest was the court employee that a warrant of arrest was now in
issued. possession of the police officers. And so B upon learning
that there was already an issued warrant of arrest,
Therefore, all four mitigating circumstances are immediately went to the police station and surrendered
present. himself to the authorities. Then trial against him
Considering as these all four are present, in imposing proceeded, and after trial on the merits, he was convicted.
the penalty as the judge, the first three shall only be But the judge did not consider voluntary surrender in
considered as one. Since sufficient provocation, reducing his imposable penalty. Is the judge correct?
immediate vindication, and sudden impulse of
A: The judge is wrong because voluntary surrender is
passion and obfuscation arose from the same facts
present as a mc. Although there is already a warrant
and circumstances, they shall be treated only as one.
of arrest issued. The police officers have not yet gone
Voluntary surrender shall be treated as another,
out looking for him. Therefore, any surrender would
therefore, in imposing the penalty, the court may only
still be considered as voluntary surrender even if there
consider two mitigating circumstances.
is already a warrant of arrest against the said offender.
VII. VOLUNTARY SURRENDERED OR
VOLUNTARY CONFESSED VOLUNTARY PLEA OF GUILT
There are two mitigating circumstances here: Elements:

1. Voluntary surrender
1. That guilt tendered is confessed spontaneously
2. Voluntary plea of guilt
and unconditionally
2. That he confesses guilt in open court

3. The confession that was made before the VIII. DEAF AND DUMB, BLIND, OR SUFFERING
presentation of the evidence for the prosecution SOME PHYSICAL DEFECT
First element: The plea of guilt must be done This is the mc of physical defect.
spontaneously and unconditionally when it is the original
crime charged. For this mitigating circumstance to lie in favor of the
Open court means the court that tried the case accused, it is necessary that there must be a connection, a
relation between the physical defect and the crime
Q: A was charged with the crime of frustrated murder. committed. It is necessary that the said physical defect
During the plea bargaining, with the consent of the judge, must have restricted his use of action, defense or
the fiscal and the offended party, he said that he had plead communication with his fellow being. Otherwise,
guilty to attempted murder. And so he pleaded guilty to notwithstanding the suffering of the offender of any
attempted murder. The judge rendered judgment without physical defect, if such is not related in any way with the
considering voluntary plead of guilt so as to reduce his crime, it has no effect on his criminal liability.
penalty. Is the judge correct?
Q: A is a cripple, he has no legs, he always position himself
A: Yes. For said plea of guilty to be considered near the Quiapo church. He was on board a skateboard. So
voluntary, it must be done spontaneously. he often stays there, and his work was to snatch the
Spontaneously, it must be the original crime charged. handbags of any churchgoers. And so one time, he
snatched the handbag of a churchgoer and thereafter, he
It will be considered as voluntary plea of guilt but it sped away on board his skateboard. He was thereafter
will not affect his criminal liability, it will not be arrested, will his physical defect of being crippled, a man
considered as a mitigating circumstance because it with no legs, be mitigating?
was not done spontaneously
A: No. because his physical defect has no relation at
Q: What if A was charged as a principal in the crime of all to the crime he has committed.
robbery. He pleaded guilty with the consent of the judge,
the fiscal and the offended party to the crime of robbery Q: What if A is a blind man, blind beggar, near the Quiapo
but merely as an accomplice. The judge rendered church. One time he was begging for alms, suddenly, he
judgment because of the plea of guilt. The judge did not was scraped on his head with a wound, it was so strong
consider the said plea of guilty as mitigating. Is the judge that he fell on the ground wounded. Angry, he stood up,
correct? took his cane and retaliated by hitting the person next to
him, not knowing that it was not the person but an
A: Yes, the judge is correct because when he pleaded innocent passerby. The innocent passerby suffered less
guilty as an accomplice, his plea of guilt was not done physical injuries. So the blind beggar was prosecuted for
unconditionally. less serious physical injuries. Is the mc of physical defect
present so as to reduce the imposable penalty?
Q: A was charged with the crime of frustrated homicide.
On plea bargaining, with the consent of the judge, the A: Yes. His being blind restricted his means of action,
fiscal and the offended party, he said that he had pleaded defense or communication with his fellow being. His
guilty to a lesser crime of serious physical injuries. So he intention was to hit the person who scraped him with
was re-arraigned and this time the crime charge was the wound. But because of he could not see, he hit an
serious physical injuries. And this time he pleaded guilty. innocent passerby. There was a relation between the
Will this have an effect on the penalty of the accused? physical defect and the crime committed. Therefore, it
will mitigate his criminal liability.
A: That is still considered a valid plea of guilt. Upon
his plea of guilt, the judge will render his decision but IX. ILLNESS
it cannot be considered voluntary, because it was not
done spontaneously. Spontaneously, it must be the ➢ It is necessary that the illness only diminishes the
original crime charged. will-power of the accused.
That he confesses guilt in open court that is before the ➢ If it totally deprives him of his will-power, then it
court tried his case. He cannot plead guilty in the will not only be a mere mitigating circumstance
appellate court but it will become an exempting circumstance.
➢ So this is illness. It is necessary that the said
illness must diminish the exercise of the will-

power of the offender. But it must not deprive

him of his consciousness of his act because if it Although as a rule, these mitigating circumstances will be
will deprive him of consciousness of his act, then considered by the court, in case of quasi-offenses, judges
it is exempting not merely mitigating. are not mandated to consider mitigating circumstances.
Q: A is a kleptomaniac, he has this urge to steal. Now, his Q: What if A was prosecuted for the crime of reckless
urge is to steal diamonds. So one time he was in a party, he imprudence resulting in homicide and multiple physical
was talking to a lady with diamond earrings, diamond injuries. He was driving his vehicle, bumped a person and
necklace, diamond watch, diamond bracelet. Then after injured several others. During arraignment, he
the conversation, the lady went to the restroom. Upon immediately pleaded guilty. The judge rendered judgment.
looking at the mirror, she shouted, she was shocked, the In rendering judgment, the judge did not consider the
diamond earring, necklace, watch and bracelet were all voluntary plea of guilty as mitigating. Is the judge correct?
gone. It was already taken by the said accused. Prosecuted
for theft, will his illness mitigate his criminal liability? A: Yes. As held in People v. Mariano, the judge is
correct because in the case of a culpable felony, in case
A: Yes. It diminishes his exercise of his will-power of quasi-offenses, under Art. 365 the judge may or
without however depriving him of consciousness. He may not consider these mc in the imposition of
knew that he was committing theft, he knew that he penalty. If the judge consider it or if the judge did not
was taking the personal property of another but he consider it, that is the decision of the judge. Under
cannot control, he has a diminished self-control to Art. 365, the court is not mandated to consider the
prevent the commission of the crime. It will only rules, the decision is based on the sound discretion
mitigate, reduce the imposable penalty but it will not whether or not to consider the mc.
exempt from criminal liability.
As a rule, mitigating and aggravating circumstances are
not considered in violation of special penal laws except
X. ANALOGOUS OR SIMILAR TO THOSE ABOVE and unless such special penal law provides otherwise. So
MENTIONED. when it is the special penal law itself that provides that
mitigating circumstances may be considered, then it may
Any other circumstance which is similar in nature from the be considered. Example is the crime of plunder.
1st to the 9th paragraph, then it is also considered as a Q: X was charged with plunder. He learned that a warrant
mitigating circumstance. had been issued against him. Upon learning such, he
immediately, spontaneously, and voluntarily went before
A public officer who has malversed public funds, the Sandiganbayan and gave himself up before the police
voluntarily, voluntary returned the public funds, it is akin officers were able to serve the warrant of arrest. After trial
to voluntary surrender. Or what if a person is already of 65 on the merits. The second division of Sandiganbayan
years of age, sickly, suffering from a disease it can be said convicted him and considered the mitigating circumstance
to be akin or similar to seniority. It will mitigate his of voluntary surrender. Are the justices correct?
criminal liability. Generally, in cases of malversation,
failure to render accounting, the restitution of the public A: Yes. Although plunder is a violation of a special
funds amassed by the public officer is akin to voluntary penal law, Section 2 of the said law provides that in
surrender. Therefore, it will mitigate is criminal liability. - imposing the penalty, mitigating or extenuating
Being old and sickly may be considered as akin to a person circumstances shall be considered.
over 70 years old. Q: X was charged with crime of illegal possession of loose
firearm. During arraignment, he immediately pleaded
Nizurtado v. Sandiganbayan guilty. The judge did not consider his voluntary confession
as mitigating. Is the judge correct?
The Supreme Court said restitution is akin to voluntary
surrender. So aside from the real voluntary surrender, A: The judge is correct because the law violated is a special
another one shall be appreciated because he returned the penal law. Hence, the judge need not consider the
funds. Such restitution is akin to voluntary surrender and voluntary plea of guilt. And there is nothing in RA 10591
as such, shall be treated as another mitigating that provides that mitigating circumstances shall be
circumstance. considered by the court in the imposition of the penalties.
APPLICABILITY OF MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCES IN QUASI-OFFENSES AND SPL

CHAPTER FOUR: CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH 10. That the offender has been previously
AGGRAVATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY punished by an offense to which the law
attaches an equal or greater penalty or for
Article 14. Aggravating circumstances. - The
two or more crimes to which it attaches a
following are aggravating circumstances:
lighter penalty.
1. That advantage be taken by the offender of
11. That the crime be committed in
his public position.
consideration of a price, reward, or
promise.
2. That the crime be committed in contempt
or with insult to the public authorities.
12. That the crime be committed by means of
inundation, fire, poison, explosion,
3. That the act be committed with insult or in
stranding of a vessel or international
disregard of the respect due the offended
damage thereto, derailment of a
party on account of his rank, age, or sex,
locomotive, or by the use of any other
or that is be committed in the dwelling of
artifice involving great waste and ruin.
the offended party, if the latter has not
given provocation.
13. That the act be committed with evident
premeditation.
4. That the act be committed with abuse of
confidence or obvious ungratefulness.
14. That the craft, fraud or disguise be
employed.
5. That the crime be committed in the palace
of the Chief Executive or in his presence,
15. That advantage be taken of superior
or where public authorities are engaged in
strength, or means be employed to weaken
the discharge of their duties, or in a place
the defense.
dedicated to religious worship.
16. That the act be committed with treachery
6. That the crime be committed in the night
(alevosia).
time, or in an uninhabited place, or by a
There is treachery when the offender
band, whenever such circumstances may
commits any of the crimes against the
facilitate the commission of the offense.
person, employing means, methods, or
Whenever more than three armed
forms in the execution thereof which tend
malefactors shall have acted together in
directly and specially to insure its
the commission of an offense, it shall be
execution, without risk to himself arising
deemed to have been committed by a
from the defense which the offended party
band.
might make.
7. That the crime be committed on the
17. That means be employed or circumstances
occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck,
brought about which add ignominy to the
earthquake, epidemic or other calamity or
natural effects of the act.
misfortune.
18. That the crime be committed after an
8. That the crime be committed with the aid
unlawful entry.
of armed men or persons who insure or
afford impunity.
19. There is an unlawful entry when an
entrance of a crime a wall, roof, floor,
9. That the accused is a recidivist.
door, or window be broken.
A recidivist is one who, at the time of his
trial for one crime, shall have been
20. That the crime be committed with the aid
previously convicted by final judgment of
of persons under fifteen years of age or by
another crime embraced in the same title
means of motor vehicles, motorized
of this Code.
watercraft, airships, or other similar
means. (As amended by RA 5438).

21. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime it brings about the imposition of a
the crime be deliberately augmented by higher penalty.
causing other wrong not necessary for its Example: Those enumerated under Article. 248
commissions. Murder. Such circumstances qualify Homicide
into Murder and to increase the imposable
Aggravating Circumstances penalty.
➢ Those which if present in the commission of a
In case of qualifying aggravating circumstance,
felony will serve to increase the imposable
for example, A killed B there was treachery, it was
penalty without however going beyond the
done in consideration of a price, reward or
maximum penalty prescribed by law.
promise, there was also cruelty, so there are
➢ No matter how many aggravating circumstances
three qualifying aggravating circumstances
attended the crime, the court cannot impose a
present. Only one of them will qualify the killing
penalty beyond the maximum penalty prescribed
to murder. So if treachery is already proven, the
by law. So if a crime is attended by ten
crime committed is already murder. Cruelty and
aggravating circumstances, all of them were
the other circumstance of in consideration of a
alleged and proven, the court cannot impose a
price, reward or promise shall only be considered
penalty beyond the maximum penalty prescribed
as generic aggravating circumstances.
by law. This is the limit.
Art. 248. Murder. — Any person who, not
Different kinds of Aggravating Circumstances falling within the provisions of Article 246
1. Generic Aggravating Circumstance shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder
and shall be punished by reclusion
➢ are those which apply to all crimes
temporal in its maximum period to death,
if committed with any of the following
Example: recidivism and nighttime - it can be
attendant circumstances:
applied to crimes against persons, crimes against
1. With treachery, taking advantage of
property, crimes against chastity and applied to
superior strength, with the aid of armed
all other crimes.
men, or employing means to weaken the
defense or of means or persons to insure
2. Specific Aggravating Circumstances or afford impunity.
➢ are those that apply only to a certain or particular 2. In consideration of a price, reward, or
crimes promise.
3. By means of inundation, fire, poison,
Example: Treachery – applies only to crimes explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a
against persons. Cruelty which applies only to vessel, derailment or assault upon a street
crimes against Persons car or locomotive, fall of an airship, by
means of motor vehicles, or with the use of
any other means involving great waste and
3. Inherent Aggravating Circumstances ruin.
➢ are those which are considered as ingredient or 4. On occasion of any of the calamities
element of a crime. Hence they are no longer enumerated in the preceding paragraph,
considered so as to increase the imposable or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano,
penalty because they are considered elements in destructive cyclone, epidemic or other
the commission of the crime. public calamity.
5. With evident premeditation.
Example: Dwelling is considered inherent In 6. With cruelty, by deliberately and
Violation of Domicile. Evident premeditation is inhumanly augmenting the suffering of
always inherent in the crime of robbery the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his
person or corpse.
4. Qualifying Aggravating Circumstances

5. Special Aggravating Circumstances
➢ are those that which change the nature of the
crime to bring about a greater crime with a higher
penalty or even without changing the nature of

➢ These circumstances provide for the imposition be both alleged and likewise proven during trial, so as
of the Maximum penalty prescribed by law and it not to deprive the accused of right to know the nature
cannot be offset by any mitigating circumstance. of the accusation against him.
Example: If the crime is committed by a
syndicate or organized crime group as provided
I. That advantage be taken by the offender of his
by Art.62 as amended by RA 7659. Sec.23 of RA
public position.
7659 provides "The maximum penalty shall be
imposed if the offense was committed by any ➢ This aggravating circumstance can be applied
group who belongs to an organized/syndicated only if the offender is a public officer.
crime group" ➢ The offender uses or misuses the public position
in order to commit the crime. He took advantage
the prestige, influence, or ascendency of his office
Q: X committed a crime – killing Y. In killing Y, it was
in the commission of the crime or to facilitate the
alleged in the information that the act of killing was
commission of the crime.
attended by treachery and abuse of superior strength. Both
were also proven. If you were the judge, how will you Q: Police officer A was having a drinking spree with his
consider these two qualifying aggravating circumstances? friends outside his house. In the course thereof, they were
discussing about the alleged shoot out in Quezon.
A: You have to convict the accused with the crime of
According to the police officer, since he was a police
murder qualified by treachery. Abuse of superior
officer, it was a shoot out. But according to his friend it
strength has no more effect because if both treachery
was a rob out. They were arguing, exchanging views until
and abuse of superior strength attended the
the police officer got mad. At that time, he had with him
commission of the crime, treachery absorbs abuse of
his pistol. He used his service pistol and shot his friend
superior strength. Therefore, no need to consider
who thereafter died. Is the said act of killing done by
abuse of superior strength.
taking advantage of his public position?
Q: X killed Y. It was alleged in the information that the
A: This aggravating circumstance is not present. It is
killing attended by treachery. He killed Y because he was
not present because the said offender, public officer,
given P500, 000. While Y was crossing the pedestrian, he
did not use or misuse his public office. He did not use
hit and bumped Y with his car. So three qualifying
the influence, the ascendency or the prestige of his
aggravating circumstances were alleged – treachery, in
office in order to commit the crime. Even not being a
consideration of a prize, reward, or promise, and use of a
public officer he could have killed his friend in the
motor vehicle. All of them were proven in the trial. If you
same situation . He could even have used another
were the judge, how will you appreciate these qualifying
weapon, not necessarily his service pistol.
circumstances?
Q: The police officers will stop jeepney drivers and will ask
A: Convict the accused of murder qualified by
for tong every morning and so until one time when the
treachery. In consideration of a prize, reward, or
jeepney driver filed a case of robbery extortion against
promise and use of motor vehicle shall be considered
him. In the information it was alleged that he committed
as generic aggravating circumstances. Therefore,
this act by taking advantage of his public position, the said
there are qualifying aggravating circumstances, since
circumstance was alleged in the information and proven
you only need one qualifying to qualify the killing to
during trial. How it is to be appreciated?
murder, the other aggravating circumstances alleged
and proven shall be considered as generic aggravating A: It is a Special Aggravating Circumstance because
circumstances. Therefore the crime committed is under Art. 62 as amended by RA 7659, the Heinous
murder qualified by treachery. The fact that two Crime Law, and the maximum period for the penalty
generic aggravating circumstances are present means prescribed by law shall be the one imposed. It cannot
that the maximum period of penalty shall be the one be offset by any mitigating circumstance.
imposed since the generic aggravating circumstances Q: The police officers raided a bar and among the women
are not offset by any mitigating circumstance. arrested was Y. After investigation, Y is brought in a
certain room and there the arresting police officer had
carnal knowledge of Y against her will, and so the crime of
➢ Unlike justifying, exempting and mitigating
Rape was filed against the said police officer. In the
circumstances, which are not stated or alleged in the
information, it was alleged that the aggravating
information, aggravating circumstances must be
circumstance of taken advantage of his public position was
alleged in the information. Even if they are proven in
present/attended the commission of the crime. How is the
trial but they are not alleged in the information, they
cannot be considered against the person. They must

advantage taken of his public position to be considered by 2. That the public authority is not the person against
the court? whom the crime is committed.
A: It is to be considered as a Qualifying Aggravating ➢ if he is the person against whom the crime is
Circumstance. Under Art.266-B of the RPC "If the committed, such fact that the crime was
victim is in the custody of police authorities, the committed in contempt of the public authority is
military or any member of any penal institutions, it an element because the crime committed would
will be considered as Qualified Rape and the be direct assault. In direct assault, in contempt of
imposable penalty will be Death. So it changed the or with insult to public authority is an element,
nature of the crime from Rape to Qualified Rape, and no longer an aggravating circumstance.
from Reclusion Perpetua the penalty was increased to
Death. So it will Qualify the commission of the crime,
3. That the offender knows him to be a public authority.
the crime committed is Qualified Rape.
➢ there must be knowledge on the part of the
offender that the said person is a public
II. That the crime be committed in contempt of or authority. Otherwise, it cannot be said that he
with insult to the public authorities. disrespected the said person as a public authority
Elements: if he has no knowledge that he is a public
1. That the public officer or public authority is authority.
engaged in the exercise of his function; 4. That the presence of the public authority did not
2. That the public authority is not the person prevent the offender from the commission of the crime.
against whom the crime is committed;
3. That the offender knows him to be a public
Q: What if the barangay chairman was in a restaurant
authority;
having dinner with his wife because it was their wedding
4. That the presence of the public authority did not
anniversary. Suddenly here comes A, B and C who are
prevent the offender from the commission of the
constituents of the barangay chairman. Upon seeing the
crime.
chairman, they greeted him and even congratulated him
For this circumstance to be appreciated it is necessary that and his wife upon learning that they were celebrating their
the crime was committed in the presence of public wedding anniversary. They seated next to the table of the
authorities while the latter is engaged in the performance chairman and ordered food. In the giving of the food, there
of their official duties. So even if there is a public authority was an argument between A and the waiter. The argument
at the time of the commission of the crime the offender immediately became a heated one. A took the table knife
still committed the crime, and the presence of such and stab the waiter. The waiter suffered serious physical
authorities did not prevent the offender from making the injuries. Prosecuted for frustrated homicide. In the
crime. prosecution for said crime, is the aggravating
That the public authority concerned must not be the circumstance of in contempt of or with insult to public
victim. He must not be the person attacked or assaulted authority present?
because if he is the person attacked or assaulted , the A: it is not present because the first element is absent.
crime is Direct Assault and in contempt of or with insult to The first element, that the public officer or public
public authorities is no longer considered as an authority is engaged in the exercise of his function. At
aggravating circumstance, but an integral element in the the time of the commission of the crime, yes he was
commission of the crime. there but he was in a private act. He was not engaged
1. That the public officer or public authority is engaged in in the exercise of his function, hence it cannot be said
the exercise of his function. that the said offender insulted the said public
Who is a public authority? authority.
➢ Public authority or a person in authority is any Q: What if the public authority was the city mayor who
person directly vested with jurisdiction whether was inside his office. Suddenly he heard commotion on the
an individual or some members of court or ground floor. He looked out his window, he saw his two
governmental commissioner. It is necessary that supporters having an argument. A and B were having an
he has the duty to govern and execute the laws. argument over a parking space. The mayor went down the
Example: Mayors, barangay chairman building and talked to both A and B. He told them to shake
➢ police officer is merely an agent of a person in hands and forget everything. Then he told A to just allow B
authority to park his car anyway there was another parking space
available. This angered A because he thought that the

mayor was siding with B. A took out his balisong and Disregard of rank
stabbed the mayor. Is the aggravating circumstance of in ➢ Rank refers to a high social standing, a high
contempt of or with insult to public authority present? position in the society. For this to be considered
A: it is present but it is not an aggravating as an aggravating circumstance, it is necessary
circumstance but an element of the crime because the that the offender be of lower rank than that of the
crime committed is direct assault. It is direct assault offended party.
because the public authority at the time of the attack Examples:
was engaged in the performance of his functions.
1. A student attacking a professor. There was a
Since the crime committed was against the public
disregard of rank of the said professor.
authority himself, the fact that it was committed in
2. An employee attacking his employer. There was a
contempt of or with insult to the said public authority
disregard of rank of the said employer.
is an ingredient of the crime.
Disregard of age
➢ Age here refers to both minority and seniority.
Q: What if in the same problem instead of stabbing the
said mayor, A felt insulted with the mayor’s words that he Examples:
is giving the parking space to B so this angered A. A 1. The offended party is 95 years old. A killed him
stabbed B. B died. Is the aggravating circumstance of in by hitting his head for 25 times with a lead pipe.
contempt of or with insult to public authority present? Obviously, there was disregard of his age.
A: This time, it is present. The mayor’s act of Considering his age, whereas even one hit of the
pacifying A and B was engaged in his official lead pipe could have already killed the said old
functions. He was not the person against whom the man but he was hit 25 times showing disregard of
crime was committed. A was a supporter, therefore he the age of the old man.
knew mayor was a person in authority. Yet, the 2. What if a child is 4 years old. He was stabbed 25
presence of the mayor did not prevent A from times, thereafter his body was placed inside a
committing the crime against B. Hence, the second dram filled with water and then the dram was
aggravating circumstance is present. covered. There was disregard of age. The victim
was a minor and therefore any attack, just 1 stab,
could have killed the minor. But he was stabbed
III. That the act be committed with insult or in 25 times; not only that, he was also submerged
disregard of the respect due to the offended party and the drum was covered, which shows
on account of his rank, age or sex, or it be disrespect of age.
committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if ➢ If there was disrespect of age and there was also
the latter has not given provocation. treachery, the aggravating circumstance to be
There are four aggravating circumstances under this considered is treachery because it absorbs disrespect
paragraph: of age.
1. Disregard of rank Disrespect of sex
2. Disregard of age ➢ Disrespect of sex refers to the female sex. This is
3. Disregard of sex inherent in the crime of rape and in certain
4. Crimes committed in dwelling of the offended crimes involving chastity.
party
Crimes committed in dwelling of the offended
These four aggravating circumstances can be appreciated party
singly or collectively if present in the commission of the
➢ Dwelling is considered as aggravating
crime.
circumstance if the crime is committed inside the
Disregard of rank, disregard of age and disregard of sex dwelling of the offended party, that is, the
can only be considered in crimes against persons and offended party was inside his dwelling at the time
crimes against chastity. You do not consider these in of the commission of the crime and he has not
crimes against property; you do not consider these in given any provocation.
crimes against public interest. They can only be considered ➢ If the crime is committed inside the dwelling of
in crimes against persons and crimes against chastity. the offended party, it is as an aggravating
circumstance because it shows the greater
perversity of the offender than when the crime is
committed in any other place. It is because the
constitution itself provides that a man’s abode

must be respected and therefore when a crime is house. The assailant may device ways and means to
committed inside the house dwelling it shows the commit the crime from the outside.
greater criminality on the part of the offender. Q: What if there was this woman. She is 95 years old; a
Even however, if a crime is committed: woman of high standing in the society. She was a former
1. inside a house dwelling, still dwelling cannot be department secretary. She is living alone in her house.
considered as aggravating if the offended has One time here comes X. X wanted to rob the valuables
given provocation inside the house of the said old woman. X entered the said
2. if the offender and the offended party are living in house and he was able to get the valuables from the vault
the same dwelling of the house. He was about to leave the house when
3. dwelling is inherent in the commission of the accidentally pushed the chair. By reason thereof, the
crime. woman was awaken. The woman upon seeing X begun
screaming. X then fired at the woman 50 times. The
So in these three instances, even if the crime is
woman died. Are the aggravating circumstances of
committed inside the dwelling of the offended party,
disregard of rank, disregard of age, disregard of sex and
dwelling is not considered as an aggravating
dwelling present?
circumstance.
A: The first three circumstances are not present
Dwelling includes:
because the crime committed is robbery with
➢ The dependencies, the staircase, and the homicide, under article 10 which is a crime against
enclosures therein. It need not be owned by the property. Disregard of rank, age and sex are not
offended party, it suffices that the offended party applicable to any other crimes but only to crimes
uses it for rest and comfort. E.g., a room being against person and crimes against chastity. Since the
rented by the lessee or a tenant; room where a crime committed is a crime against property,
person is living as a bedspacer. therefore, disregard of rank, age and sex cannot be
considered against the accused.
Q: What if A who lives in a nipa hut was sitting at the Dwelling can be considered against the accused
staircase when B came and forcibly drag her to another because the crime committed robbery with homicide
house, 1 kilometer away from A’s house, where she was is a form of robbery with violence against or
raped by B. Is the aggravating circumstance of dwelling intimidation of persons. Dwelling is only inherent in
present? robbery with use of force upon things but dwelling is
A: The aggravating circumstance is present even if the not inherent in case of robbery with violence against
crime was committed in another place far from the or intimidation of persons just like robbery with
dwelling, the aggression started in the dwelling of the homicide. So in this case, only dwelling should be
offended party. The aggression that started in the considered as an aggravating circumstance.
dwelling of the offended party when she was dragged
from the said staircase, that aggression cannot be IV. ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE OR OBVIOUS
divided from the commission of said crim. So even if it UNGRATEFULNESS
grounds were consummated in another place for as
long as aggression started in the dwelling, still
dwelling is an aggravating circumstance. There are two aggravating circumstances:
Q: What if husband and wife were already about to sleep, 1. Abuse of confidence
then they heard someone calling the name of the husband 2. Obvious ungratefulness
outside the house. The husband rose from the bed and
looked out the window to see who was calling him. Upon ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE
looking at the window suddenly there were gun fires. The
Elements:
husband fell lifeless. The wife, also went to the window
and looked out to see who killed her husband. She was also 1. That the offended party had trusted the offender;
fired at. Is the aggravating circumstance of dwelling 2. That the offender abuse such trust by committing
present? a crime against the offended party;
3. That the abuse of confidence facilitated the
A: Yes, dwelling is an aggravating circumstance. It is
not necessary for dwelling to be aggaravating that the
perpetrator of the crmed was able to get in. It suffices Q: A and B have been living here in Manila for 4 years.
that the offended party or the victim is inside his Suddenly here comes X. X was there former neighbor in
Batangas. He told A and B “I am looking for work here in

Manila, can I live in your house while I am looking for because it shows on the part of the offender lack
work?” Since he was a good neighbor back then A and B of respect on these places.
trusted X and allowed X to live inside their house. X now 1. In the palace of the Chief Executive
sleeps in the house of A and B while he was looking for
➢ Regardless of whether there is a public affair or
work here in manila. One time A and B were out of the
official affair going on, if a crime is committed it
house in their respective works. The only person left in the
is aggravating.
house was X and their daughter who was only 9 years old.
While the couple were out, X molested and raped the said 2. In the presence of the Chief Executive
daughter. Is the aggravating circumstance abuse of ➢ even if the Chief Executive is playing golf in
confidence present in this case? Baguio, still it is considered as aggravating
A: Yes, it is present. X was there because A and B because of the lack of respect to the chief
trusted him, yet he abused such trust and confidence executive.
and instead facilitated the commission of the crime. 3. Where the Public Authorities are engaged in the
Therefore this aggravating circumstance is present. discharge of their duties
➢ it is not only necessary that the said places are
OBVIOUS UNGRATEFULNESS where public authorities are engaged in the
discharge of their duties, it is also necessary that
➢ ungratefulness means the offender has no
at the time of the commission of the crime, the
gratitude, does not even know how to say thank
public authorities are actually engaged in the
you.
performance of their duties.
Elements:
4. In a place dedicated to religious worship
1. That the offended party had trusted the offender;
➢ even if there is no religious ceremony on going,
2. That the offender abuse such trust by committing
for as long as the said crime is committed in said
a crime against the offended party;
place dedicated to religious worship it is
3. That the act be committed with obvious
aggravating because of lack of respect on said
ungratefulness
place.
Q: A was selling kettles and other kitchenwares on the ➢ In order however for these aggravating circumstances
street under the heat of the sun. A goes from one house to to be considered, it is necessary that the offender
another under the heat of the sun. He was so thirsty deliberately sought the said place to commit the crime
already so he knocked on the gate of the house of X. X because otherwise it cannot be said that he
opened the gate and A told X that he was so thirsty. X disrespected the place.
being a good person, allowed A to go inside their house
Q:A and B are chefs in Malacanang. They are outdoing
and asked him to take a sit while he get him a glass of
each other in trying to prepare the best meal for P-noy.
water. When he came back, he was not only holding a glass
One time, both of them were preparing lunch for the
of water but also brought some biscuits. However A
president. Suddenly they had an argument. In the course
suddenly, brought out his knife and stabbed X and
thereof, A stabbed B. B suffered a fatal wound but he
thereafter robbed him. Is the aggravating circumstance
survived. Prosecuted for frustrated homicide. Is the
obvious ungratefulness present?
aggravating circumstance that the crime was committed
A: Yes. Instead of showing gratitude for having been in the palace of the Chief Executive present?
allowed to enter the house and given a glass of water
A: No, it is not present. Because he works there, he
with biscuits, he instead took advantage of the
lives there. It cannot be said that he sought the said
goodness of the man and committed the crime of
place in order to commit the crime. It cannot be said
killing and robbery. There was obvious ungratefulness
that he went to said place in order to commit the
on the part of the offender.
crime or can it be said that he disrespected the said
place.
V. That the crime be committed in the palace of Q: What if many farmers were having a rally outside the
the Chief Executive, or in his presence, or where DAR. They started the rally around 6am, it is now 8pm,
public authorities are engaged in the discharge of they were still there. The officials and employees had
their duties or in a place dedicated to religious already left, so the farmers were there still having their
worship. rally. They set tents and prepared to sleep there. In the
➢ There are four aggravating circumstances. If the course thereof, 2 farmers argued at each other. In the
crime is committed in any of these places it is course of their argument one farmer jumped into the fence
considered as an aggravating circumstance and went inside the DAR. The second farmer followed him

and when the second farmer was able to catch up with the illuminated by any light, rule out nighttime as an
first farmer, he killed the latter. Is the aggravating aggravating circumstance.
circumstance that the crime was committed in a place Q: In the commission of the crime, A decided to kill B, his
where the Public Authorities are engaged in the discharge enemy. A knew that B would pass by the place wherein
of their duties present? there were no light posts. A waited for B in the said place.
A: No, it is not present. Although DAR is a place Upon the moment B arrived A left his post and was about
where the Public Authorities are engaged in the to stab B when suddenly a tricycle passed by and the light
discharge of their duties, at the time of the coming from the tricycle illuminated the scene of the
commission of the crime, the officials and employees crime. Even if A deliberately sought nighttime, nighttime
are not in the actual performance of their duties. is not aggravating because a light illuminated the scene of
Under this aggravating circumstance, it is not only the crime. Whenever any light has illuminated the scene
necessary that the said places are where public of the crime, rule out nighttime as an aggravating
authorities are engaged in the discharge of their circumstance.
duties, it is also necessary that at the time of the A: light coming from the tricycle, from any vehicle,
commission of the crime, the public authorities are nearby house, light posts or even from the moon, for
actually engaged in the performance of their duties. as long as the scene of the crime has been illuminated,
nighttime is not aggravating.
VI. That the crime be committed at the nighttime
or in an uninhabited place, or by a band, 2. AN UNINHABITED PLACE
whenever such circumstances may facilitate the
- Means a place which is isolated from the others
or located far from others. However this is not the
Whenever more than three armed malefactors requirement for it to be considered aggravating.
shall have acted together in the commission of the
Requisites:
offense, it shall be deemed to have been
committed by a band. 1. Offender has very little or remote possibility to
receive some help
2. Offender deliberately sought the uninhabited
There are three aggravating circumstances: place to facilitate the commission of the crime
1. NIGHTTIME Q: A, B and C are fishermen. Around 3 am, they all went
Requisites: out fishing on their respective boats. They were sailing 5
1. Offender deliberately took advantage of nighttime meters away from each other. Suddenly X sprung out of
or cover of darkness the water and he stabbed A. In the prosecution for killing
2. The purpose of of the offender is to facilitate the of A, is the aggravating circumstance of uninhabited
commission of the crime or to insure or afford place present?
impunity A: Yes it is present. First, in the place where the crime
➢ from sunset to sunrise was committed, there was very little, remote
➢ in order for these aggravating circumstances to be possibility for A to receive some help. Because B and C
considered, it is necessary that the offender must still swim before they could render help or
deliberately sought the darkness of the night. He assistance to A. Before they could have swum and
deliberately sought to cover in darkness either to reached A, A is already dead. Therefore there was very
facilitate the commission of the crime or to insure litter or remote possibility for the victim to be saved.
or afford impunity. The said accused X deliberately sought the place in
➢ To facilitate the commission of the crime, he use order to facilitate in the commission of the crime
the cover of darkness, so that his actual because he suddenly appeared from the water.
perpetration of the crime will be unmolested. He Therefore the aggravating circumstance of
cannot be disturbed. Therefore, there is an uninhabited place is present.
assurance that crime will be consummated. To 3. BY A BAND
insure or afford impunity he sought to cover in
➢ More than three (at least four) armed malefactors
darkness so that no one will be able to recognize
should have acted (all) together in the
him.
➢ Even if the offender sought nighttime, the
➢ for the aggravating circumstance of by a band to
moment the scene of the crime has been
be present, the law says where more than three
armed malefactors shall have acted together in

the commission of the offense, it shall be deemed and pretending to be helping, went near X, and X who is
to have been committed by a band. Therefore, already an old man, Y repeatedly stabbed X. Thereafter Y
there must be at least 4 armed men in the took all the things inside the house. Y was charged of
commission of the crime or they must have acted robbery with homicide. Is the charge correct?
together in the commission of the crime.
Q: A, B, C, D and E all armed with knives, killed X. The The charge is wrong. It is not robbery with homicide
information stated that A, B, C, D and E conspired with because the criminal intent of Y was to take a revenge on
one another and as a band they committed the crime of X, to kill X. So the appropriate charge Murder and Theft.
murder against X. during the presentation of evidence, Two crimes must be charge.
conspiracy was proven beyond reasonable doubt. Likewise,
What aggravating circumstances attended the commission
band as an aggravating circumstance was proven beyond
of the crime?
reasonable doubt. Thus the judge convicted A, B, C, D and
E for the crime of murder as conspirators. The judge also
considered the aggravating circumstance of by a band. First, on the occasion of a big fire, which is a qualifying
The counsel for the accused filed a motion for the aggravating circumstance. If you would look at Art.248, if
consideration, questioning the consideration of the crime of killing a person is committed under any of these
aggravating circumstance of by a band. According to the occasions, it will qualify the crime of Homicide to Murder,
counsel, conspiracy has already been considered therefore and the penalty would be Reclusion Perpetua. The fact that
by a band can no longer be considered by the court. Is the the killing took place on the occasion of the said fire then
counsel’s contention correct? the crime would be considered as Murder.
A: No, the counsel’s contention is wrong. Even if the Crime is committed inside dwelling of the offended party
court already considered conspiracy, by a band may while he was busy saving all his things. Although it is being
still be considered by the court because conspiracy is gutted with fire, it is still the dwelling, the place of comfort
a means of committing a crime. It means they have and rest of X.
the same criminal liability. On the other hand, by a No disregard of age, there was no showing of disrespect of
band is an aggravating circumstance. One does not age. Although Y repeatedly stabbed X, there was no
absorb the other, therefore, both maybe considered showing that Y disregarded/disrespected or intended to
and appreciated by the court. disregard/disrespect the age of X, because the intent was
to take a revenge against X.
VII. That the crime be committed on the occasion So two aggravating circumstances are present, one is on
of a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, the occasion of fire and the other, that dwelling is present
epidemic, or other calamity or misfortune. in the commission of the crime.
- it is considered as an aggravating circumstance 2. X went to the house of A and B, and X asked A&B if he
because on occasion of these calamities, the offender took could occupy one of the room inside said house. A and B
advantage of the said occasion in order to commit the obliged and so X is now occupying one of the rooms inside
crime. the said house of A and B. Two days thereafter, when X
was living in the said house, the husband went to work,
and the wife was the only one left in the house. When X
If the crime is committed on occasion of any of these
learned that it was only the wife who was inside the house,
calamities or misfortune, it will aggravate the criminal
X got out of his room and went to the bedroom of the wife
liability of the offender. In times of calamities we should
and against the will of the wife he had carnal knowledge.
help one another, so if the offender took advantage of
So a crime of Rape was filed against X. What aggravating
these occasions, it shows his greater criminality, his
circumstances attended the commission of the crime?
greater perversity hence it will aggravate his criminal
liability.
In the information it was alleged that dwelling attended
the commission of the crime, likewise there was disregard
Example:
of sex and likewise it was stated that there was abuse of
1. There was this big fire, that a number of houses in the confidence. Are these aggravating circumstances alleged in
barangay were gutted with fire, the house of X was among the information to be considered by the court? Granting
those affected by this big fire. While X was busy getting his that it was all proven..
things out of said house, and so Y wanted to take a revenge
because he has grudge against X, went to the said place

Dwelling cannot be appreciated as aggravating Your answer is - if they are present or not. You will say if
circumstance because both of them are living in the same they are present, and you will state the elements why they
house. Even if X was only renting the said place still it are present, and connect the elements to the facts.
cannot be said that when X committed the crime of Rape,
he disregarded dwelling. So dwelling cannot be considered
But if the question is:
an aggravating circumstance.
"If you were the judge how would you consider/
APPRECIATE these aggravating circumstances?"
No disregard of sex because it is inherent or an element in
Then that is the time that you will say that some of these
the commission of the crime of Rape. You no longer
aggravating circumstances will be absorbed by Treachery.
consider it so as to increase the imposable penalty because
Or that they will be offset by some of the mitigating
it is an element of the crime of Rape by carnal knowledge,
circumstances.
the Rape here is by carnal knowledge not Rape by Sexual
Assault.
There is generic circumstance of Abuse of Confidence. All Par. 8. That the crime be committed with the aid
the elements of abuse of confidence are present. The of armed men or persons who insure or afford
offended party has trusted the offender, the spouses A and impunity.
B trusted X, they agreed for X to stay inside their house.
The offender abused the trust and confidence, and said • “with the aid of armed men”
abuse of trust and confidence facilitated the commission of
- the armed men aided the offender in the
the crime. Were it not for the trust reposed by the spouses,
commission of the crime. The aid given by the armed men
X would not have committed the crime. Therefore the
maybe a direct or indirect participation in the
Abuse of Confidence must be appreciated.
3. Lessor-Y went to the unit being rented by the lessee- X

• armed men distinguished from by a band
to ask the latter to pay rent because the lessee haven't paid
rent for three months already. X happened to be an old 1. a. In case of a band, the law requires a number of
man. When X still didn't pay the rent, Y attacked X, Y persons, that is, at least 4 armed malefactors.
hacked and hacked X. When X, the said old man, 85yrs b. In case of with the aid of armed men, there is no
old, was already lying on the floor still Y repeatedly and requisite as to the number of armed men who aided the
continuously hacked X. What aggravating circumstances actual perpetrator of the crime.
attended the commission of the crime? 2. a. In case of a band, it is necessary that the armed men
must have acted together in the actual
The first aggravating circumstance that attended the commission of the crime.
commission of the crime is dwelling. There is dwelling in b. In case of with the aid of armed men, it is not necessary
the commission of the crime because it was committed in that the armed men acted together in the commission of
the unit being rented by X even if Y is the owner, still it is the crime because the armed men merely aided the actual
the dwelling of X because he is renting the said place from perpetrator of the crime and their participation may
the owner. either be a direct or indirect participation in the
Disregard of Age, X was already lying on the floor yet Y
still repeatedly hacked X. An 85 year old lying cold feet on Par. 9. That the accused is a recidivist.
the ground then there was obviously disregard of the age A recidivist is one whom at the time of his trial
of the victim in the commission of the crime. for one crime, shall have previously been
convicted by final judgment of another crime
***if the question is: embraced in the same title of this Code.
"Are the aggravating circumstances of dwelling, abuse of
confidence, nighttime, etc. PRESENT in the commission of • Who is a recidivist?
the crime?" - A recidivist is one whom at the time of his trial for one
crime, shall have previously been convicted by final

judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter
this Code. penalty;
3. That he is also convicted of the new offense.
Elements:
1. that the offender is on trial for an offense; • Under the second element there are two
2. That he was previously convicted by final situations. The first situation is that, he has already served
judgment of another crime; out the sentence, he has already been punished for a
crime. If it is only one crime it is necessary that the said
3. That both the first and second offenses are
crime must carry a penalty equal to or greater than the
embraced in the same title of the code;
second crime. But if there are two crimes for which he had
4. That the offender is convicted of the second been previously punished, it is necessary that they carry a
offense charged. lighter penalties than the new crime for which he is
convicted.
• In case of recidivism, there must be at least 2
convictions. 1 conviction must be by conviction by final • Like recidivism, in reiteracion there must at least
judgment. The second conviction must be for the second be two convictions. But unlike recidivism, where there is a
time for which he is on trial. conviction by final judgment of the first crime, in case of
reiteracion it is necessary that there has already been a
Example: service of sentence.
A has been convicted of the crime of attempted homicide.

The judge found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, Example:
therefore, he was convicted. The judgment became final 1. A has been convicted of the crime of homicide.
and executory, therefore he was behind bars. He served Convicted by final judgment, he was placed behind bars.
out his sentence. Once out of prison cell, he lived a good He served out his sentence. Once out of prison, he
life. However, after 25 years, he engaged in a fight and committed forcible abduction. Homicide is punished by
killed the other man. By reasonable doubt he was charged reclusion temporal. Forcible abduction is now on trial. The
with and convicted of the crime of murder. Can the judge penalty prescribed by law for forcible abduction is also
consider recidivism as an aggravating circumstance in reclusion temporal. The judge found him guilty for forcible
imposing the penalty for murder? abduction. Can the judge consider reiteracion as an
- Yes, because both homicide and murder are embraced in aggravating circumstance in imposing the penalty for
the same title of the code. The fact that 25 years had lapsed forcible abduction?
from the time of the first crime to the second crime is - Yes because the penalty for the crime of homicide
immaterial because recidivism is imprescriptible. There is where he has already served out his sentence is equal to
no time limit between the first crime for which he has been the penalty for forcible abduction, both reclusion
convicted by final judgment and the second crime for temporal.
which he is also convicted.
Therefore, reiteracion or habituality can be considered.
Par. 10. That the offender has been previously

3. B committed forcible abduction. He was convicted by
punished for an offense to which the law attaches
final judgment. He served out his sentence. He is now out
an equal or greater penalty or for two or more
of prison. Once out of prison, he committed falsification of
crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty.
public document. He is on trial for the said falsification of
public document. The judge found him guilty beyond
• This is likewise considered as reiteracion or reasonable doubt. In imposing the penalty for falsification
habituality. of public document, can judge consider reiteracion as an
aggravating circumstance?
Elements: - Yes, because the penalty for forcible abduction is

reclusion temporal, which is higher than the penalty for
1. That the accused is on trial for an offense;
falsification of public document committed by a private
2. That he previously served sentence for another individual which is only prision correccional. Therefore,
crime to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty reiteracion or habituality should be considered by the

court in imposing the penalty for falsification of public

document. In so far as Habitual Delinquency is concerned it is
considered as a Special Aggravating circumstance. Some
4. B committed falsification of public document. book says that it is an Extraordinary Aggravating
Convicted, served out the sentence. After service of Circumstance because the presence of this aggravating
sentence, he is out of prison, he engaged in a fight and circumstance of HD would mean and imposition of an
killed his opponent. His now on trial for homicide. The additional penalty aside from the penalty imposed on the
judge found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Can the offender for the crime that he has committed an additional
judge consider reiteracion as an aggravating penalty would be imposed on him for being a habitual
circumstance? -No because the crime for which he has delinquent. Limitation, however, is that if you add the
served out his sentence carries a penalty lighter than that penalty for the crime that he has committed and the
of the second crime. The law requires that if it is only one additional penalty for being a HD, they must not exceed 30
crime, it must carry a penalty equal to or greater than the yrs.
second crime he committed.
RECIDIVISM V. REITERACION
5. A slapped B. B filed a case for slight physical 1. In Recidivism it is only required that there is a first
injuries against A. He was convicted and served out his conviction by final judgment, whereas in Reiteracion it is
sentence for slight physical injuries which is arresto required that he has served out his sentence for the
menor. Once out of prison, he was still mad at B. He previous crime that he has committed.
deliberately caused damage to the property of B. B now 2. In Recidivism the law requires that the two crimes be
filed a case of malicious mischief against A. The judge embraced in the same title of the Code, while in
found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt for malicious Reiteracion there is no such requisite.
mischief. Can the judge consider reiteracion as an
RECIDIVISM V. HABITUAL DELINQUENCY
- No because slight physical injuries which carries

with it the penalty of arresto menor is lighter than Recidivism Habitual delinquency
malicious mischief which carries with it the penalty of
arresto mayor. Therefore the judge cannot consider Two convictions Three convictions
reiteracion as an aggravating circumstance. He was
convicted of malicious mischief and placed behind bars. Same title of code Falsification, Robbery,
Estafa, Theft, Serious
physical injuries, Less
After service of sentence, he is now out of prison. Once out serious physical injuries
of prison, he was still mad at B. therefore he made sworn
(FRETSeL)
affidavits stating false statements against B. B filed a case
of perjury against A. he is now on trial for the crime of No prescriptive period Prescriptive period of 10
perjury. The judge found him guilty beyond reasonable on the commission of years
doubt. Can the judge consider reiteracion as an the offense. It
does not prescribe
- Yes, because the first two crimes, the penalties of
which were already served out, carry lighter penalties than Generic aggravating Cannot offset by mitigating
the third crime: slight physical injuries, arresto menor; circumstance, may be circumstance, provides
malicious mischief arresto mayor. Therefore reiteracion offset. additional penalty
can be considered.
FOUR FORMS OF HABITUALITY: RECIDIVISM V. QUASI RECIDIVISM
1. RECIDIVIST 1. In Recidivism there must be atleast two convictions,

whereas in Quasi-Recidivism likewise there must be two
2. REITERACION
convictions (first by final judgment and second for the
3. HABITUAL DELINQUENCY second crime that he has committed.
4. QUASI RECIDIVIST

2. In recidivism it is necessary that the crimes are crime. He was previously convicted of Homicide and he
embraced in the same title of the Code, while in Quasi- committed another crime which is SPI and was found
Recidivism there is no such requisite, the only requisite is guilty by final judgment thereof. The two crimes (homicide
that the second crime committed by the offender must be a and SPI) are embraced in the same title of the code.
felony. Therefore he is a recidivist.
Examples: He is also a quasi-recidivist because at the time he is

1. X committed robbery and he was convicted by final serving sentence for a crime, he committed another felony
judgment served out sentence and was released. Within six (serious physical injuries is a felony). Therefore he is also a
years from the date of his release he committed theft, quasi-recidivist.
prosecuted and convicted by final judgment served out the
sentence and was released. Within six months he The effect of recidivism is that it can be offset by a generic
committed another crime of Theft, convicted by final mitigating circumstance, whereas quasi recidivism cannot
judgment served out his sentence and released. Within two be offset by a mitigating circumstance. Because under Art.
months from the date of his release, he again committed a 160 is a Special Aggravating Circumstance, the maximum
crime of Theft, so the judge found him guilty beyond penalty prescribed by law shall be imposed. He is both a
reasonable doubt of this Theft. In imposing the penalty for recidivist and quasi-recidivist. Can you appreciate both?
this Theft, which of the four forms of habituality as
aggravating circumstances may be considered by the
court? No. You cannot appreciate both because they have
different effects. You better appreciate recidivism because
The court may consider both Recidivism and Habitual
it can be offset by a mitigating circumstance.
Delinquency. X is a habitual delinquent, within 10 years
from the date of his last release or conviction of the crime
of theft, he committed another theft. He has been found Par. 11. That the crime be committed in
guilty three times of the crime of theft. Therefore he is a consideration of a price, reward, or promise.
Habitual Delinquent.
He is also a Recidivist because he has been previously - If the price, reward or promise, as a circumstance
convicted by final judgment of the crime of Theft, and is present in the killing of a person, it is not considered as
another crime of robbery which is embraced in the same a generic aggravating person but a qualifying aggravating
title of the code. Therefore he is also a recidivist. circumstance. It is one of the qualifying circumstances
Both aggravating circumstances may be considered by the under Art.248.
court because they have different effects on the criminal
liability of the offender. The fact that he is a recidivist,
- This aggravating circumstance should be
recidivism will be considered. If recidivism is not offset by
considered both against the person who made the offer
a mitigating circumstance it would mean the imposition of
and the person who accepted the price, reward or promise.
the maximum period of penalty for the crime of theft. But
Therefore, it is to be considered both against the principal
for being a Habitual delinquent an additional penalty will
by inducement and the principal by direct participation.
be imposed. So both may be considered by the court in the
imposition of penalty.
2. X committed homicide convicted by final judgment he is - To be considered against the principal by

now serving his sentence at the new bilibid prison. He inducement, it is necessary that the price, reward or
engaged in a fight, he inflicted serious physical injuries on promise must be the prime reason for the principal by
another inmate. So he is now prosecuted for serious direct participation committed the crime. That without the
physical injuries. After trial on the merits, the judge found price, reward or promise, the principal by direct
him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of serious physical participation would not have committed the crime.
injuries. In imposing the penalty what forms of habituality
as aggravating circumstances may be considered? Par. 12. That the crime be committed by means of
inundation, fire, poison, explosion, stranding of a
Quasi-Recidivism and Recidivism. He is a recidivist vessel or international damage thereto,
because at the time of trial for one offense, he was derailment of a locomotive, or by the use of any
previously convicted by final judgment for another other artifice involving great waste and ruin.

acts. Therefore, evident premeditation was present in the

- the offender makes use of inundation, fire or commission of the crime.
explosion in order to commit the crime. It is a means to
commit the crime. If these means are used in killing a Par. 14. That the craft, fraud or disguise be
person, it is not a generic aggravating circumstance, it is a employed.
qualifying aggravating circumstance under article 248. It
qualifies the killing to murder.
• There are three aggravating circumstances:
1. Craft
Par. 13 That the act be committed with evidence
2. Fraud
premeditation.
3. Disguise
• Evident premeditation
• Craft
- It is the stubborn adherence to a decision to
- intellectual trickery or cunning resorted to by the
commit a crime.
accused Example:
- It implies a deliberate plans before or after the
The accused knocked at the door. He knows that only the
maid was at home. He told the maid that he was a relative
of the owners of the house who came from the province.
Requisites: He was allowed to enter the house, thereafter he
1. The time when the offender determined to committed a crime of robbery. There was cunning or
commit the crime; intellectual trickery resorted to by the accused for he
2. An act manifestly indicating that the culprit has tricked the maid to consummate the crime of robbery.
clung to his determination;
3. Sufficient lapse time between the determination • Fraud
and execution, to allow him to reflect upon the
- it means deceit
consequences of his acts.
- it is manifested by the use of insidious words or
machinations resorted to by the accused so that the
Example: offended party will perform an act that will make the
A slapped B two times in front of the public. B felt so offender do the crime easily.
humiliated so he told A “the next time I see you, I will kill
you!” B went home and searched for his gun. He found the
Example:
same and kept it under his pillow, waiting for the time to
kill A. A month has lapsed. B while walking saw A. upon The offended party was about to sleep on the upper
seeing A, he immediately run to his house, went to his portion of the house because the lower portion is a store.
bedroom and took the gun under his pillow. He raised The offender called over the owner, saying that he was
back to A and shot him. Is the aggravating circumstance going to buy something. The owner went down the house
of evident premeditation present? and opened the store. However, upon opening the store, he
was stabbed and robbery was committed. There was fraud
as manifested by the insidious words or machinations,
- First, the time when the offender determined to commit resorted to by the offender.
the crime. That is the time when B told A “the next time I
• Disguise
see you, I will kill you!”
- ways and means resorted to by the accused to
conceal his identity.
Second, an overt act manifestly indicating that he has
- Stockings, bonnet or anything that could be used
clung to his determination. He brought a gun. It is an overt
so that one could not be recognized.
act showing that he has clung to his determination.
- If despite disguise he is recognized, rule out
disguise as an aggravating circumstance, it did not serve
Third, a sufficient lapse of time between the determination its purpose.
and execution. A month has passed. That is sufficient for
him to cool off, to reflect upon the consequences of his

Par. 15. That advantage be taken of superior • If the victim was able to put out any defense, no
strength, or means be employed to weaken the matter how minor, treachery is not present.
defense.
Example:
• abuse of superior strength A was about to stab B but he was able to parry the blow,
that is already a defense on his part. He was able to run
Requisites: away, that is already considered as a defense. Treachery is
no longer present. It is necessary that the offended party
1. That there be a notorious inequality of forces
or the victim must be totally without defense.
between the offender and the offended party in terms of
their age, size and strength;
2. That the offender took advantage of this • What if the attack is a frontal attack?
inequality of forces to facilitate the commission of the - even if it is a frontal attack, if it is so sudden,
crime. unexpected, such that the offended party would not be
aware of it and was not able to put up any defense, there is
still treachery.
• Inequality of forces
Example:
Example: Offender enjoys numerical superiority over that
of the offended party A and B were walking towards each other. When near
enough, B suddenly stabbed A. It was a frontal attack yet
obviously there was treachery. A was totally defenseless
• The mere fact that there was numerical and B deliberately and consciously adopted the means in
superiority does not automatically mean that there is the commission of the crime.
abuse of superior strength. Under the second element,
evidence must show that the offender deliberately took
advantage of their strength to facilitate the commission of • Whenever the offended party is a minor, there is
the crime. always treachery because the minor is always defenseless.
Par. 16. That the act be committed with treachery Example:

(alevosia). Victim is 17 years of age, but a big, macho man, full of
There is treachery when the offender commits muscles. Is there treachery?
any of the crimes against the person, employing - the Supreme Court held that whenever the
means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof offended party is a minor, there is always treachery.
which tend directly and specially to insure its Minority here does not refer to the statutory
execution, without risk to himself arising from the definition of minority, that is, being below 18
defense which the offended party might make. years of age. Minority here is with reference to
the sense of helplessness of the victim. So it is
necessary that the victim is helpless.
Elements:
1. That the offender deliberately adopted the
particular means, method or form of attack employed by Example:
him.
2. That at the time of the attack, the victim was not 1. A prisoner arrived at the police station. Upon removal of
in a position to defend himself. his handcuffs, he immediately grab the pistol of the
arresting officer. Thereafter he went out pointing the said
gun. Upon seing a woman who was getting inside the PNP
• the essence of treachery is the suddenness and
station, he shot the woman. The woman died. Is the
unexpectedness of the act to unexpecting and unarmed
aggravating circumstance of treachery present?
victim who has not even the slightest provocation. The
victim must be totally without defense. - the aggravating circumstance of treachery is not present
it is a mere chance encounter. The first element is wanting.
There is no showing the offender deliberately adopted the

particular means, method or form of attack employed by happened at the spur of the moment, when Y failed to pay,
him in killing the woman. X got mad, it was only at that time that X has decided,
therefore he did not deliberately adopted the particular
means, method or form of attack employed. The first
2. A was found on the street. He has 10 stab wounds all at
element being absent treachery would not lie.
the back. No one saw the commission of the crime.
However A witness claimed that he saw X leaving the place There is obviously abuse of superior strength. There is
with a weapon full of blood. notorious inequality of forces. Two men, the bodyguards
were holding the hands of Y as X repeatedly stabbed him.
X was arrested. Is treachery present?
Obviously these three persons took advantage of their
- No, treachery is not present because the witness failed to superiority of strength in order to facilitate the
observe the start or the commencement of the attack. For commission of the crime. Both elements for the abuse of
treachery to arise it is necessary that he must be superior strength are present.
present at the commencement of the attack in
order to know whether the offended party was
totally defenseless. 2. X is the driver of Atty. Y and after bringing Atty. Y to the
office for attending a court hearing. X talked to the
secretary of Atty. Y and X told the secretary "if I couldn't
***People vs. Bukinco and leviste case control myself, I could kill Atty. Y, he has been a very
SC: Since no one saw the commencement of the attack, abusive employer, giving me bad food, insulting me. If I
treachery is not present. lost control of myself I'm going to kill him." So X narrated
that to the Secretary of Atty. Y. After came back from the
court at nighttime X brought Atty. Y at his house. Atty. Y
3. The witness saw A and B were holding on X. Both his
alighted to the house. Meanwhile X brought the attaché
hands were held at the back by A and B. He was being
case to the house, and thereafter went to the kitchen, got a
attacked by Y. The witness did not see how the attack
water and took a kitchen knife, went to the bedroom of
commenced but only that he was attacked by Y while his
Atty. Y, then X stabbed Atty. Y repeatedly. What
hands were held by A and B. Is there treachery?
aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the
- yes, in the case of People vs Tabuena (?!?), SC held that crime?
there was treachery. The witness did not see the
commencement of the attack, however, he saw that there
was restraint on the person of X. What the witness saw There was no evident premeditation, the time that the
was that the hands of the victim were being held at the offender was determined to commit the crime, his
back while he was being attacked. That suffices because utterances or narration to the secretary cannot be
there was restraint on the person of the victim. The SC considered as determination to kill because he said "if I
held that even the witness did not observe the lost control" or "pag hindi ako nakapagpigil." Therefore he
commencement of the attack, since there was restraint on is not determined to kill. And the second element, there is
his person, he was totally defenseless, treachery is present no overt act that he has clung to his determination.
according to the Supreme Court. Likewise there is no sufficient lapse of time, he said that to
the secretary in the morning and he committed the crime
Examples:
in the evening. When he brought back the Atty. to the
1.X went to the house of Y, because Y borrowed money house he immediately committed the crime.
from X. So X told Y that he should pay the money now. But
Y said that he has no money, so X got so mad and ordered
his two body guards to hold Y, and while the two body There was Dwelling in the commission of the crime. The
guards held the hands of Y at the back, X repeatedly driver could have killed the Atty. in any other place, while
stabbed Y to death. X and his body guards are now in the car or in the office, while alighting the vehicle but he
prosecuted for murder. The information alleged two killed the lawyer inside the latter's house, therefore there
qualifying aggravating circumstances, Treachery and was disrespect in the dwelling of the said atty.
abuse of superior strength. Are both present?
There was Treachery in the commission of the crime. He
Only abuse of superior strength is present and treachery is went to the kitchen took the kitchen knife and thereafter
absorbed. Treachery is not present because the first went to the room of Atty. he deliberately and consciously
element (offender deliberately adopted the particular adopted the means to be used in the commission of the
means, method or form of attack employed by him) is crime. Upon opening the door he immediately stabbed the
absent. The commission of the said crime of killing

victim, the victim was totally without or not in a position Par. 19. That as a means to the commission of a
to defend himself. Therefore treachery was present. crime a wall, roof, floor, door, or window be
There was also Abuse of Confidence in the commission of broken.
the crime. The Atty. trusted the driver, in fact he was the
one bringing him to and from office/house, and by reason Example:
of said trust and confidence it facilitated the commission
1. A was on vacation. B knew that A was on
of the crime.
vacation. He saw that the window on the third floor of the
house was open. He got a ladder and placed it in the
Par. 17. That means be employed or circumstances window, climbed it and entered the house. then he took
brought about which add ignominy to the natural the valuables, got out through the window. Is the
effects of the act. aggravating circumstance of unlawful entry present?
- No, it is not present. The reason is that, the fact that a
• Ignominy crime was committed after an unlawful entry is inherent in
the commission of the crime because the crime committed
- a moral circumstance which add to the injury suffered by
is robbery under Art.299, robbery with use of force upon
the victim. It is humiliation, embarrassment, moral killing.
things. The essence of robbery, is in the act of unlawful
entry. The entry was done through a means not intended
• People vs. Domingo for anything that is to a window. Thus, the fact that a crime
A raped B. before killing B, A raped B in the was committed after an unlawful entry is not an
presence of his father. Before A raped B in the presence of aggravating circumstance.
his father, he used a flashlight to examine the genitalia of
B likewise in the presence of the father. Is the 2. A was passing by the house of B. Suddenly he saw
aggravating circumstance of ignominy present? through the window, two cellphones being charged.
- Yes it is present. The examination of the genitalia of the Interested on the cellphones, he broke the window entered
victim is not necessary in the commission of the crime of his hand and took the cellphones. Is the aggravating
rape. Such act of the offender merely add to the moral circumstance, that as a means to the commission of the
pain, moral suffering of the victim, especially it was done crime the window was broken present? - Yes it is present
in the presence of the father. Therefore ignominy is because the crime committed is theft only and not robbery.
present. The crime committed was theft not robbery because the
offender did not enter the house. For robbery to arise it is
necessary that the offender enter the said place and take
• People vs. ________________
the cellphones. He only broke the window, entered his
A raped B. B filed a case of raped against A. when hand and took the cellphones. Therefore the crime
B testified in court, that when A raped her, he used the committed is theft. In theft, the fact that a window was
dog style position. The entry of the penis was from broken is not inherent it is an aggravating circumstance.
behind, not the normal act in having sexual intercourse.
RTC did not consider ignominy. However, the SC held
that it was erroneous for the RTC not to have considered 1) X entered the house of Y but passing thru an open
ignominy as an aggravating circumstance. window. Once inside he killed Y. What is the
crime committed? What is the aggravating
circumstance?
• People vs Fernandez.
A woman victim of rape was found in a vacant lot. ANS: The crime committed is murder and the
Her genitalia was full of mud. SC held that there was aggravating circumstance of unlawful entry. There is
ignominy. The placing of mud in the genitalia add moral unlawful entry because the crime of killing of the said
pain, moral suffering to the victim. victim was done after passing thru the window. The
crime was committed after an unlawful entry.
Par. 18. That the crime be committed after an
unlawful entry. 2) What if in the same problem, X entered the house
 There is an unlawful entry when an entrance is of Y but passing thru the window. The intention
effected by a way not intended for the purpose was to commit robbery he got the valuables but
the owner is awakened. So X upon seeing Y, who

cried for help, shot Y. Thereafter he left again

passing thru the window. What crime is X was driving a car. Thereafter, the traffic lights went red
committed? Is the unlawful entry an aggravating so he stop. Suddenly a motor cycle appeared near him.
circumstance? There were two persons riding the motor cycle, the person
on the back started to shoot him. X died. In the
ANS: The crime is Robbery with homicide. The commission of the said crime, is the aggravating
unlawful entry is not considered an aggravating circumstance of use of motor vehicle present?
circumstance. It is inherent in the commission of the ANS: It is present. The said killing is done by means
crime. of a motor vehicle.
3) X made an opening on the roof of Y and

thereafter X with the use of a rope with a hook Par. 21. That the wrong done in the commission
was able to take the valuables on top of the table of the crime be deliberately augmented by
inside the same house. What crime is committed? causing other wrong not necessary for its
What is the aggravating circumstance? commissions.
ANS: The crime committed is Theft. Unlawful entry is Elements:

the aggravating circumstance. The roof was broken as
1. That at the time of the infliction of the physical
a means to commit the crime in order to get the things
pain, the offended party is still alive.
on the table.
2. That the offender enjoys and delights in seeing
his victim suffer gradually by the infliction of the physical
In order to bring about Robbery, the entire body of pain.
the offender must enter the place. So even if the
offender makes some opening, or broke any roof,
floor, etc. but he did not enter the said opening, and
just devise means to get the things, the crime is only • If ignominy refers to the moral pain, cruelty
THEFT. Unlawful entry is an aggravating pertains to the additional physical pain other than that
circumstance and not inherent in the commission of which is necessary in the commission of the crime.
the crime.
Example:
*Dwelling is only inherent in Robbery w/ force upon A person was found dead with several wounds all over his
things not in violence/intimidation. body. Is the fact that he has several wounds on different
Par. 20. That the crime be committed with the aid parts of his body mean that there was cruelty?
of persons under fifteen years of age or by means - No. the fact that there was 25-50 wounds cannot
of motor vehicles, motorized watercraft, airships, immediately mean that there was cruelty in the
or other similar means. (As amended by RA 5438). commission of the crime. It is necessary to determine,
whether first, he was still alive at the time the physical
• If the crime committed makes use of minors pain was inflicted; second, did the offender enjoy and
under 15 years of age, it shows the greater perversity of the delight in seeing his victim suffer gradually by the
offender because he knows that minors cannot be arrested. infliction of the physical pain. If there were defense
Persons below 15 years of age cannot be prosecuted, it is wounds, cruelty cannot be appreciated.
among the exempting circumstances. Therefore, it shows
greater perversity. • Ignominy vs. Cruelty
1. a. Ignominy, the victim suffered moral pain.
• If the crime is committed with the use of motor b. Cruelty pertains to physical pain or physical suffering.
vehicle in killing a person, it is a qualifying
aggravating circumstance under article 248. If the
motor vehicle is used in the commission of any other 2. a. Ignominy, the victim can either be alive or dead
crime, it is a mere generic aggravating b. Cruelty, it is necessary that the victim was still alive
circumstance.

*** in addition to article 14 which is reclusion perpetua to death. The penalty

prescribed by law is reclusion perpetua to death.
1. A killed B by means of an unlicensed firearm. B

died and A was arrested. The firearm was recovered. Two 4. A killed B. thereafter he chopped the body of B.
cases were filed against A: murder or homicide as the case because of the manner employed by the accused in killing
maybe and illegal possession of unlicensed firearm under the victim, the police suspected that he was under the
PD. 1866 as amended by RA 8294. Are the charges influence of prohibited drugs. He was brought to the PNP
correct? crime laboratory for forensic examination. The results
provided that he was under the influence of prohibited
drugs. What is the effect of the positive result of the said
-No, under section 1 of PD. 1866 as amended by RA 8294
examination on the commission of the crime of the said
if homicide or murder is committed with the use of an
accused?
unlicensed firearm, such use of unlicensed firearm shall
be considered as an aggravating circumstance. Therefore,
there shall only be the charge of murder or homicide as - Under Section 25 of RA 9165, when a crime is
the case maybe. The use of the unlicensed firearm shall be committed by an offender under the influence of
alleged in the information as an aggravating dangerous drugs, such state shall be considered as a
circumstance. qualifying aggravating circumstance. Therefore, it will
bring about a change in the nature of the crime to a more
serious crime with a higher penalty.
2. A killed B by means of an unlicensed firearm.
An information was filed charging A with the crime of
homicide. It is alleged in the information that A shot B • Illegal possession of unlicensed firearm- special
with the use of unlicensed firearm. During trial the same aggravating circumstance.
was proven. Judge convicted A for the crime of murder Positive result in the use of dangerous drugs- qualifying
and considered the use of unlicensed firearm as a generic aggravating circumstance.
aggravating circumstance. The judge opined that Section
1 of PD. 1866 as amended by RA 8294 is silent as to what
USE OF UNLICENSED FIREARM PD 1866 as
kind of aggravating circumstance the use of firearms. The
amended RA 8294, as further amended by
principle that penal laws should be construed liberally in
RA 10591
favor of the accused should be applied. Is the judge
correct?
Q: The accused shot the victim which resulted in his
death. The accused was arrested and the unlicensed
- No, the judge is wrong because the SC has long firearm that he used was confiscated from him. He was
ruled that the use of the unlicensed is a special aggravating charged of homicide and illegal possession of loose
circumstance which cannot be offset by any mitigating firearms – two crimes. Are the charges correct?
circumstance. A: No because the unlicensed firearm is inherent to
the commission of the crime, it would be an
aggravating circumstance and therefore the crime
3. A father and son had an argument. The son shot
charge will be homicide with the special aggravating
his father with an unlicensed firearm. The father died.
circumstance of use of a loose firearm.
Two cases were filed against the son: parricide and illegal
possession of unlicensed firearm. The fiscal opined that
The killing was done by shooting, therefore the use of
under section 1 of PD. 1866 as amended by RA 8294 if
the gun was inherent to consummate the act of
homicide or murder is committed with the use of an
homicide.
unlicensed firearm, such use of unlicensed firearm shall
be considered as an aggravating circumstance. It did not
Q: X and Y, father and son had an argument. The son took
provide for parricide, therefore two cases should be filed.
out his pistol, an unlicensed and unregistered pistol and
Is the fiscal correct?
shot his father. The father died. What crime is committed?
How will you consider to the use of an unlicensed firearm
- No, the fiscal is wrong. SC has already ruled, that in the commission of the crime?
the words homicide and murder in the said law is used in A: The crime committed is Parricide. The use of the
its generic sense. Therefore it includes all kinds of killing unlicensed firearm is considered as a special
where the penalty prescribed by law is the same as murder aggravating circumstance.

Provided, further, That if the crime committed with the

Q: X and Y were fighting. In the course of the said fight, X use of a loose firearm is penalized by the law with a
pulled out his pistol and shot Y. Y was hit on the left arm. maximum penalty which is equal to that imposed under
Not a serious injury. As a result, the crime charged is the preceding section for illegal possession of firearms,
Attempted homicide or was charged with less serious the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period shall
physical injuries. Will the use of an unlicensed firearm be be imposed in addition to the penalty for the crime
considered as a special aggravating circumstance? punishable under the Revised Penal Code or other special
A: Yes. laws of which he/she is found guilty.
If the violation of this Act is in furtherance of, or incident
Q: The accused carnapped a motor vehicle by means of to, or in connection with the crime of rebellion of
intimidation which was done by pointing a gun at the insurrection, or attempted coup d’ etat, such violation
owner of the car. The owner of the car was intimidated he shall be absorbed as an element of the crime of rebellion
gave the key to the accused and the accused took away the or insurrection, or attempted coup d’ etat.
car. What crime or crimes are committed? He was charged If the crime is committed by the person without using the
of carnapping, he was charged of illegal possession of loose loose firearm, the violation of this Act shall be considered
firearms. Are the charged correct? as a distinct and separate offense.
A: The charges are wrong. The crime committed
should only be carnapping and the use of the loose ➢ SEC. 29 if the use of the unlicensed firearm
firearm in order to intimidate the owner of the crime inherent in the commission of the crime
and commit the crime is considered as a special punishable under the RPC or under Special Penal
aggravating circumstance. Under Section 29 of RA Laws, it is considered as an AGGRAVATING
10591, as amended, first paragraph, if the use of CIRCUMSTANCE. Whatever be the crime
the loose firearm is inherent in the commission of the committed, whether under the RPC or SPL, if
crime whether it be punished under the RPC or the use of such firearm is inherent in commission
special penal laws, it shall be an aggravating of the crime, is considered as an aggravating
circumstance. Therefore, whether it is a felony under circumstance.
the RPC or an offense under a special penal law, if the
use of the loose firearm is inherent to consummate Q: X stabbed Y to death, thereafter X was arrested. When
the crime, then such use of the loose firearm will be a a body search was conducted, a firearm was found. He
special aggravating circumstance. It will not could not produce the license, the permit to carry. He was
constitute a separate and distinct charge. charged with two crimes – illegal possession of loose
firearms and homicide for stabbing the victim. Are the
The intimidation which accompanied the act of charges correct?
carnapping was done with a use of firearm therefore it A: Yes. Two crimes are committed. Homicide and
is inherent to commit carnapping with violence and Illegal Possession of used Firearm. SEC. 29 (3), “If
intimidation of persons. Therefore the use of the loose the crime is committed by the person without using
firearm will be considered as special aggravating the loose firearm, the violation of this Act shall be
circumstance. considered as a distinct and separate offense.”
Here, the act of killing was done by stabbing,

PD 1866 is already amended by RA 8294 and further therefore the use of a loose firearm was not inherent,
Amended by RA 10951. (2013) in fact, it is not connected with the commission of the
crime, hence, it will constitute a separate and distinct
SEC. 29. Use of Loose Firearm in the Commission charge.
of a Crime. – The use of a loose firearm, when inherent
in the commission of a crime punishable under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act (RA 9165)
Revised Penal Code or other special laws, shall be
considered as an aggravating circumstance: Q: The accused after brutally killing the victim and the
Provided, That if the crime committed with the use of a police suspected he was under the influence of drugs. He
loose firearm is penalized by the law with a maximum was subjected to drug test, and was found to be under the
penalty which is lower than that prescribed in the influence of dangerous drugs. What is the effect of such
preceding section for illegal possession of firearm, the positive finding of use of dangerous drug on the criminal
penalty for illegal possession of firearm shall be imposed liability of the accused for homicide?
in lieu of the penalty for the crime charged: A: It has no effect.

If the crime for which he was arrested does not fall under
Q: What if X is found in possession of dangerous drugs RA 9165, the police officers have no right to order him to
and after the drugs were confiscated, based on his actions, be subjected to a drug test. This would be a violation of his
he seemed to be under the influence of drugs and so police right to privacy.
officers, before bringing the accused to the police station
brought him first to the forensic crime lab. X was ordered
to submit his urine. After a confirmatory test, he was
found positive for use of dangerous drugs. What is the
effect of such positive finding on his criminal liability for
illegal possession of dangerous drugs?
A: It will be a qualifying aggravating circumstance in
illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
Under Sec. 25 of RA9165, Qualifying Aggravating

Circumstances in the Commission of a Crime by an
Offender Under the Influence of Dangerous Drugs. –
Notwithstanding the provisions of any law to the
contrary, a positive finding for the use of dangerous
drugs shall be a qualifying aggravating
circumstance in the commission of a crime by an
offender, and the application of the penalty provided
for in the Revised Penal Code shall be applicable.
So if the person who committed the crime is found

positive for use of dangerous drugs after a
confirmatory test, such positive finding will be a
qualifying aggravating circumstance.
In the case of dela Cruz v. People (2015)
The offender was charged with Robbery with extortion.

Suspected under the influence of drugs and thus was
forced to give urine for testing. He was found positive for
used of dangerous drugs. Aside from robbery with
extortion, he was charged under RA9165 under sec. 15.
Convicted by the RTC, Conviction affirmed by the CA.
SC: Acquitted the accused for illegal use of dangerous

drugs. The person apprehended or arrested for a
commission of a crime can only be subjected to a drug test
if the crime he committed for which he was arrested falls
within RA 9165. If the crime he committed is outside RA
9165, the police officers have no right to subject him to a
drug test.
So in this case, although the person was arrested for the

crime of robbery, he was subjected to a drug test. The SC
said that although he was found positive, he cannot be
held liable for illegal use of dangerous drugs. This is a
violation of a right to privacy. Hence, Art. 25 will only
apply if the said person has been arrested for a crime
which falls under RA 9165.

CHAPTER FIVE: ALTERNATIVE If the offender is the brother of the victim in robbery,
CIRCUMSTANCES then it will mitigating the liability of the accused
brother.
Art. 15. Their concept. — Alternative
circumstances are those which must be taken into Reason: In three crimes, relationship is absolutory
consideration as aggravating or mitigating cause. Under Article 332, in theft, Estafa, swindling,
according to the nature and effects of the crime and malicious mischief – relationship is an absolutory
and the other conditions attending its cause.
commission. They are the relationship,
intoxication and the degree of instruction and An offender who commits TES Malicious against his
education of the offender. relative is only civilly liable. He is not criminally liable
because of Article 332.
The alternative circumstance of relationship shall
be taken into consideration when the offended Therefore, aside from TES Malicious, in all other
party in the spouse, ascendant, descendant, crimes against property, relationship is a mitigating
legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister, circumstance.
or relative by affinity in the same degrees of the
offender. In crimes against persons, relationship is mitigating
if:
The intoxication of the offender shall be taken
into consideration as a mitigating circumstances 1. the offender is of a higher degree than that
when the offender has committed a felony in a of the offended party; and
state of intoxication, if the same is not habitual or 2. the crime committed is less physical injury
subsequent to the plan to commit said felony but or slight physical injury
when the intoxication is habitual or intentional, it
Relationship is aggravating:
shall be considered as an aggravating
circumstance.
If the crime committed is serious physical injury
Alternative circumstances are those circumstances which
Relationship is inherent in the crime of parricide.
can either be aggravating or mitigating, depending on their
effects in commission of the crime. Once, they are
Intoxication
considered mitigating, once they are considered
aggravating, they are no longer alternative
When the offender has taken such amount of liquor of
sufficient quantity as to affect his capability to
3 Alternative Circumstances:
appreciate or affect his mental capacity to determine
1. Relationship;
the consequences of his act.
2. Intoxication;
3. Degree of Instruction or Education Intoxication is mitigating:
Relationship If it is not habitual or not intentional subsequent to

Is considered as an alternative circumstance when the the plan to commit the felony
offender is related to the offended party as his:
Intoxication is aggravating:
1. spouse, If it is habitual or intentional subsequent to the plan
2. ascendants, to commit the crime.
3. descendants,
4. legitimate, natural, adopted brothers, The offender deliberately takes liquor because he used
sisters; or it as a stimulant for him to commit the crime. He was
5. relatives by affinity within the same so nervous he cannot commit the crime, so he takes
degree. liquor form him to have the strength to commit the
crime.
Relationship is a mitigating circumstance:
Generally, under the crimes against property – Title The accused wanted to kill his enemy. He had planned
10 such as robbery, brigandage, occupation of real but he didn’t have the courage to do it so he took
property liquor to give him the strength to commit the crime.

Since he took liquor subsequent to the commission of such concealment of honor would mitigate her
the crime, intoxication would give rise to an criminal liability. The penalty here will be lowered by
aggravating circumstance in the commission of the 2 degrees, from reclusion perpetua to death, the
crime. penalty will be prision mayor.
Degree of Instruction and Education

Instigation as an absolutory cause
A low degree of education or instruction is considered as a
mitigating circumstance. There is instigation where the mens rea or the
criminal intent originated from the mind of the public
XPN: If the crime committed is inherently evil or officer who only lured the offender to commit the
wrong. crime in order for him to have someone to arrest and
prosecute. Since the criminal intent originated from
Ex.: Killing a person, molesting a woman, taking the the public officer, then by reason of public policy, the
personal property of another. Such is as wrong as to a accused, the offender is absolved of criminal liability.
learned man as it is to an ignorant man. Even an
ignorant man, an unlettered man, would know that On other hand, entrapment is not an absolutory cause
taking a person’s life would be a punishable act. because entrapment refers to ways and means
resorted to by the public officer in order to trap and
A high degree of education is considered as an aggravating capture a criminal in flagrante delicto, in the actual
circumstance – if the offended makes use of his high commission of the crime. Here, the mens rea or
degree of education in facilitating the commission of the criminal intent originated from the mind of the
crime. offender.
Ex.: A lawyer committing estafa by falsifying a deed of People v. Naelga: Distinction between instigation and
absolute sale. The lawyer makes use of his high degree entrapment
of education in order to commit the crime.
Instigation Entrapment
However, in a case where a lawyer kills another
Mens rea originated Mens rea/evil intent
person in the course of an argument, his high degree
from the mind of the originated from the
of education has nothing to do with the commission of
public officer so as to mind of the offender and
the crime. Therefore in this case, it cannot be
have a person to arrest the public officer merely
considered as an aggravating circumstance.
and prosecute devise ways and means
to trap and capture him
Absolutory Causes and Extenuating Circumstance
in the actual act of
Absolutory Causes
committing a crime
Are those circumstances which have the effect of An absolutory cause by Not an absolutory cause
exempting a person from criminal liability but which reason of public policy
are outside Article 12. Those that have the same effect The public officer is The public officer is not
as exempting circumstances, as it exempts the liable as a principal by criminally liable.
offender from criminal liability. Exempts the offender inducement
of criminal liability but not of civil liability.
Ex.: Mistake of fact, Instigation, Attempted stage in

accessories, desistance in the attempted stage
Extenuating Circumstances
Same effect as mitigating circumstance but not
included in Article 13. The effect is to lower the
imposable penalty.
Ex.: Infanticide
A mother killed her own child less than 3 days old or

less than 72 hours in order to conceal her dishonor,

TITLE TWO 2. The inducement is the determining cause, the

primary factor while the principal by direct
PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR FELONIES participation committed the crime.
In local movies, it is the mastermind.
Art. 16. Who are criminally liable. — The
following are criminally liable for grave and less Inducement may come in different forms:
grave felonies: a. Giving of price, reward or promise;
b. By employing force, command or ascendancy
1. Principals.
which is being followed by the principal by direct
2. Accomplices.
participation.
3. Accessories.
3. Principal by indispensable cooperation

The following are criminally liable for light
One who cooperates in the commission of the
felonies:
crime by another act without his participation,
1. Principals the crime would not have been committed. His
2. Accomplices act is indispensable to the commission of the
crime without which, no crime would have
Art. 17. Principals. — The following are considered resulted.
principals:
➢ If the act performed by the offender is not
1. Those who take a direct part in the indispensable, then he is a mere accomplice to the
execution of the act; 2. Those who directly commission of the crime.
force or induce others to commit it;
Art. 18. Accomplices. — Accomplices are those
3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the persons who, not being included in Art. 17,
offense by another act without which it would not cooperate in the execution of the offense by
have been accomplished. previous or simultaneous acts.
Kinds of Principals: Cooperate in the commission of the crime by

1. Principal by direct participation previous of simultaneous acts
He is the one who actually performs or executes
The participation is only minor in character. It
the criminal act.
only provides material and moral aide in an
Must necessarily be present in the scene of the
efficacious manner but not in an indispensable
crime because he is the one who actually executed
manner.
the crime. Without him, the crime will not be
committed.
➢ If the act performed by the offender facilitated
the commission of the crime, but it is not indispensable in
2. Principal by induction or inducement
the commission of the crime, with or without said act
He is the one who directly forces or induces
nevertheless, the crime had been committed, the offender
others to commit a crime.
is merely an accomplice
May or may not be present in the scene of the
crime. Even if he is absent in the scene of the
Requisites to be an accomplice:
crime, he may still be held liable if there’s
evidence to prove that without which his
1. There must be community of design
inducement, the crime would not have been
committed, still he can be criminally liable. The principal knows the criminal design because
The inducement must be the primary reason why the principal has authored it. An accomplice is
the crime was committed. not a part of that agreement, he is not part of the
plan. However, after the principal has authored
Requisites to be held liable as a principal by inducement: the commission of the crime, he informs the
1. The inducement must be made directly with the accomplice, and the moment the accomplice
intent of procuring the commission of the crime concurs there is now a community of design.

Community of design is the concurrence of Body of the crime or substance of the crime or
the accomplice to the criminal design of the corpus delicti – refers to the fact that a crime had been
principal. committed by someone. It does not refer to the body of the
victim in homicide or murder. It does not refer to the
After he concurs, property taken in case of robbery or theft.
2. That he performs the acts previous or Two elements:

simultaneous to the commission of the crime;
and 1. Proof of occurrence of a certain event;
3. There is a direct relation between the act 2. Proof of person’s criminal liability.
performed by the principal and those attributed
to an accomplice X took the wallet of Y. A crime of theft was filed by Y
against X. During the presentation of the evidence, Y was
Art. 19. Accessories. — Accessories are those who, not able to produce the wallet taken from him and so X’s
having knowledge of the commission of the crime, contention was that the corpus delicti was gone, there was
and without having participated therein, either as failure to present wallet, therefore acquittal is proper.
principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to There cannot be an acquittal even if the said wallet was not
its commission in any of the following manners: produced in court, the fact that it was proven that it was Y
who took the wallet without the consent of X, there still
1. By profiting themselves or assisting the lies corpus delicti. The personal property taken is not the
offender to profit by the effects of the crime; substance of the crime, in case of theft or robbery for as
2. By concealing or destroying the body of long as someone was able to prove its commission by the
the crime, or the effects or instruments thereof, in accused, there’s still corpus delicti and there could still be
order to prevent its discovery. a conviction.
3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in
the escape of the principals of the crime, provided Q: A stabbed B. thereafter, he buried the deceased body of
the accessory acts with abuse of his public B. X witnessed A’s act of killing B. the moment A buried
functions or whenever the author of the crime is the body of B under the ground, is the body of the crime
guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt gone?
to take the life of the Chief Executive, or is known
to be habitually guilty of some other. A: NO. the body of the crime does not refer to the
physical body of the victim.
Q: Does the accessory know the criminal design?
3rd act: By harboring, concealing, or assisting in
A: No, he has no knowledge of the criminal design. the escape of the principals of the crime, provided
What he knows is the commission of the crime, that a the accessory acts with abuse of his public
crime has indeed been committed and despite functions or whenever the author of the crime is
knowledge that the crime has been committed, he guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt
took part subsequent to its commission. His to take the life of the Chief Executive, or is known
participation is after the crime has already been to be habitually guilty of some other.
committed.
➢ The act can be done by either a public officer or
First Act: By profiting themselves or assisting the public individual.
offender to profit by the effects of the crime.
Accessory is a Public Officer:
➢ Either he himself profited from the effects of the
crime or he assisted the principal to profit from ➢ If the accessory who harbors or assists in the
effects of the crime escape of the principal happens to be a public
officer, it is required that he performs the act by
2nd act: By concealing or destroying the body of taking advantage of his public position. The crime
the crime, or the effects or instruments thereof, in committed by the principal may be any crime but
order to prevent its discovery. the public officer harbors him, conceals him,
assists in his escape with abuse of his power, the
➢ The intent of the accessory in concealing or public officer is an accessory.
destroying the body, effects, instruments of the
crime is to prevent the discovery of the said crime

Accessory is a Private Individual: the police which means she concurred to the criminal
design of the principals who kidnapped the victim. Second,
➢ If the person who harbors, conceals, or assisted in she performs acts previous or simultaneous to the
the escape of the principal is a private individual, commission of the crime, she stayed there for the night as
the law requires that the principal whom he though guarding as well the victim. Lastly, her acts were
harbored, concealed, or assisted in the escape of, related to the acts of the principal. All the elements are
must be guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or present, therefore she is an accomplice.
an attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive,
or is known to be a habitual criminal of some She was a minor, did she act with discernment? SC said
other crime. The law specifies the crime in case yes. When she was asked of her personal circumstances,
the offender who harbors, conceals, or assists she lied in open court. On cross-examination, she stated
happens to be a private individual. and admitted that she lied because she did not want to be
identified with the other principals whom she knew were
It is necessary that the principal is already guilty. committing a crime and did not want to be involved
therein. Since she was an accomplice, the penalty is
NOTE: If the accessory who harbored and concealed or lowered by one degree with the privilege mitigating
assisted in the escape of the of the principal is a private circumstance of minority. The SC, despite convicting her,
individual, the law specifies the crime committed, which is ordered her immediate release, unless she was being held
PD 1829, otherwise known as Obstruction of Justice. for any other purpose. She was placed behind bars when
she was 17 – her age at the time of the commission of the
People v. Dulay crime. When the SC promulgated the judgment, she was
already 31. She was behind bars for 14 years – more than
Dulay was charged as a principal by indispensable
the maximum penalty which may be imposed on her for
cooperation in the crime of rape.
being an accomplice for kidnapping for ransom and
therefore, she was immediately released because of time
SC said that she is not liable as principal by indispensable
served.
cooperation. The acts of Dulay in befriending the girl, in
bringing her in the port, pushing her inside a kubuhan,
Q: X wanted to kill Y. Y lives in the boarding house. X who
and thereafter the girl was raped are acts which are not
decided to kill Y talked to W, a roommate of Y and told W
indispensable in the consummation of crime of rape. Any
if it is possible to hold open the door of the boarding house
person can bring the girl to the said man and she could
so that at nighttime, he would be able to go inside the
still be raped. Likewise, Dulay can present herself to the
house and kill the victim. At 12 mn, when everybody is fast
man and still, the man could have raped the girl. Dulay’s
asleep, W opened the door of the boarding house. As a
acts, not being indispensable to consummate rape, she is
result, X entered the boarding house and thereafter went
not liable as a principal by indispensable cooperation.
directly to the bedroom of Y and killed him. What are the
criminal liabilities of X and W?
People v. Gambao
A: X is liable as a principal by direct participation
The SC held that the minor girl who arrived at nighttime
because he is the one who directly executes the crime,
while the victim was held in captive, the SC said that
the one who actually killed Y while Y was fast asleep.
Perpenian, a 17-year old girl, should be liable as an
accomplice in the commission of the crime. The victim was
W is liable as an accomplice. X has already decided to
already tied and guarded inside a rest house and
commit the crime and he informed W and asked help
Perpenian at night, arrived, she was not a part of the
from W to which he concurred – there was
persons who abducted the victim. She only came there and
community of design. W also performed acts previous
saw the victim being guarded, she heard the conversation
or simultaneous to the commission of the crime – he
that her friends asking for ransom, she did not go out to
was the one who opened the door of the boarding
the place in order to seek help, she just stayed and
house while the killing was taking place, he was at the
therefore, SC said she acted as an accomplice. All the
door. His acts were directly related with the acts
elements of an accomplice are present. First, there was
performed by the principal, therefore, he is an
community of design. Although Perpenian was not among
accomplice to the commission of the crime.
those who abducted the victim, when she went there and
saw the victim being guarded, she knew that a crime was Q: X, Y, and Z, confronted W. In the course of the
being committed, yet despite knowledge, she did not confrontation, X and Y stabbed W. W fell on the ground. X
perform acts in order to help the victim. She did not go to and Y told Z to dispose the body of W so Z carried W and

dumped it in a well. The following morning, the deceased sell, or in any other manner deal in any article, item, object
body of W was found. The family had his body autopsied or anything of value which he knows, or should be known
and based thereon, W died of drowning. What are the to him, to have been derived from the proceeds of the
criminal liabilities of X, Y, and Z? crime of robbery or theft.
Not a continuing offense/ transitory offense. File the case
A: X and Y are both liable as principals by direct where the person is arrested.
participation
Elements of fencing:
Z is liable as principal by indispensable cooperation
because based on the autopsy report, the cause of 1. That the crime of robbery or theft has been
death was drowning. The victim, when dumped or committed;
thrown in the old deep well, was still alive. It was the 2. That the said person was found in possession of
act of Z that caused the death of W. Therefore, Z’s act the said article or items which are the proceeds of the
is indispensable to the commission of the said crime. crime;
3. That there was on the part of such person, the
Q: Z contended that he did know that W was still alive intent to gain either for himself or for another;
when he dumped it and so he thought that it was a 4. That the said person knows or it should have
deceased body that he threw. He insisted that he was only
been known to him that the article is the product of
an accessory. Will his contention lie? robbery or theft.
A: No. Even assuming arguendo that he did not know
Q: If you were the fiscal, what case would you file against
that W was still alive when he dumped it, throwing W
him? Would it be as on accessory or as a fence?
is a felonious act. Therefore, applying Article 4(1), he
becomes liable for a resulting felony although A: You can only file either of the two. It’s better to file
different from that which he intended. Although what fencing because it is easier to prove. While in
he intended was only to dump a deceased body and accessory, he must first know that the crime has been
therefore could only be liable as an accessory, since it committed. In fencing, it is not necessary that he
is a felonious act, he becomes liable for the resulting knows. Section 5 of PD 1612 provided a prima facie
felony although different from that which he presumption of fencing. The burden of evidence is
intended. Hence, he becomes criminally liable as a shifted on the accused
principal by indispensable cooperation.
Q: X is a helper of Y and Z. X was allowed clean the
Q: A, by means of deceit, was able to take the diamond
master’s bedroom. Because of this she was able to know
ring of his friend. So A swindled his friend by means of
where the jewelry and valuables were hidden. One time
deceit. After taking the ring, she went to B. A told B “B, I
when all the members of the house were out, X broke the
have here a diamond ring, I swindled it from my friend
vault and took the said jewelry and cash therefrom. The
and I’m selling it to you for only 10k. B bought the said
incident happened in Manila. She wanted to sell the
ring and displayed it to his shop to have it sold. Later B
jewelry in a place wherein no one would know of the same.
was found in possession of the said ring. Is be liable as an
She looked for jewelry stores in other place and found one
accessory?
in Caloocan. She sold the jewelry in Caloocan for 100
A: YES. thousand pesos. The store owner examined the jewelry
and based on his assessment, the jewelry would cost at
Q: What if A went to a pawnshop, broke in, took all the least 5 million. Since they are being sold for only 100k, he
jewelry. A told B “I am selling this to you for only 20k.” B immediately gave the cash to X and after that, X left. The
bought the same. He told A “These are the jewelry from my store owner placed the jewelry on display. The police
friend’s pawnshop right?” A said yes. Is B an accessory and authorities conducted an investigation on the said robbery
a fence? and got a tip where X sold the jewelry. They went to the
jewelry with Y and there, Y saw her old jewelry on display.
Under P.D. 1612, a fence includes any person, firm, Right there and then, the police arrested the store owner.
association corporation or partnership or other Can the store owner be charged as an accessory to the
organization who/which commits the act of fencing. crime of robbery or violation of PD 1612?
A: The store owner cannot be charged as an accessory
“Fencing" is the act of any person who, with intent to to the crime of robbery because the store owner has
gain for himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess, no knowledge that the jewelry were subjects of a
keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and robbery. He has no actual knowledge for the actual

crime of robbery. For one to be held liable as an in Caloocan, the case should be filed before the courts
accessory, the law requires that the offender has of Caloocan.
knowledge of the commission of the crime. Since the
offender has no knowledge, he cannot be held liable. Q: A, B, C, D, and E decided to rob a bank. Based on their
Mere presumption will not suffice. agreement, A, B, and C will be the ones to enter the bank.
The store owner can be held liable as a fence under D will serve as lookout. E will serve as the driver of the
PD 1612. All the elements of fencing are present. vehicle. They committed the crime on the date agreed
upon. What are the liabilities of A, B, C, D, and E?
First, that a crime of theft or robbery has been
committed, robbery has been committed. A: All of them are liable as principals by direct
participation, because all of them are authors of the
Second, that the offender who is not a principal criminal design.
or an accomplice has in his possession things or
items which are the proceeds of robbery or theft. Q: What if, A.B and C decided to rob the bank. On the
The store owner is not a principal, he is not an agreed time and place, they were already about to go to the
accomplice and yet, he was in possession of the bank, but suddenly they realized they have no vehicle. So
stolen jewelry. the flagged down a taxi. They informed the taxi driver of
their criminal design, to which the taxi driver agreed for
Third, that he knows or should have been known his car to be used as a getaway vehicle. while on their way
to him that the thing in his possession is proceeds to the bank, they realized that they needed a lookout. They
of a robbery or theft. Although he has no saw a balut vendor and asked him, “Can you be our
knowledge that the jewelry were proceeds of a lookout? The moment you see a police coming, shout
robbery, still, it should have been known to him. baluuuuut!” The said vendor agreed to the said criminal
The fact that based on his assessment as an design. After robbing the bank, A B C and the balut vendor
expert in jewelry, the jewelry cost at least 5m and boarded the taxi. Criminal liability of each?
yet, it was being sold to him for 100K, it should
have alerted him that the jewelry were proceeds A: A B and C are liable as principal by direct
of a robbery or theft. Mere assumption would participation, while the taxi driver and the balut
suffice this time and therefore, since he bought vendor are liable as accomplices. They are
the same, despite huge discrepancy in price, there accomplices since A B C already agreed on the
is a presumption that these were the proceeds of criminal design before they informed the two of the
robbery or theft. same and the latter concurred by performing
simultaneous acts or subsequent to the commission of
Fourth, there is on the part of the offender an the crime.
intent to gain either for himself or for another.
There is intent to gain for himself, in fact, he ➢ So no matter how minor the participation is of an
displayed the jewelry in his store. offender, if he is an author of the criminal design, even if
he only acted as a lookout, still he is liable as a principal by
Since all the elements of violation of PD 1612 are direct participation
present, the store owner is considered a fence
under PD 1612. LOOK OUT as a PRINCIPAL – when he is part of the
criminal design. He is among the authors of the criminal
Q: After his arrest, the police officers charged the store design.
owner before the public prosecutor of Manila of crime of LOOK OUT as a MERE ACCOMPLICE – when he is not
fencing. After the fiscal found probable cause, the fiscal part of the criminal design
filed a case before the RTC of Manila. Will the case
prosper? Art. 20. Accessories who are exempt from
criminal liability. — The penalties prescribed for
A: No because of lack of jurisdiction. The RTC of accessories shall not be imposed upon those who
Manila has no jurisdiction over the case because are such with respect to their spouses, ascendants,
fencing is not a continuing offense. Therefore the descendants, legitimate, natural, and adopted
offender who took possession of the stolen articles can brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within
only be prosecuted before the courts of the place the same degrees, with the single exception of
where he was found of the possession of the same. accessories falling within the provisions of
Since he was found in possession of the stolen items paragraph 1 of the next preceding article.

appropriating the proceeds for his own benefit. What are

Q: The principal committed swindling or estafa. X the crimes committed by Y, W, and the father?
harbored the principal despite knowing the latter
committed estafa. X cannot be considered as an accessory A: Y is liable as principal by direct participation. He
because estafa or swindling is not among the crimes was the one actually committed the crime, for actually
mentioned in the second part of the 3rd act. So what is the killing X.
criminal liability of the friend?
W is liable as principal by indispensable cooperation.
A: HE is liable under PD 1829 Y has no intent to kill X, he was about to leave. But W
suddenly went to him, handing him the gun and by
Obstruction of Justice is committed by any person who virtue of the said gun, he killed X. Therefore, without
willfully and lawfully obstructs, impedes, frustrates or the said gun, without the act performed by W, Y could
delays the apprehension of suspects and the investigation not have killed X. W’s act is indispensable to the
and prosecution of criminal cases. commission of the said crime.
Q: What if A and B sisters. They had a housemaid, X. A

The father is liable as an accessory. Had the act of the
and B were cruel to X, for a minor mistake they would
father stopped in hiding the gun, the father’s act
slap, boxed or injure her. One time, A went to work. When
would amount to that of an accessory as a father and
she arrived home, she saw the deceased body of X. A and B
he would not have been liable because under Article
placed the deceased body in a sack and placed it on the
20, if the act performed by the accessory is that of
trunk of their car. However, someone witnessed their act
concealing the substance of the crime or the
who immediately called the police, reporting that he saw 2
instruments or effects thereof, and assisting in the
women putting a sack in the truck wherein 2 feet were
escape of the principal and that accessory is the
protruding from the said sack. A and B were prosecuted
spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural,
and both convicted for murder.
or adopted brothers or sisters, or relatives by affinity
of the same degree, he is exempted from criminal
The Supreme Court however said that only B is liable, not
liability. So had the act of the father stopped in hiding
for murder but only for homicide. When A arrived, the
the gun, although the act of the father would amount
housemaid was already dead.
to that of an accessory, he is exempted from criminal
liability. The liability of the father would be a violation
Q: How about A’s act of trying to place the deceased body
of PD 1829 – Obstruction of Justice. But the father
inside the trunk of the car in order to prevent the discovery
went further. After acting or concealing the gun, the
of the crime?
following day, the father sold the gun and
appropriated the proceeds for his own personal
A: Her act constitutes that of an accessory. But she
benefit. Therefore, the first act of an accessory would
falls under Article 20 since she is related to the
now lie against the father and the first act of the
offender.
accessory is not among the exemption enumerated in
Q: When is an accessory exempted from criminal liability? Article 20. Therefore, he is liable as an accessory
under the first act.
A:
1. When the crime committed is a light felony; J. Palattao: While relationship is an exempting
2. When the said accessory is the spouses, circumstance because of the natural affection
ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, and mutually shared by the parties, an exception to this
adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by noble rule is when the accessory who is related,
affinity within the same degrees profits by the effects of the crime or assists the
offender to profit from the effects of the crime. The
Q: X and Y were fighting and X was losing the fight. X was law refuses to grant exemption to one who is
pinned down, Y kept on boxing and kicking him. Y was motivated by greed and avarice, as the nobility of the
about to leave when he realized that he defeated X. law is therefore depreciated.
However, before Y could leave, here comes W. W directly
went near Y and handed him gun, telling him to kill X. Y
looked at the gun for a second and thereafter Y shot X. X
died. Y, upon realizing the extent of his crime, he
immediately narrated to his father the incident. His father
took the gun, cleaned it, and sold the gun a day after

TITLE THREE CHAPTER TWO: CLASSIFICATION OF

PENALTIES (ARTICLES 25 – 26)
PENALTIES AND
CHAPTER THREE: DURATION AND EFFECT OF
CHAPTER ONE: PENALTIES IN GENERAL PENALTIES(ARTICLES 27 – 45)
Art. 21. Penalties that may be imposed. — No Art. 25. Penalties which may be imposed. — The
felony shall be punishable by any penalty not penalties which may be imposed according to this
prescribed by law prior to its commission. Code, and their different classes, are those
included in the following:
PENALTIES Scale
- Refers to punishment, imposed by lawful PRINCIPAL PENALTIES
authority upon a person who has committed an Capital punishment:
intentional felony or a culpable felony Death.
- Prescribed by law, enacted by Congress. Judges Afflictive penalties:
only applies the penalty based on what has been Reclusion perpetua,
prescribed by law. And only those penalties Reclusion temporal,
prescribed by law prior to its commission may be Perpetual or temporary absolute
imposed by court. disqualification,
Perpetual or temporary special
2 KINDS OF PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED disqualification,
BY LAW IN EVERY DECISION Prision mayor.
Correctional penalties:
1. PRINCIPAL PENALTIES - prescribed by law Prision correccional,
and imposed by the court in case of conviction. Arresto mayor,
2. ACCESORY PENALTIES - necessarily Suspension,
included in the imposition of principal penalties. Destierro.
Light penalties:
Art. 73. Presumption in regard to the imposition Arresto menor,
of accessory penalties. — Whenever the courts Public censure.
shall impose a penalty which, by provision of law, Penalties common to the three preceding classes:
carries with it other penalties, according to the Fine, and
provisions of Articles 40, 41, 42, 43 and 44 of this Bond to keep the peace.
Code, it must be understood that the accessory
penalties are also imposed upon the convict. ACCESSORY PENALTIES
Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification,
Under Art 73, accessory penalties follow the principal Perpetual or temporary special disqualification,
penalties as a matter of law. Hence, they need not be Suspension from public office, the right to vote
stated in the decision. The court only states, in case of and be voted for, the profession or calling.
conviction, the principal penalties. The moment the court Civil interdiction,
stated the principal penalty, the accessory penalties that Indemnification,
follow it would also be deemed included. Forfeiture or confiscation of instruments and
proceeds of the offense,
X was convicted of murder. Finding the accused guilty Payment of costs.
beyond reasonable doubt. He was sentenced to suffer the
penalty of Reclusion perpetua, also made to suffer Art. 27. Reclusion perpetua. — Any person
Perpetual absolute DQ and civil interdiction. They need sentenced to any of the perpetual penalties shall
not be stated in the judgment of the court. be pardoned after undergoing the penalty for
thirty years, unless such person by reason of his
Ex.: The judge need not state the accessory penalty, civil conduct or some other serious cause shall be
interdiction and perpetual absolute disqualification considered by the Chief Executive as unworthy of
because these two necessarily follow the principal penalty pardon.
of reclusion perpetua.
Reclusion temporal. — The penalty of reclusion

temporal shall be from twelve years and one day Penal Laws
to twenty years.
Carries a fixed duration: No fixed duration
Prision mayor and temporary disqualification. — 20 years and 1 day to 40
The duration of the penalties of prision mayor and years
temporary disqualification shall be from six years
Carries with it accessory Does not carry any
and one day to twelve years, except when the
penalty accessory penalty
penalty of disqualification is imposed as an
accessory penalty, in which case its duration shall
be that of the principal penalty. Life imprisonment is distinct and independent from
reclusion perpetua.
Prision correccional, suspension, and destierro. —
The duration of the penalties of prision Reclusion Temporal
correccional, suspension and destierro shall be - Duration is 12 years and 1 day to 20 years
from six months and one day to six years, except
when suspension is imposed as an accessory Disqualification
penalty, in which case, its duration shall be that of
- Disqualification is both a principal penalty and
the principal penalty.
an accessory penalty.
- If disqualification is imposed as a principal
Arresto mayor. — The duration of the penalty of
penalty in case of temporary disqualification, it
arresto mayor shall be from one month and one
has the duration of 6 years and 1 day to 12 years
day to six months.
- If imposed as an accessory penalty, it merely
follows the duration of the principal penalty to
Arresto menor. — The duration of the penalty of
which it attaches
arresto menor shall be from one day to thirty
- If it is perpetual, it is for life
days.
Perpetual or temporary absolute
Bond to keep the peace. — The bond to keep the disqualification v. Perpetual or temporary
peace shall be required to cover such period of special disqualification
time as the court may determine.
Absolute Special
Effective during the Effective only during the
lifetime of the convict term of the sentence
PRINCIPAL PENALTIES and even after service of and is removed after the
sentence service of sentence
Death Penalty XPT: The right to
hold a public office or
employment and the
- Under RA 9346, death penalty cannot be
right to retirement pay
imposed. It remains to be the penalty for heinous and other pension for
crimes only that death cannot be imposed. office previously held
- BUT soon, death penalty will be imposed in drug
cases. Definitely this will be passed. (as of March Art. 30. Effects of the penalties of perpetual or
2017) Death penalty will soon be very back. We temporary absolute disqualification. — The
need not discuss RA 9346, it will soon be an penalties of perpetual or temporary absolute
obsolete law. disqualification for public office shall produce the
following effects:
AFFLICTIVE PENALTIES
1. The deprivation of the public offices and
Reclusion Perpetua employments which the offender may have
- Not synonymous with life imprisonment held even if conferred by popular election
Reclusion Perpetua Life Imprisonment 2. The deprivation of the right to vote in any
election for any popular office or to be elected
Penalty imposed in case Penalty imposed in case
to such office.
of violation of the RPC of violation of Special

3. The disqualification for the offices or - If imposed as a principal penalty, it has the same
public employments and for the exercise of duration as Prision correccional – 6 mos & 1 day
any of the rights mentioned. to 6 years.
- If imposed as an accessory penalty, it merely
In case of temporary disqualification, such follows the duration of the principal penalty to
disqualification as is comprised in paragraphs 2 which it attaches.
and 3 of this article shall last during the term of
the sentence. Art. 33. Effects of the penalties of suspension from
any public office, profession or calling, or the
4. The loss of all rights to retirement pay or right of suffrage. — The suspension from public
other pension for any office formerly held. office, profession or calling, and the exercise of
the right of suffrage shall disqualify the offender
Art. 31. Effect of the penalties of perpetual or from holding such office or exercising such
temporary special disqualification. — The profession or calling or right of suffrage during
penalties of perpetual or temporal special the term of the sentence.
disqualification for public office, profession or
calling shall produce the following effects: Destierro
- A penalty that does not involve imprisonment.
1. The deprivation of the office, employment, - Under Art 25, it is a correction penalty.
profession or calling affected; - Under Art 87, also impose partial deprivation of
liberty. Not required to stay behind bars. For
2. The disqualification for holding similar instance, a concubine is prohibited from entering
offices or employments either perpetually or the place designated in the judgment of the court.
during the term of the sentence according to If the place happens to be where she is residing,
the extent of such disqualification. he has to change her place of residence.
Art. 32. Effect of the penalties of perpetual or LIGHT PENALTIES

temporary special disqualification for the exercise Arresto menor
of the right of suffrage. — The perpetual or - 1-30 days.
temporary special disqualification for the exercise
of the right of suffrage shall deprive the offender Public censure.
perpetually or during the term of the sentence, - Indivisible penalty.
according to the nature of said penalty, of the - It has no fixed duration
right to vote in any popular election for any public
office or to be elected to such office. Moreover, the PENALTIES COMMON TO ALL.
offender shall not be permitted to hold any public
office during the period of his disqualification. Fine.
- Pecuniary penalty which is imposed by the court
Prision mayor in case of conviction. Instead of imprisonment,
- Under Art 27, 6y and 1d to 12y. the penalty imposed is fine as prescribed by law
- Under Art 26, fine is afflictive if more than 6K.
CORRECCIONAL PENALTIES. Correccional if from 200 to 6K. Light if less than
200 pesos.
Prision correccional
- Under Art 27, 6m 1d to 6y duration. Art. 26. When afflictive, correctional, or light
penalty. — A fine, whether imposed as a single of
Arresto mayor as an alternative penalty, shall be considered an
- 1m 1d to 6m. afflictive penalty, if it exceeds 6,000 pesos; a
correctional penalty, if it does not exceed 6,000
Suspension. pesos but is not less than 200 pesos; and a light
- Both a principal penalty and an accessory penalty if it less than 200 pesos.
penalty.

Bond to keep the peace. Under Articles 40 and 41, necessarily follows the
- Under Art 35, the offender shall submit two penalty of Death (if it is not executed), RP and
sureties to make sure that the offender will not RT.
make good the crime that she is about to commit.
If they fail to pay the bond to keep the peace, then Deprived of the following rights:
he shall be placed on detention. 1. Rights of Parental Authority
2. Right of guardianship over the person or property
Art. 35. Effects of bond to keep the peace. — It of his wife
shall be the duty of any person sentenced to give 3. Rights of marital authority
bond to keep the peace, to present two sufficient 4. Right to manage property
sureties who shall undertake that such person will 5. Right to dispose his property by any conveyance
not commit the offense sought to be prevented, inter vivos
and that in case such offense be committed they
will pay the amount determined by the court in the Art. 34. Civil interdiction. — Civil interdiction
judgment, or otherwise to deposit such amount in shall deprive the offender during the time of his
the office of the clerk of the court to guarantee sentence of the rights of parental authority, or
said undertaking. guardianship, either as to the person or property
of any ward, of marital authority, of the right to
Bond to keep the peace v. Bond for good behavior manage his property and of the right to dispose of
such property by any act or any conveyance inter
Bond to keep the peace Bond for good behavior vivos.
A principal penalty under The bond courts ordered
Article 35 for persons accused of Q: A person was convicted of a crime. Penalty imposed is
grave threats or light RP. He is automatically civilly interdicted. Can he make a
threats
last will and testament?
A: Yes, it takes effect only after the death of the

Under Article 35 Under Article 284 person. Thus, the conveyance is mortis causa.
Donation is also allowed if it will take effect after his
Exclusive to grave threats death because that is mortis causa. What is prohibited
and light threats by law is conveyance inter vivos.
If a person is charged of
Indemnification.
grave threats or light
threats, he shall be ordered It refers to damages – moral damages, exemplary
to post bond for good damages, actual damages
behavior. If he fails to pay,
destierro will be sentenced Forfeiture and confiscation of the proceeds and
to him. For the purpose of instruments of the crime.
ensuring that he will not
- An accessory penalty that follows all principal
make good of the threat he
made on the victim. penalties.
- Under Article 45, for every principal penalty, the
intsruments, proceeds of the crime shall always
ACCESORY PENALTIES be confiscated in favor of the state
XPN: Belong to a 3rd person who is not a party to
Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification, the crime
XPN TO XPN: outside the lawful commerce of
Perpetual or temporary special disqualification, man
Suspension from public office, the right to vote Art. 45. Confiscation and forfeiture of the
and be voted for, the profession or calling. proceeds or instruments of the crime. — Every
penalty imposed for the commission of a felony
Civil interdiction shall carry with it the forfeiture of the proceeds of
the crime and the instruments or tools with which
it was committed.

Such proceeds and instruments or tools shall be his case is not yet terminated, he shall be released
confiscated and forfeited in favor of the immediately without prejudice to the continuation
Government, unless they be property of a third of the trial thereof or the proceeding on appeal, if
person not liable for the offense, but those articles the same is under review. In case the maximum
which are not subject of lawful commerce shall be penalty to which the accused may be sentenced is
destroyed. destierro, he shall be released after thirty (30)
days of preventive imprisonment. (As amended by
Payment of costs E.O. No. 214, July 10, 1988).
- Expenses of litigation. Preventive Imprisonment
- Under Article 37, costs include fees and - The detention of accused while the case against
indemnities in the course of judicial proceedings. him is ongoing trial either because the crime he
- Generally, if an accused is convicted, the court committed is a non-bailable offense and evidence
will award against him the payment of cost of guilt is strong or the crime committed is a
- In case of acquittal, both the complainant and the bailable offense but he is financially incapable (he
accused shall bear their own costs does not have the money or property to pay the
bail fixed by the court).
Art. 37. Cost; What are included. — Costs shall - Purpose of preventive imprisonment is to prevent
include fees and indemnities in the course of the the escape of the offender, to ensure the
judicial proceedings, whether they be fixed or appearance of the offender in the proceedings.
unalterable amounts previously determined by
law or regulations in force, or amounts not subject RA 10592 provides that the term that a prisoner has
to schedule. undergone preventive imprisonment can be deducted, can
be credited from his final sentence.
PREVENTIVE IMPROSNMENT
Rules:
Art. 29. Period of preventive imprisonment 1. There shall be full credit if the detention
deducted from term of imprisonment. — prisoner executes a detainee’s manifestation – a
Offenders who have undergone preventive written by the detention prisoner that he is
imprisonment shall be credited in the service of willing to abide by the same rules and regulations
their sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty, imposed on convicted felons. This manifestation
with the full time during which they have must be done in writing, in the presence of his
undergone preventive imprisonment, if the counsel.
detention prisoner agrees voluntarily in writing to
abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon 2. There is only 4/5 credit if the detention prisoner
convicted prisoners, except in the following cases: executes a detainee’s waiver – a written
1. When they are recidivists or have been declaration of the detention prisoner refusing to
convicted previously twice or more times of abide by the same rules and regulations imposed
any crime; and on the convicted felons. This manifestation must
2. When upon being summoned for the be done in writing, in the presence of his counsel.
execution of their sentence they have failed to
surrender voluntarily. 3. There shall be no credit if the detention
prisoner is a:
If the detention prisoner does not agree to abide a. Recidivist
by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon b. Has been previously convicted twice or
convicted prisoners, he shall be credited in the more times of any crime
service of his sentence with four-fifths of the time c. He refused to appear once he is being
during which he has undergone preventive summoned for the execution of his
imprisonment. (As amended by Republic Act 6127, sentence
June 17, 1970).
In these three instances, the period that he
Whenever an accused has undergone preventive has undergone from preventive
imprisonment for a period equal to or more than imprisonment cannot be credit from his final
the possible maximum imprisonment of the sentence.
offense charged to which he may be sentenced and

Q: What if the offender is a minor – a child in conflict with PARDON

the law? What will be the credit on his preventive
imprisonment? Art. 23. Effect of pardon by the offended party. —
A: A juvenile offender – it is not Art 29, as amended A pardon of the offended party does not
which will apply. What will apply is Section 41 of extinguish criminal action except as provided in
RA 9344 – The Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act Article 344 of this Code; but civil liability with
which provides that there shall always be full credit of regard to the interest of the injured party is
the time that this juvenile offender has spent behind extinguished by his express waiver.
bars whether under preventive imprisonment or due
to a commitment order. ➢ Shall not extinguish the criminal action filed in court
So even if the said juvenile did not execute in writing whether public crime such as homicide or private
his willingness to abide by the same rules and crime such as seduction, abduction, acts of
regulations to be imposed on convicted felons, the fact lasciviousness, pardon by the offended shall not
that he is a juvenile offender, a child in conflict with extinguish the criminal action filed in court.
the law, the time that he spent behind bars ➢ Insofar as public crimes are concerned, the reason is
undergoing preventive imprisonment will be fully that these crimes are more of an offense against the
deducted from his final sentence. State rather than the private offended party therefore
the prosecutor can still proceed with the hearing of
If the maximum penalty which can be imposed on a the case notwithstanding the pardon granted by the
detention prisoner happens of be destierro, under Article private offended party to the offender.
29, he shall be immediately released after 30 days of ➢ In private crimes, criminal action already filed in
preventive imprisonment. court shall not be extinguished by reason of pardon by
A concubine was placed behind bars. Concubinage is a the private offended party because under Article 23,
bailable offense but she does not have the money to pardon shall not extinguish criminal liability except as
post bail, she was behind bars for 31 days. The counsel provided under Article 344. In Article 344, there is a
should file a petition for habeas corpus for the phrase “it shall not be prosecuted” since law uses this
immediate release of the said concubine because her phrase, for pardon to extinguish the criminal action, it
continued detention undergoing preventive is necessary that it must be given before the
imprisonment would already be arbitrary in nature. institution of the criminal proceedings. In private
She can only be placed behind bars for 30 days – after crimes, the moment the criminal action is filed in
that she has to be immediately released. court, no amount of pardon by the offended party will
extinguish the criminal liability. In order that the
If the detention prisoner has undergone preventive pardon will affect the criminal action, it must be given
imprisonment for a period equal to the penalty which may before the institution of the criminal proceedings. The
be imposed on him for the crime that he has committed exception to this rule is in case of marital rape under
and the trial on his crime has not yet been terminated, he Article 266-C – if the offender is the legal husband,
shall be immediately released. Such release, however, shall the subsequent forgiveness by the wife, as the
be without prejudice to the continuation of the trial and to offended party, shall extinguish the criminal action
the procedure on appeal, if his case in on review by the filed in court and shall also remit the penalty already
appellate court. Only, he shall be released but the trial or imposed by the court.
appeal goes on. In case he is convicted by the appellate ➢ As far as civil liability is concerned, it is extinguished
court upon appeal, he can no longer be placed behind bars because pardon is deemed as an express waiver.
because he already served the maximum of his sentence
which may be imposed based on the crime he has Art. 36. Pardon; its effect. — A pardon shall not
committed. work the restoration of the right to hold public
office, or the right of suffrage, unless such rights
be expressly restored by the terms of the pardon.
People v. Gambao
Kidnapping for ransom, convicted as accomplice. 17 y/o, ➢ The accused is exempted from criminal liability.
placed behind bars. From 17-31 she was behind bars. SC: It is extinguished but before pardon may
immediate release. She already undergone preventive extinguish criminal liability, it must be given after
imprisonment more than the time of sentence. conviction by final judgment.
➢ Does not extinguish civil liability because the
same is personal to the victim.

Art. 89. How criminal liability is totally Since it is perpetual absolute disqualification, he is
extinguished. — Criminal liability is totally deprived of these rights for life except where it is
extinguished: expressly restored by the grant of power. Since there
4.By absolute pardon; was no express grant restoring to him these rights, he
cannot run again for public office.
Art. 94. Partial Extinction of criminal liability. —
Criminal liability is extinguished partially: RISOS-VIDAL v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
1. By conditional pardon; In the case of Estrada, he was granted pardon by former
President Arroyo. It was not expressly stated that his right
Pardon granted by the Pardon granted by to vote and be voted for, the right to hold public office or
offended party (Art. 23) the President employment are restored. The pardon expressly states that
(Art.36) his political and civil rights are restored. The Supreme
Court said that this is substantial compliance. Therefore,
Does not extinguish the Extinguishes criminal
former President Estrada, now Mayor Estrada was allowed
criminal action filed in liability if given after
to run again for office.
court, whether public or conviction of final
private crime. judgment
Q: Accused killed the victim. The heirs filed a case of
homicide. There was an extrajudicial settlement of the
Except: Art. 266-C (Marital
case. Family of the accused paid 1M to the family of the
Rape) pardon granted by
victim. Family of the victim had pardoned the said
the wife to the husband in
accused. Effect on the criminal liability in an action
case of rape, extinguish
already filed in court?
criminal action and penalty
Extinguishes civil liability as does not extinguish civil A: None. The participation of the private offended
it is deemed an express liability party is only to recover civil indemnity. It is an
waiver EXPRESS WAIVER to recover civil indemnity.
Pardon must be made Can only be granted after
before the institution of the conviction by final Q: What if the crime committed is a private crime? Will
prosecution of the case and judgment. not extinguish criminal action already filed in court.
only in private crimes
A: Pardon by the private offended party only bars
Q: Senator X was convicted by final judgment of plunder. CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. Hence, before the
The penalty imposed was reclusion perpetua. He was institution of the criminal case against the said
serving his sentence behind bars. Because of a powerful accused.
intermediary, the President granted him an absolute exception: In case of Marital Rape, if the offender is
pardon. “I, the President of the Republic of the the legal husband, the subsequent forgiveness of the
Philippines, by virtue of the power vested in me is hereby wife shall extinguish both the criminal action already
granting Senator X absolute pardon in the crime of filed or even the penalty already imposed by the court.
plunder under Criminal Case 1234 wherein he was Pardon granted by the President shall extinguish criminal
penalized with reclusion perpetua. Sgd.” So by virtue liability. Absolute pardon is one of the grounds for totally
thereof, Senator X was out of prison. In the forthcoming extinguishing criminal liability. May only be given after
election, he wanted to run as Senator. Can he ran again as conviction through final judgment. If the case is on-going
senator? trial, the pardon by the President has no effect to the
criminal action already filed in court. Does not
A: He cannot run again as senator. Although granted automatically restore the right of the offended party to
absolute pardon by the president, the said pardon did hold public office, vote and be voted, exercise his right of
not expressly restore on him his right to a public office suffrage. Must be specifically stated by the terms of the
or employment. Likewise, it did not restore on him his pardon.
right of suffrage therefore he cannot run again for
public office, he cannot again exercise his right to vote Pardon by the President does not extinguish civil liability.
and be voted.
Also, in crime of plunder, the penalty imposed on him
is reclusion perpetua. Reclusion perpetua carries with
it the penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification.

Pecuniary Liabilities 5. The subsidiary personal liability which the

convict may have suffered by reason of his
Art. 38. Pecuniary liabilities; Order of payment. — insolvency shall not relieve him, from the fine in
In case the property of the offender should not be case his financial circumstances should improve.
sufficient for the payment of all his pecuniary (As amended by RA 5465, April 21, 1969).
liabilities, the same shall be met in the following
order: SUBSIDIARY PENALTY
1 The reparation of the damage caused. ➢ Imposed by the court in case the convict is
2 Indemnification of consequential damages insolvent to pay the fine. Therefore, before an
3 The fine. offender be made to suffer subsidiary penalty, it
4 The cost of the proceedings. is necessary that among the penalty imposed on
him, fine is included and he happens to be
Pecuniary Pecuniary Penalties insolvent
Liabilities (Art. 25) ➢ If the penalty imposed on him does not include
fine, there is no way he can be made to suffer
Those imposed by the Those imposed by the
subsidiary penalty.
court in case of court in case of conviction
➢ The computation for imprisonment is: one
conviction but not as a – Fine and
day imprisonment is equivalent to an amount
penalty payment of cost
equivalent to highest minimum wage rate
prevailing in the Philippines at the time of
Art. 39. Subsidiary penalty. — If the convict has no
rendition of judgment by the trial court.
property with which to meet the fine mentioned in
the paragraph 3 of the nest preceding article, he
Q: X is convicted now and among the penalties imposed
shall be subject to a subsidiary personal liability at
on him, fine is included and he is insolvent to pay the fine.
the rate of one day for each eight pesos, subject to
The fine is 1000. For how long would be his
the following rules:
imprisonment?
A: The highest minimum wage rate in Manila (always
1. If the principal penalty imposed be prision
Manila since always higher than in the provinces) is
correccional or arresto and fine, he shall remain
491 – as of March 2017. Therefore, one day
under confinement until his fine referred to in the
imprisonment is equivalent to 491 fine. Since the fine
preceding paragraph is satisfied, but his
imposed on him is 1000, therefore, he has to suffer
subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed one-
two days subsidiary penalty behind bars. This is
third of the term of the sentence, and in no case
equivalent of the fine that he failed to pay because of
shall it continue for more than one year, and no
his insolvency.
fraction or part of a day shall be counted against
the prisoner.
Rate has been amended by RA 10159 which states: "If the
convict has no property with which to meet the fine
2. When the principal penalty imposed be
mentioned m paragraph 3 of the next preceding
only a fine, the subsidiary imprisonment shall not
article, he shall be subject to a subsidiary personal
exceed six months, if the culprit shall have been
liability at the rate of one day for each amount
prosecuted for a grave or less grave felony, and
equivalent to the hIghest minimum wage rate
shall not exceed fifteen days, if for a light felony.
prevailing in the Philippines at the time of the
rendition of judgment of conviction by the trial court”
3. When the principal imposed is higher than
prision correccional, no subsidiary imprisonment
shall be imposed upon the culprit. RULES FOR THE IMPOSITION OF SUBSIDIARY
PENALTY
4. If the principal penalty imposed is not to
1. If the principal penalty imposed by the court in
be executed by confinement in a penal institution,
addition to fine is prision correccional or arresto,
but such penalty is of fixed duration, the convict,
subsidiary penalty shall not exceed 1/3 of the term
during the period of time established in the
of sentence but in no case longer than one year.
preceding rules, shall continue to suffer the same
2. If the principal penalty imposed by the court is fine
deprivations as those of which the principal
alone, subsidiary penalty shall not exceed six
penalty consists.

months in case of grave or less grave felonies and it A: The court is wrong because the principal penalty
shall not exceed 15 days in case of light penalties. that goes with fine is public censure and under the
3. If the principal penalty that goes with fine is higher fifth rule, if the principal penalty that goes with fine is
than prision correccional, more than six years and not to be executed in a confinement in a penal
one day, even if the convict is insolvent to pay the institution and is without fixed duration and public
fine, he cannot be made to suffer subsidiary censure has no fixed duration, he cannot be imposed
penalty. with subsidiary penalty even if he is insolvent to pay
4. If the principal penalty that goes with fine is not to the fine.
be executed by confinement in a penal institution
but is of fixed duration – ex. Destierro and fine or Accused convicted, Prision mayor and fine is imposed.
suspension and fine – subsidiary penalty shall not Decision “in case of insolvency to pay the fine, he shall
exceed 1/3 of the term of the sentence but in no case suffer subsidiary penalty”. The court is wrong. Prision
is longer than one year. mayor is more than 6 years
5. If the principal penalty that goes with fine is not to
be executed by confinement in a penal institution Q: Accused convicted. Penalty imposed on him is fine
but is without fixed duration, that is an indivisible alone.
penalty, even if the convict is insolvent to pay the There is no statement in the judgment that in case of
fine, he cannot be made to suffer subsidiary insolvency to pay the fine, he shall suffer subsidiary
penalty. imprisonment. Thereafter, the judgment became final and
executory. The writ of execution was returned by the
Instances when convict cannot be made to suffer
sheriff unsatisfied. Judge ordered for his arrest to suffer
subsidiary penalty
subsidiary penalty. Is the judge correct?
1. When the penalty imposed by the court does not
include fine
A: The court is wrong. There was no express
2. Penalty includes fine but there is no express
statement that in case of insolvency, he shall suffer
statement in the judgment that in case of insolvency
subsidiary penalty. Therefore, even if he is insolvent
to pay the fine, he shall suffer subsidiary penalty
to pay the fine, the court cannot place him behind
3. When what the convict failed to pay is NOT a fine
bars to suffer subsidiary penalty.
but declaration of damage caused or
indemnification for damages because subsidiary
➢ Failure of the court to state it in the judgment that
penalty is a penalty against fine and fine alone.
became final and executory cannot be cured by any
4. If the principal penalty that goes with fine higher
court order thereafter.
than prision correctional
5. If the principal penalty that goes with fine is not to
Q: What if the accused already suffered subsidiary
be executed by confinement in a penal institution
penalty, then he was released and became rich? The
and is an indivisible penalty.
public prosecutor learned about this. The public
prosecutor filed a petition before the court in order for him
There must also be EXPRESS statement in the judgment
to answer for a fine imposed by the court as a penalty.
that in case of insolvency to pay the fine, he shall suffer
Would you grant the petition?
subsidiary imprisonment. If no express statement, cannot
A: Yes. This is because under Article 39, as amended,
place him behind bars if insolvent. Why? Because
even if the said offender has undergone subsidiary
subsidiary penalty is not an accessory penalty
imprisonment, he is still has to pay the fine in case his
financial circumstances improved. The moment the
Note: if penalty is not to be executed by confinement, but
convict’s financial circumstances improved, the state
of fixed duration. Ex. if suspension or destierro. Subsidiary
can still go after him to pay the fine.
imprisonment shall also be destierro or suspension but
shall not exceed 1/3 of the term of sentence and in no case
to continue for more than one year
Q: X was convicted of reckless imprudence causing

damage to property. Penalty imposed on him is fine and
public censure. Lower portion of the decision “in case of
insolvency to pay the fine, he shall suffer subsidiary
penalty”. Is the court correct?

CHAPTER FOUR: APPLICATION OF PENALTIES Q: In the same problem, H opened the car, all of them
(ARTICLES 46 – 77) died. What crime is committed?
A: X is liable for multiple murder because the single
Article 48. Penalty for complex crimes. - When a act of placing a bomb resulting to 5 grave felonies.
single act constitutes two or more grave or less Only one charge or one information filed in court-
grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary multiple murder.
means for committing the other, the penalty for
the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same Q: X is armed with M-16 high powered rifle, machine gun.
to be applied in its maximum period. He went inside the conference room. One pull of trigger,
many bullets came out hitting 5 persons. X is liable for 5
Different complexity of crimes counts of murder.
I. COMPOUND CRIME A: Not a complex crime. If the weapon used is a high

Elements: powered machine gun, you do not take into
1. Offender performs a single act consideration the single act of pulling the trigger but
2. The single act produces two or more grave or less the number of bullets that came out of the body of the
grave felonies gun and killed and wounded the offended party.
It is necessary that the offender performs only a single act. Q: A aimed the gun at B. But because of poor aim, it shot C
a pedestrian walking. Treachery was attended.
Basis: The basis of compound crime is the singularity of
the act, not singularity of impulse A: As to B, crime committed is attempted murder. As
to C, murder. Crime committed is attempted murder.
Effect: Instead of being prosecuted of two crimes,
separate and distinct, he shall be liable for only one crime
but the penalty for the most serious crime in its maximum People v. Punzalan
period shall be the one imposed SC: complex crime of Double murder with multiple
attempted murder. Single act of stepping in the accelerator
Q: A political rival placed a bomb on B’s car. A person of the vehicle and swerving and ramming over the victims
died, several persons injured resulting to death and attempt to kill the other.
A: A single act placing the bomb produces two or
more less grave felonies. Crime is murder with People v. Nelmida
multiple frustrated murder The mayor was ambushed. There was repeated firing
Two persons died - Double murder resulted in two deaths and seven was injured. The
Many persons died - Multiple murder with multiple Supreme Court said that the accused shall be liable of two
frustrated murder counts of murder and seven counts of attempted murder.
Complexity of crimes under Article 48 will not apply
because the act is not a single act. There are several
Q: Machine gun was used, different bullets come out, 10 offenders performing different acts using different
people were killed. Multiple murder or 10 counts of firearms. There are as many crimes as committed as there
murder? are many persons killed.
A: As many crimes are there are as many persons. Not ➢ No direct assault with slight physical injuries because
a compound crime therefore. slight physical injuries is a light felony and cannot be
Q: X placed a bomb under the car of Y. When Y and wife made a component of compound crime
and 3 children opened the car, it exploded. Children ➢ Machine gun or armalite – the single act of pressing
survived due to medical treatment. H and W died. It the trigger is treated as several acts as many as there
resulted to 5 grave felonies. 2 murder and 3 frustrated are bullets fired from the shot. The single act of
murder. What crime is committed? pressing the trigger will cause continuous firing of
bullets.
A: : Double murder with multiple frustrated murder.
One information because it is a complex crime. There
is a single act of placing the bomb inside the car and
this single act produces two murders and three
frustrated murders

II. COMPLEX CRIME PROPER falsification of a private document because

➢ when the offense is a necessary means to commit Estafa is a mere consequence.
the other crime
Elements: These are the two complex crimes under Article 48. The
1. Two offenses committed others are – special complex crime and continued crime.
2. One or more of these offenses be necessary to
commit the other III. Special complex crime
3. These offenses must be punished with the same ➢ In reality two or more crimes committed but in
statute the eyes of law only one. It is the law that
prescribes a particular, specific penalty for these
Effect: The penalty for the most serious crime shall be the combine crimes.
one imposed in its maximum period
Q: In order to commit the crime of rape, the accused 1. Robbery with homicide
forcibly abducted the woman against her will and with ➢ A was robbing the house, in course of robbery the
lewd design. What crime is committed? owner of house was awaken, he shot the owner,
A: Rape through forcible abduction because forcible Art. 294 rp to death
abduction is a necessary means in order to commit
rape. 2. Kidnapping with homicide
➢ A kidnapped B, when b is trying to escape he shot
Q: In order to swindle, Y falsified a deed of absolute sale. b. Law provides for specific penalty which is
By falsifying such deed, he was able to transfer the title of death
X’s property to his name. What is the crime?
3. Rape with homicide
A: Estafa through falsification of public document. In
➢ When by reason or on the occasion of rape,
falsification of deed of absolute sale – a public
homicide was committed, Article 266-B provides
document – was a necessary means in order to
that the crime committed is rape with homicide
commit the crime of swindling or Estafa.
and the law prescribes a single particular penalty
of death.
Q: The accused falsified a cash voucher in order to collect ➢ If on occasion or by reason of attempted rape,
money from the client of their company. After collecting homicide is commited, under Article 266-B, we
the money, he appropriated it for his own benefit. He was have the crime of Attempted Rape with
charged with Estafa through falsification of commercial Homicide and the law prescribes the penalty of
document. Is the charge correct? reclusion perpetua to death.
A: The charge is wrong. In the case of People v.
Batulanon, the SC said that a cash voucher is a
COMPLEX CRIME SPECIAL COMPLEX
private document, not a commercial one because it is
(ART. 48) CRIME
not defined and regulated by the Code of Commerce.
It is not Estafa through falsification of a private The crimes are generic. The The law specifically states
document because there is no such crime. You cannot law merely provides two or the crimes that must be
complex Estafa with falsification of private document more grave or less grave complexed or combined
because both these crimes have damage as the felonies or when an offense
elements and one and the same damage cannot give is a necessary means for
rise to two crimes. committing the other
offense
The SC said you have to choose. Is it Estafa? Is it The penalty, are in general, The law provides for the
Falsification? penalty for the most serious specific penalty for the
1. If Estafa can be committed even without crime in its maximum combined crimes
falsifying a private document, the falsification period shall be imposed
merely facilitated the commission of the crime, If a light felony is If a light felony is
the appropriate charge is Estafa because committed, generally, it committed, generally, it is
falsification is merely incidental brings about a separate and absorbed by the said special
2. If Estafa cannot be committed without falsifying distinct charge complex crime
a private document, the appropriate charge is

IV. CONTINUED CRIME, CONTINOUS CRIME, petitioner with performing a single criminal act — that of
DELICTO CONTINUADO her approving the application for legalization of aliens not
➢ When the offender is impelled by a single qualified under the law to enjoy such privilege. The 32
criminal impulse commits a series of overt acts in Amended Informations aver that the offenses were
about the same time and about the same place committed on the same period of time, i.e., on or about
violating one and the same provision of law. October 17, 1988. The strong probability even exists that
the approval of the application or the legalization of the
stay of the 32 aliens was done by a single stroke of the pen,
Basis: Singularity of impulse
as when the approval was embodied in the same
Elements: document.
1. Plurality of acts performed separately during a period
of time
2. Unity of criminal intent and purpose V. CONTINUING CRIMES OR TRANSITORY
3. Unity of penal provision violated CRIMES
Q: A, B, C, and D lived in one compound. All engaged in ➢ More on remedial law

the business of selling rooster. One night, 11:00 in the ➢ The offender can be prosecuted before the courts
evening here comes X. While they were sleeping, X took of the place where any of the crimes or elements
the rooster of A, then of B, then of C, then of D. How many of the crime has been committed
crimes will you file against X? ➢ Treason, Rebellion, Kidnapping, Violation of
A: Crime committed is one charge of theft. X impelled BP22, Estafa by postdating a check (Art 315 (2)
by a single impulse committed overt acts leading to (d)) are all considered continuing crimes.
theft.
Limitation: the moment he is prosecuted in one court, he
Q: X has been designated by a condominium company to can no longer be prosecuted in any other court
sell the units of a condominium. However, he is not
entrusted to collect the amortization fees from the buyers. Q: X in payment of his obligation, issued a postdated
But X is in need of money. One day, say on March 1, he check to Y in Manila, on the maturity date, Y deposited the
went to the first unit owner A and he collected the check to his depositary bank in Quezon City. The check
amortization fees amounting to P10,000. He also went to however was dishonored by the drawee bank in Caloocan
the second unit owner B and collected the amount of City. Notice of dishonor was sent. X failed to make good
P10,0000 amortization fees. Then, he also went to the the check. Where may Y file the case for violation of BP
third unit owner C and collected the P10,000 amortization 22? Before the MTC of Manila? Before the MTC of Quezon
fees. Lastly, went to the fourth unit owner D and collected City? Before the MTC of Caloocan City?
the P10,000 amortization fees too. So, all in all, he
A: In any of the aforementioned courts because the
collected P40,000 amortization fees. He appropriated this
elements of the crime happened in any of these places.
collections for his own benefit. He was not tasked and
Provided the BP 22 case has already been filed in the
entrusted by the company to make these collections. How
MTC of Manila, the said case can no longer be filed
many crimes of estafa have been committed by X?
before the MTC of Quezon City or Caloocan City.
A: X committed only 1 count of estafa because it is
considered as a continuous crime or delito
continuando. He is impelled by a single criminal Q: Violation of BP 22. A issued to B a check in payment of
impulse and committed a series of overt acts in about his obligation in Manila. A deposited BDO check in his
the same time and about the same place, in the same depositary BPI. When BPI presented to BDO Caloocan. In
condominium unit, violating one and the same Caloocan the check bounced. Where may it be prosecuted?
provision of law. A: GR: It may be filed in any courts of the place.
Santiago v. Garchitorena Manila – element of issuance; Q.C – despositary of
the check; Caloocan – where the check bounced.
We find that, technically, there was only one crime that XPN or LIMITATION: that when the case is
was committed in petitioner's case, and hence, there already filed in court it cannot be filed elsewhere.
should only be one information to be file against her. The
32 Amended Informations charge what is known as delito
continuado or "continued crime" and sometimes referred
to as "continuous crime." The original information charged

Art. 46. Penalty to be imposed upon principals in crime to such a degree that it must of necessity
general. — The penalty prescribed by law for the accompany the commission thereof.
commission of a felony shall be imposed upon the 3. Aggravating or mitigating circumstances
principals in the commission of such felony. which arise from the moral attributes of the
Whenever the law prescribes a penalty for a felony offender, or from his private relations with
is general terms, it shall be understood as the offended party, or from any other personal
applicable to the consummated felony. cause, shall only serve to aggravate or mitigate
➢ Under Article 46, the penalty prescribed by law the liability of the principals, accomplices and
for every felony shall only be applied to accessories as to whom such circumstances
principals, accomplice and shall be only imposed are attendant.
to consummated felonies. 4. The circumstances which consist in the
➢ So in Book II, for every felony, there is a material execution of the act, or in the means
prescribed felony. Example: Under Article 249 – employed to accomplish it, shall serve to
homicide, the prescribed penalty is reclusion aggravate or mitigate the liability of those
temporal. This reclusion temporal may be persons only who had knowledge of them at
imposed only on the principal offender and can the time of the execution of the act or their
be applied only to consummated homicide. cooperation therein.
5. Habitual delinquency shall have the following
effects:
How about to frustrated homicide, accessory penalties?
(a) Upon a third conviction the culprit shall
➢ Articles 50 to 57 provides for the rules. be sentenced to the penalty provided by
Accomplice – you go 1 degree lower law for the last crime of which he be found
Accessory – 2 degrees lower from the penalty guilty and to the additional penalty of
prescribed by law prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods;
Frustrated Stage - 1 degree lower from the penalty
prescribed by law (b) Upon a fourth conviction, the culprit shall
be sentenced to the penalty provided for
Attempted Stage - 2 degrees lower from the penalty
the last crime of which he be found guilty
prescribed by law
and to the additional penalty of prision
XPN: Article 60 – despite the rules prescribing the mayor in its minimum and medium
penalty for attempted, frustrated, accomplice, and periods; and
accessories under Articles 50 – 57, if the law specially
(c) Upon a fifth or additional conviction, the
provides for a penalty for a mere frustration or
culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty
attempt or for accomplice or accessory, then the
provided for the last crime of which he be
provision of that law prevails and not Articles 50-57.
found guilty and to the additional penalty
of prision mayor in its maximum period to
Art. 62. Effect of the attendance of mitigating or reclusion temporal in its minimum
aggravating circumstances and of habitual period.
delinquency. — Mitigating or aggravating Notwithstanding the provisions of this
circumstances and habitual delinquency shall be article, the total of the two penalties to be
taken into account for the purpose of diminishing imposed upon the offender, in conformity
or increasing the penalty in conformity with the herewith, shall in no case exceed 30 years.
following rules:
For the purpose of this article, a person
1. Aggravating circumstances which in shall be deemed to be habitual delinquent,
themselves constitute a crime specially is within a period of ten years from the
punishable by law or which are included by date of his release or last conviction of the
the law in defining a crime and prescribing the crimes of serious or less serious physical
penalty therefor shall not be taken into injuries, robo, hurto, estafa or falsification,
account for the purpose of increasing the he is found guilty of any of said crimes a
penalty. third time or oftener.
2. The same rule shall apply with respect to any
aggravating circumstance inherent in the

➢ Public officer taking advantage of his public position prison. Within 10 years against he committed another
is no longer generic aggravating circumstances that theft. He is now in trial. Can judge impose recidivism and
can be offset because by virtue of RA 7659 it is now a habitual delinquency both apply?
special aggravating circumstance. The maximum A: He is recidivist. At the time he served theft he was
penalty prescribed by law. previously convicted of a final judgment of robbery
Organized or Syndicated crime group embraced within the same title of the code. He is also
➢ Group of two or more persons collaborating, habitual delinquent, because within the ten years
confederating and mutually helping another for from the date of his last release he committed a theft
purposes of gain in the commission of the crime. the third time. Both may be considered because they
The maximum penalty prescribed by law if offender have different effects on criminal liability of the
is found or the fact that he is a member of this offender. Recidivism effect is on the theft committed.
group. It is a special aggravating circumstance It may be offset by mitigating circumstances. Habitual
under this article. delinquency will give him additional penalty.
Q: If information charges A, B, C, D as collaborating,
confederating and mutually helping another for purposes Recidivism effect is on the penalty. It can be offset.
of gain in the commission of the crime. This is what the
information alleges. Trial found this so. The judge Recidivism Habitual delinquency
considered conspiracy and considered this special
Two convictions Three convictions
aggravating circumstance. Is the court correct?
A: The judge is not correct. Before the special Same title of code Falsification, Robbery,
aggravating circumstance be considered the court, Estafa, Theft, Serious
evidence must show was held to commit crimes physical injuries, Less
involving gain. There must be evidence to show. serious physical injuries
(FRETSeL)
HABITUAL DELINQUENCY
No prescriptive period Prescriptive period of 10
➢ another aggravating circumstance characterized on the commission of years
by habituality (3rd kind) the offense. It
➢ If within 10 years from date of release or last
prior conviction, he commits the crimes of does not prescribe
serious physical injuries, less serious physical
injuries, robbery, theft, estafa, falsification a third Generic aggravating Cannot offset by mitigating
time or oftener. circumstance, may be circumstance, provides
offset. additional penalty
Elements:
1. The crime is specified should be serious physical
injuries, less serious physical injuries, robbery, Another form of habituality:
theft, estafa and falsification QUASI-RECIDIVISM
2. There should be at least three convictions
➢ Art 160. Not a felony, another special aggravating
3. Each convictions must come within ten year from
circumstance.
date of release or last conviction of the previous
crime Quasi-recidivist – a person is said to be a quasi-
recidivist if after having been convicted by a final
judgement he shall commit a felony before serving out his
Effect: Additional penalty shall be imposed in the
sentence or while service of sentence. The maximum
maximum period being an aggravating circumstance.
period shall be imposed. Again it is a special aggravating
Limitation: the penalty committed for the crime plus
circumstance.
additional penalty should not exceed thirty years.
➢ The first crime may be any crime. The second
crime must be a felony.
Q: A charged and convicted of robbery he served his
Q: A while serving a final judgment, he was found in
sentence. Within 10 years from date of release he
possession of illegal drugs. Is he a quasi-recidivist?
committed theft. He served sentence and again released.
Within 10 years he committed another theft. The judgment A: No, not a quasi-recidivist. The second crime is not
is become final and executory. He served again and out of a felony, it is a special law.

Q: But if reversed, say he was serving sentence for circumstance, the greater penalty shall be
possession of illegal drugs and then inside a crime he applied.
killed a co-inmate. Is he a quasi-recidivist? 2. When there are neither mitigating nor
A: Yes. This time quasi recidivism is considered. aggravating circumstances and there is no
Maximum period prescribed by law shall be imposed. aggravating circumstance, the lesser
penalty shall be applied.
Degree of penalty 3. When the commission of the act is
attended by some mitigating
➢ Is a penalty prescribed by law, the penalty
circumstances and there is no aggravating
imposed by the court for every crime committed
circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be
which can either be divisible or indivisible.
applied.
Period of penalty
4. When both mitigating and aggravating
➢ Refers to the subdivision of every said divisible circumstances attended the commission of
penalty into three portion, the first 1/3 portion is the act, the court shall reasonably allow
mimimum, second is medium, third is maximum them to offset one another in
Indivisible penalty consideration of their number and
➢ Penalty without fixed duration which includes: importance, for the purpose of applying
a. death the penalty in accordance with the
b. reclusion perpetua preceding rules, according to the result of
c. perpetual absolute disqualification such compensation.
d. perpetual special disqualification
e. public censure ART. 63 – Rules for Application of Indivisible
f. fine. Penalties
Divisible penalty If the penalty prescribed by law consist of 2 indivisible
➢ Penalty with fixed duration and therefore can be penalties, the ff. are the rules:
divided into three period. the first portion is 1. If there is only 1 aggravating circumstance that
mimimum, second is medium, third is maximum attended the commission of the crime, the
greater penalty shall be imposed
Article 27 by RA 7659 (Heinous Crime Law) 2. If there is one mitigating circumstance that
Reclusion perpetua has now duration 20 years and 1 day. attended the commission of the crime, the lesser
But in People v. Lucas, reclusion perpetua despite penalty shall be imposed
amendment, no clear legislative intent to alter and make it 3. If there are no mitigating and no aggravating
from indivisible to divisible. When reclusion perpetua is circumstances that attended the commission of
imposed as penalty, there is no need to state duration. the crime, the lesser penalty shall be imposed
Hence it remains indivisible. Whenever reclusion perpetua 4. If both mitigating and aggravating circumstances
is imposed, its duration need not be stated by the court. attended the commission of the crime, they shall
be offset one another and apply the prior rules
Article 63. Rules for the application of indivisible When there is a privileged mitigating circumstance,
penalties must be applied first before computing the penalties
In all cases in which the law prescribes a single
indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts SITUATIONS:
regardless of any mitigating or aggravating
1. Simple Rape
circumstances that may have attended the
commission of the deed. The penalty for simple rape is reclusion perpetua – a
single indivisible penalty.
In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty
composed of two indivisible penalties, the Simple rape was committed by offender by nighttime and
following rules shall be observed in the in the dwelling of the offended party – so two aggravating
application thereof: circumstances and no mitigating circumstance.
1. When in the commission of the deed there ➢ Under Article 63, the penalty of reclusion
is present only one aggravating perpetua – a single indivisible penalty shall be

imposed regardless of any mitigating or No mitigating and no aggravating circumstance:

aggravating circumstances In the commission of the crime of murder, no
2. Murder mitigating and no aggravating circumstance, the
Murder is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death – two lesser penalty, shall be the one imposed.
indivisible penalties
The killing took place in the dwelling of the offended party 2 mitigating and 1 aggravating:
with no mitigating circumstance In the commission of murder, both mitigating
➢ Under Article 63, if there is one aggravating but (voluntary surrender and immediate vindication of a
no mitigating, the greater penalty shall be grave offense) and aggravating (dwelling), so we have
imposed. Therefore death penalty shall be 2 mitigating and 1 aggravating, Art 63 provides that
imposed you offset the 2 and apply the rules. You offset the
The murder was attended by one mitigating – there’s dwelling with voluntary surrender, there is still one
voluntary surrender with not aggravating circumstance. mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of a
grave offense therefore, the lesser penalty, reclusion
➢ Under Article 63, the lesser penalty shall be
perpetua shall be the one imposed.
imposed – reclusion perpetua
The killing was not attended by any aggravating or
mitigating circumstance Q: What if in the crime of RAPE, when the penalty
prescribed is a SINGLE INDIVISIBLE PENALTY, it
➢ Article 63 says that the lesser penalty shall be
shall be imposed “as is”.
imposed
Privilege Mitigating Circumstance
The killing was attended by both aggravating and
mitigating circumstances. So it took place in the dwelling But what if rape is committed by a MINOR? So we
of the offended party and the accused voluntary have here minority, which is a PRIVILEGE
surrendered – 1 aggravating and 1 mitigating MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE. Since it is a privilege
mitigating circumstance, apply it first before
➢ You offset the two. Offset dwelling to voluntary
computing the penalty, you lower reclusion perpetua
surrender, therefore no aggravating or mitigating
by 1 degree. It will now become reclusion temporal.
attended, therefore the lesser penalty shall be
Now that it is reclusion temporal, it is now a divisible
imposed
penalty, you can now apply Art. 64 and consider the
Q: What if the crime committed is MURDER? rules provided for.
Under 248, the penalty for murder is RECLUSION
*So even if a single indivisible penalty, if in the
PERPETUA TO DEATH. It consists of 2 indivisible
commission thereof, there is a privilege mitigating
penalties.
circumstance, the said privilege mitigating
circumstance can be applied to a single indivisible
NO mitigating and 1 aggravating: penalty.
The law provides that let us say, the murder was
committed in the dwelling of the offended party/ BEFORE YOU CONSIDER ARTICLE 64, YOU
so there is one mitigating circumstance and no HAVE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION ACT
aggravating circumstance. The law provides the 4103, AS AMENDED
greater penalty, death, shall be the one imposed.
Article 64. Rules for the application of penalties
which contain three periods
No aggravating but 1 mitigating: In cases in which the penalties prescribed by law
But what if in the commission of the crime there is no contain three periods, whether it be a single
aggravating circumstance, but there is 1 mitigating divisible penalty or composed of three different
circumstance. Let us say of a passion and obfuscation. penalties, each one of which forms a period in
The commission of the crime of murder was accordance with the provisions of Articles 76 and
committed by one mitigating circumstance of passion 77, the court shall observe for the application of
and obfuscation. Art. 63, provides the lesser of the the penalty the following rules, according to
penalty imposed by law shall be imposed (reclusion whether there are or are not mitigating or
perpetua) aggravating circumstances:
1. When there are neither aggravating nor
mitigating circumstances, they shall

impose the penalty prescribed by law in its Parole

medium period. ➢ Conditional release of the offender form the
2. When only a mitigating circumstances is correctional institution after serving minimum
present in the commission of the act, they sentence after showing that he has reformed.
shall impose the penalty in its minimum Note it does not extinguish criminal and civil
period. liability.
3. When an aggravating circumstance is
Requisites before a prisoner may be granted
present in the commission of the act, they
parole:
shall impose the penalty in its maximum
period. 1. He must be placed in prison jail to serve an
4. When both mitigating and aggravating indeterminate sentence penalty which exceeds 1
circumstances are present, the court shall year
reasonably offset those of one class 2. Served minimum term of sentence
against the other according to their 3. Board of pardons and parole found that he has
relative weight. already reformed and his release is for greater
5. When there are two or more mitigating interest of society
circumstances and no aggravating
circumstances are present, the court shall Objective:
impose the penalty next lower to that 1. Uplift and redeem valuable human
prescribed by law, in the period that it material
may deem applicable, according to the 2. Avoid unnecessary and excessive
number and nature of such circumstances. deprivation of liberty.
6. Whatever may be the number and
The purpose or objective is achieved because the moment
nature of the aggravating circumstances,
the offender has already served the minimum term of
the courts shall not impose a greater
sentence, he becomes eligible for parole, and he is placed
penalty than that prescribed by law, in its
outside the bars. However, this does not mean that he is
maximum period.
free because he has to report to his parole officer
6. Within the limits of each period, the court
depending on the term or conditions stated in the grant of
shall determine the extent of the penalty
parole.
according to the number and nature of the
aggravating and mitigating circumstances The former husband of Senator Loren Legarda, Toni
and the greater and lesser extent of the Leviste, was out on parole because he had already served
evil produced by the crime. the term for homicide and he has shown that he is already
reformed.
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW

Although the ISL applies to both crimes under the RPC
(ACT 4103)
and SPL, not all offenders can be given an indeterminate
sentence.
Indeterminate Sentence Law Offenders disqualified to be given and
➢ That law which modifies the imposition of penalty. indeterminate sentence:
Applies both to RPC and special law 1. Convicted crime punished by death or life
➢ Judges are mandated to fix a minimum term of imprisonment, reclusion perpetua (RP –
sentence and maximum term of sentence. according to jurisprudence).
What is indivisible sentence law as opposed to a straight 2. Those convicted of treason, conspiracy or
penalty? proposal to commit treason
➢ ISL is a sentence that has a minimum term and a 3. Those convicted misprision of treason, rebellion,
maximum term of the sentence. A straight penalty sedition or espionage
has no maximum and minimum terms 4. Those convicted piracy.
5. Those who are habitual delinquents.
If the penalty imposed is an indeterminate sentence, the
(Recidivists are entitled to an indeterminate
moment the offender has served minimum, he becomes
sentence. People v. Jaranilla, 28547, Feb. 22,
eligible for parole, can be released for parole under
1974))
conditions. Under parole he is released but under
6. Those who shall have escaped from confinement
supervision of parole officer.
or evaded sentence.

(A minor who escaped from confinement in the 2. One mitigating circumstance - minimum
reformatory is entitled to the benefits of the law 3. An aggravating circumstance is present -
because confinement is not considered maximum
imprisonment. (People v. Perez, 44 OG 3884) 4. Both mitigating and aggravating circumstances
(Q6, 1991 Bar)) are present –offset the two then apply the rules
7. Those who having been granted conditional 5. Two or more mitigating circumstances and no
pardon by the President shall have violated the aggravating circumstance – lower the penalty to
terms thereof. one degree in its proper period
8. Those whose maximum period of imprisonment 6. Whatever may be the number and nature of the
does not exceed one year. aggravating circumstances, the courts shall not
impose a greater penalty than that prescribed by
➢ Since they are disqualified, the penalty imposed on law, in its maximum period.
them is a straight penalty, not to be given
indeterminate sentence. SITUATIONS:
Q: A final judgment was rendered against X. He was 1. FORCIBLE ABDUCTION
granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive. He
A abducted B with lewd design. His intention was rape.
violated the terms and conditions of the said pardon. He
But before he raped B he was arrested. Crime is forcible
was charged with evasion of service of sentence. Finding
abduction. Penalty is reclusion temporal. No mitigating
him guilty, can the court impose upon him an
and aggravating circumstance.
indeterminate sentence?
Maximum term will be reclusion temporal in medium
A: NO. Because he is among those disqualified under
period.
the law. By violating the condition of his pardon he
cannot avail of an indeterminate sentence law. Minimum term – 1 degree lower without attendant
circumstance. Prision mayor. In the range of prision
Q: X has been convicted of final judgment of serious
mayor because minimum term is in the sound
physical injuries, thereafter he committed homicide and
discretion of the court.
the judge found him guilty of homicide. Can the judge
impose upon him an indeterminate sentence? What if there is voluntary surrender? This is an ordinary
mitigating circumstance.
A: X here is a recidivist. A recidivist is NOT
disqualified under the law from availing the Maximum term will be reclusion temporal in
indeterminate sentence law. Only habitual minimum period.
delinquents cannot be given Minimum term – 1 degree lower without attendant
circumstance. Prision mayor. In the range of prision
mayor because minimum term is in the sound
COMPUTATION
discretion of the court.
Consider RPC or special law.
What if there is night time?
A. Violation of the RPC – consider attendant mitigating
Maximum term will be reclusion temporal in
or aggravating circumstance.
maximum period.
1. Get first the maximum term of sentence with all
Minimum term – 1 degree lower without attendant
the attendant circumstance
circumstance. Prision mayor. Within the range of. The
2. Lower it the one degree. Do not consider
ISL is temporal in maximum period and within the
anymore the attendant circumstance. This
range of prision mayor because minimum term is in
applies to sound discretion of the court. So no
the sound discretion of the court.
attendant circumstance shall be considered.
If voluntary surrender and nighttime maximum term
Section 1 of ISL provides, the range of the shall be in the medium period because under article
minimum penalty is dependent on the sound 64 you should offset the circumstances.
discretion of the judge or court. So whether If in addition to this there is abuse of superior
prison mayor will be minimum, medium or circumstance, there is one aggravating circumstance
maximum, will depend on the sound discretion of remaining.
the judge. Maximum term will be reclusion temporal in
RULES UNDER ARTICLE 64: maximum period.
1. No neither aggravating and no mitigating
circumstances – MEDIUM

Fifth rule under article 64. Voluntary surrender with term of sentence does not exceed one year).
passion and obfuscation. Lower penalty with one degree. It Therefore, give him a straight penalty – arresto mayor
will now be prision mayor. Medium period because no medium period.
aggravating circumstance.
Max term is prision mayor in medium. 4. HOMICIDE - reclusion temporal
Min. term is prision correccional In the commission of the crime, no mitigating, no
There is no one degree higher kahit ilan pa aggravating circumstance – under the law, medium
aggravating. Kung mitigating eh di lower ng lower. Maximum term: Reclusion temporal in its medium
period
2. RAPE To get the minimum, under ISL, you go one degree
A raped B. B voluntarily surrendered and with passion lower.
and obfuscation. Punished with reclusion perpetua. One Minimum term: Prision Mayor. To get the minimum
degree lower? term of sentence, you lower it by one degree. So it
No. If indivisible penalty apply under Article 63, if becomes prision mayor.
penalty prescribe by law is a single invisible penalty
you shall impose it regardless of any aggravating or One mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation with
mitigating circumstance. As is yan. no aggravating circumstance:
If B, the offender, is a minor when the crime was Maximum term: Reclusion Temporal in its minimum
committed? Minority is a privilege mitigating period
circumstance. You will apply it, it takes preference. Talo
Minimum term: Prision Mayor. As to the range, it is
niya na indivisible penalty.
dependent on the sound discretion of the court.
Max term reclusion temporal. Two mitigating
There is 1 mitigating circumstance of sufficient
therefore lower it by one degree. So now prision
provocation, so 1 mitigating circumstance with no
mayor. In medium period.
aggravating circumstance. Art 64 says the maximum
Min term. One degree lower. Prision correccional penalty shall be in its minimum period. So this will be
within the range of. reclusion temporal in its minimum period. That is the
Only circumstance that can defeat an indivisible maximum term of sentence. Again, to get the
penalty is a privilege mitigating circumstance. minimum term of sentence, lower it by 1 degree,
prision mayor. As to the range, it is dependent on the
sound discretion of the court. That is the minimum
3. FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE
term of sentence.
What if crime committed is frustrated homicide. There is
voluntary surrender and immediate vindication.
Reclusion temporal. Frustrated will be one degree lower. No mitigating but with one aggravating circumstance of
Prision Mayor. Two mitigating. Lower it one degree more. nighttime:
Max term of sentence – Prision correctional in its Maximum term: Reclusion Temporal in its maximum
medium period. period
Mimimum term of sentence – Arresto mayor Minimum term: Prision Mayor. Range depends on
the sound discretion of the court.
Add facts again. He is minor committing without
discernment. *In the commission of the crime let us say, no
mitigating but with 1 aggravating circumstance of
Frustrated will be one degree lower. Prision Mayor.
nighttime. Art 64 says, the penalty shall be in its
One degree lower because privilege mitigating
maximum period. So we have here, reclusion
circumstance.
temporal, maximum period. Lower it by 1 degree,
Prision correctional - Apply now article 64. You have prision mayor. Range depends on the sound
two mitigating, one degree lower. Arresto mayor. discretion of the court. That is the minimum term of
Max term of sentence - Arresto mayor medium sentence.
period.
Min term of sentence - You cannot go one degree Both mitigating (voluntary surrender) and aggravating
lower because you cannot give him indeterminate circumstances (nighttime):
sentence. He is disqualified (those whose maximum

Maximum term: Reclusion Temporal in its medium Four mitigating circumstances, no aggravating
period ➢ You only need two mitigating to lower the penalty
Minimum term: Prision mayor. The range depends into one degree. There are two remaining
on the sound discretion of the court. mitigating, you don’t need to lower the penalty. It
➢ The commission of the crime of homicide was is still prision mayor in its minimum period.
attended by both mitigating and aggravating Maximum – prision mayor in minimum
circumstances. There is one mitigating Minimum – prision correccional
circumstance of voluntary surrender and one
aggravating circumstance of nighttime. Offset the
two, no more aggravating, no more mitigating, Whenever there are two or more mitigating
therefore, reclusion temporal in its medium circumstances with no aggravating circumstance and
period. This is the maximum term of the the result is to lower the penalty by one degree, it will
sentence. Again to get the minimum term of be called special mitigating circumstance because the
sentence, you lower it by one degree, prision lowering is not only by periods but by degree
mayor, the range depends on the sound
discretion of the court. That is the minimum term B. Violation of special Law
of the sentence.
➢ Not be less that the minimum and shall not
exceed maximum sentence prescribed by law.
Two mitigating circumstances with no aggravating Example:
circumstances:
Anti-Carnapping law. A person carnapped a vehicle. In
Maximum term: Prision Mayor in its medium period carnapping he used violence. Section 14 of the law, if
Minimum term: Prision Correccional. The range committed with violence 17 years and 4 months to 13
depends on the sound discretion of the court. years. As is or 18 to 25 years as long as be less that the
➢ In the commission of the crime of homicide, it is minimum and shall not exceed maximum sentence
attended by 2 mitigating circumstances with no prescribed by law.
aggravating circumstances. Two mitigating
circumstance of sufficient provocation and then Hijacking – penalty is 12 years to 20 years
we have voluntary surrender. No aggravating
The penalty to be imposed could be:
circumstance. Art 64 provides if there are 2 or
more mitigating with no aggravating 1. 15 years to 20 years
circumstance, lower the penalty by 1 degree. 2. 12 years to 18 years
Therefore, by reclusion temporal, you lower it by 3. 12 years to 15 years
1 degree, it will become prision mayor. We have Depends upon the judge
already considered these, so prision mayor in its
medium period – this is the maximum term of
Q: The crime committed is illegal fishing with the use of
the sentence. To get the minimum term of
explosives. The penalty prescribed by law is 20 years to life
sentence, lower it by 1 degree, it will become
imprisonment. What penalty shall be imposed by the
prision correccional. The range depends on the
court?
sound discretion of the court/judge.
A: The law says if it is a violation of special penal law
and the said special penal law does not use the
In order that the penalty will be lowered by 1 degree, enumeration of penalties in the RPC, the maximum
it is necessary that totally, there is no aggravating term of the sentence shall not exceed the maximum
circumstance. penalty prescribed by law and the minimum term of
Even if there are many mitigating circumstance, for as sentence shall not be less than the minimum penalty
long as there is 1 aggravating circumstance, you will prescribed by law.
not lower the penalty by degrees, it is only by periods.
This is a decided case:

Three mitigating circumstances, no aggravating
Q: The accused was caught because of illegal fishing. The
Maximum term – prision mayor in minimum
penalty imposed by law is 20 years to life imprisonment.
Minimum term – prision correccional The judge imposed him the penalty of straight 30 years. Is
the judge correct?

A: The Supreme Court said NO. Since the penalty 12. Public censure.
prescribed by law is 20 years to life imprisonment, it Notwithstanding the provisions of the rule next
means that the penalty to imposed on the convict preceding, the maximum duration of the convict's
must be an indeterminate sentence. SC said the sentence shall not be more than three-fold the
penalty must be 20 years (minimum term) to 25 years length of time corresponding to the most severe of
(maximum term). the penalties imposed upon him. No other penalty
Q: Let us say the crime committed is carnapping with use to which he may be liable shall be inflicted after
of force and violence. So the penalty prescribed by law is 17 the sum total of those imposed equals the same
years and 4 months to 30 years. If you were the judge maximum period.
convicting the accused, what penalty shall be imposed? Such maximum period shall in no case exceed
A: Any penalty provided that it shall note exceed 30 forty years.
years and it will not be less than 17 years and 4 In applying the provisions of this rule the duration
months. Because the law says the maximum term of of perpetual penalties (pena perpetua) shall be
sentence in case of violation of special penal law shall computed at thirty years. (As amended)
not exceed the maximum term of penalty prescribed
by law and shall not be less than the minimum
penalty prescribed by law. 1. If the culprit has to serve two or more penalties, he shall
serve it simultaneously – that is, if nature of penalty allows
simultaneous of service, then allow simultaneous. If not
Q: What if a person is given multiple sentences? apply, the penalty should be applied successively.
Examples of penalty that can be served
Art. 70. Successive service of sentence. — When simultaneously:
the culprit has to serve two or more penalties, he 1. destierro and fine
shall serve them simultaneously if the nature of 2. Destierro and suspension
the penalties will so permit otherwise, the 3. Destierro and disqualification
following rules shall be observed: 4. Imprisonment and fine
In the imposition of the penalties, the order of 5. Imprisonment and disqualification
their respective severity shall be followed so that 6. Imprisonment and suspension
they may be executed successively or as nearly as
may be possible, should a pardon have been
2. If the multiple sentences imposed on the offender
granted as to the penalty or penalties first
involves imprisonment, they cannot be served
imposed, or should they have been served out.
simultaneously. Instead, they shall be served successively
For the purpose of applying the provisions of the Here hindi niya kaya isabay. Isa lang katawan niya.
next preceding paragraph the respective severity
Successive service of sentence is limited by the so called
of the penalties shall be determined in accordance
three-fold rule.
with the following scale:
THREE FOLD RULE:
1. Death,
➢ The maximum duration of a convict’s sentence
2. Reclusion perpetua,
shall not exceed three times the length of the
3. Reclusion temporal, most severe penalty but in no case to exceed forty
4. Prision mayor, years
5. Prision correccional, chan robles virtual law Q: The offender is convicted of 20 counts of Estafa. For
library each count of Estafa, he was imposed of the penalty of
6. Arresto mayor, aresto mayor – 1 month and 1 day to six months. How ia
he going to serve them?
7. Arresto menor,
A: He cannot serve his sentences at the same time
8. Destierro,
therefore he shall serve the multiple sentences
9. Perpetual absolute disqualification, successively but there’s a limitation, the three-fold
10 Temporal absolute disqualification. rule.
11. Suspension from public office, the right to vote So arresto mayor – six months is the maximum
and be voted for, the right to follow a profession duration. So 120 months – 10 years. If we will not use
or calling, and the three-fold rule, the convict will serve his sentence
for ten years for having committed 20 counts of Estafa

with imposable penalty of aresto mayor. But the law correctional penalty, if it does not exceed 6,000
does not allow this because we have three-fold rule pesos but is not less than 200 pesos; and a light
Based on three-fold rule, you will get the maximum penalty if it less than 200 pesos.
duration of the convict’s sentence – six months.
Under this rule, the sentence shall not exceed three Q: What if the crime committed by the offender is
times the length of the most severe penalty but in no punishable by fine. So let us say, impossible crime and the
case shall exceed 40 years. So 6 x 3 = 18 months. SO penalty prescribed by law is P200-P500. Let us say that
he has to serve one year and six months as is. This is the offender is mere accomplice or an accessory. As
to be computed by Director of Prisons. provided for under Arts. 50-57, if the offender is an
accomplice, you go 1 degree lower. If the offender is an
Q: In the judgment of the court, there’s a statement that accessory, you go 2 degrees lower. How could you lower
says the penalty is arresto mayor plus fine and in case he is the fine?
insolvent, he shall be made to suffer subsidiary penalty. A: Under Art. 75, you take ¼ of the maximum
Can he be made to suffer subsidiary penalty? amount of fine and deduct it therefrom. If you have to
A: if the principal penalty that goes with fine exceeds lower it, again, take ¼ of the maximum amount of
prision correccional, then the offender cannot suffer fine and deduct it therefrom. So the maximum
subsidiary penalty. amount of fine is P500. ¼ of P500 is 125. Deduct this.
This will now be P375.
If you will consider the 10 years (no application yet of
three-fold rule), he cannot suffer subsidiary penalty. If the offender is an accomplice, the penalty
But you do not consider the totality. What you prescribed by law would be P200-P375.
consider is the penalty of each crime. Since the Let us say the offender is mere accessory, deduct ¼ of
penalty for each count is imprisonment not exceeding the maximum fine, so this will become now, P200-
6 years because the imposable penalty is only 6 P250.
months, then he can be made to suffer subsidiary
penalty.
If he is an accomplice, accessory or frustrated?
Q: What is the importance of 1 day in the duration of the

Art. 75. Increasing or reducing the penalty of fine
period? For instance, in prision mayor (6 yrs and 1 DAY -
by one or more degrees. — Whenever it may be
12 years)?
necessary to increase or reduce the penalty of fine
A: The 1 day separates the different degrees of the by one or more degrees, it shall be increased or
penalty. It also separates a divisible penalty from an reduced, respectively, for each degree, by one-
indivisible penalty. It also determines whether fourth of the maximum amount prescribed by law,
subsidiary imprisonment may be imposed on the without however, changing the minimum.
offender.
Q: If A prevented the meetings of congress by means of

WHEN THE PENALTY PRESCRIBED BY LAW IS fraud. The penalty is fine of 200 – 2000.
FINE
A: If accomplice or frustrated stage – less ¼ of the
Art. 66. Imposition of fines. — In imposing fines maximum. Therefore, the penalty is 200 – 1500.
the courts may fix any amount within the limits
If accessory or attempted stage – less ¼ twice, the
established by law; in fixing the amount in each
penalty is 200-1000
case attention shall be given, not only to the
mitigating and aggravating circumstances, but
more particularly to the wealth or means of the Q: What if the offender is given multiple sentences? The
culprit. father raped the daughter 5 times. 5 counts of rape. The
1. Facts such as necessary such as said father was convicted on all counts of rape. The penalty
aggravating and mitigating circumstance. for 1 count of rape is reclusion perpetua. What penalty
2. Wealth and means of the offender shall the court impose on him? If the convict is given
multiple sentence (each reclusion perpetua), how shall the
Article 26. When afflictive, correctional, or light
convict serve the said sentence?
penalty. - A fine, whether imposed as a single of as
an alternative penalty, shall be considered an A: 5 reclusion perpetua.
afflictive penalty, if it exceeds 6,000 pesos; a

Under art. 70, the convict shall serve a sentence, as Art. 71. Graduated scales. — In the case in which
rule, simultaneously. If the nature of the penalty the law prescribed a penalty lower or higher by
allows simultaneous service of sentence. one or more degrees than another given penalty,
Here we have reclusion perpetua. The duration for the rules prescribed in Article 61 shall be observed
reclusion perpetua under Art. 27 is 20 years and 1 day in graduating such penalty.
to 40 years. The maximum penalty is 40 years. The lower or higher penalty shall be taken from
So we have here, 40 years, 40 years, 40 years, 40 the graduated scale in which is comprised the
years and 40 years (because 5 reclusion perpetua), given penalty.
these will be 200 years. That cannot be served, right?! The courts, in applying such lower or higher
So you apply the three fold rule. The maximum penalty, shall observe the following graduated
duration of sentence shall not exceed three times the scales:
length of the most severe penalty. So 40 years times 3 SCALE NO. 1
= 120 years. Still it cannot be served.
1. Death,
Art. 70 says, provided it shall not exceed 40 years. So 2. Reclusion perpetua,
having been convicted of 5 counts of rape and 3. Reclusion temporal,
imposed of the penalty of reclusion perpetua, he shall 4. Prision mayor,
only serve 40 years imprisonment in accordance to 5. Prision correccional,
the three-fold rule. That is the limitation provided for 6. Arresto mayor,
in Art. 70. 7. Destierro,
8. Arresto menor,
Q: So the judge said, for having been convicted of a crime 9. Public censure,
of five counts of rape, the accused is sentenced to suffer 10. Fine.
the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The accused shall serve SCALE NO. 2
sentence of 40 years imprisonment and civil liability of 1. Perpetual absolute disqualification,
P50,000. Is the judge right? 2. Temporal absolute disqualification
A: The judge is wrong. The judge is very wrong. 3. Suspension from public office, the right to
This is because the three-fold rule refers to service of vote and be voted for, the right to
sentence. It does not refer to the imposition of follow a profession or calling,
penalty. It is not for the judge to apply. It is for the 4. Public censure,
director of prisons. The court has to impose penalty 5. Fine.
as prescribed by law.
Therefore, the judgment should be for five counts of Art. 72. Preference in the payment of the civil
rape, he shall be sentenced to penalty of reclusion liabilities. — The civil liabilities of a person found
perpetua and shall pay civil indemnity in the amount guilty of two or more offenses shall be satisfied by
of 50, 000 for each count of rape because this is the following the chronological order of the dates of
penalty prescribed by law and the judge has to the judgments rendered against him, beginning
prescribe such penalty for every conviction. The with the first in order of time.
three-fold rule is not for the judge to consider, it ➢ The penalties shall be satisfied according to the
refers to service of sentence. scale of Art 70
The 50, 000 civil indemnity for each count of rape
even if the offended party is one and the same
Art. 73. Presumption in regard to the imposition
because each act of rape is a violation of the dignity
of accessory penalties. — Whenever the courts
of the said woman.
shall impose a penalty which, by provision of law,
Conclusion: So, a penalty of reclusion perpetua for 5 carries with it other penalties, according to the
counts of rape and a P50,000 civil indemnity for each provisions of Articles 40, 41, 42, 43 and 44 of this
count of rape shall be imposed. The 40 years is not for the Code, it must be understood that the accessory
judge to impose because the 40 years refers to the service penalties are also imposed upon the convict.
of sentence and not to the imposition of the penalties.
➢ subsidiary penalties are deemed imposed.
Courts are mandated to impose the penalties as prescribed
However, the subsidiary imprisonment must be
by law.
expressly stated in the decision.

➢ The rule that the principal penalty imposed Code, the periods shall be distributed, applying by
carries with it the accessory penalties does not analogy the prescribed rules.
mean that the accused would serve subsidiary
imprisonment in case he is not able to pay the
CHAPTER FIVE: EXECUTION AND SERVICE
pecuniary liabilities imposed in the judgment.
OF PENALTIES
Subsidiary imprisonment must be expressly
ordered.
Art. 78. When and how a penalty is to be
executed. — No penalty shall be executed except by
Art. 74. Penalty higher than reclusion perpetua in
virtue of a final judgment. A penalty shall not be
certain cases. — In cases in which the law
executed in any other form than that prescribed
prescribes a penalty higher than another given
by law, nor with any other circumstances or
penalty, without specially designating the name of
incidents than those expressly authorized thereby.
the former, if such higher penalty should be that
of death, the same penalty and the accessory In addition to the provisions of the law, the special
penalties of Article 40, shall be considered as the regulations prescribed for the government of the
next higher penalty. institutions in which the penalties are to be
suffered shall be observed with regard to the
➢ If the decision or law says higher than RP or 2
character of the work to be performed, the time of
degrees than RT, then the penalty imposed is RP
its performance, and other incidents connected
or RT as the case may be. Death must be
therewith, the relations of the convicts among
designated by name. However, for the other
themselves and other persons, the relief which
penalties, this does not apply.
they may receive, and their diet.
Example:
The regulations shall make provision for the
The penalty for crime X is 2 degrees lower than RP. separation of the sexes in different institutions, or
The penalty imposed is prision mayor. at least into different departments and also for the
correction and reform of the convicts.
Art. 75. Increasing or reducing the penalty of fine
by one or more degrees. — Whenever it may be Art. 79. Suspension of the execution and service
necessary to increase or reduce the penalty of fine of the penalties in case of insanity. — When a
by one or more degrees, it shall be increased or convict shall become insane or an imbecile after
reduced, respectively, for each degree, by one- final sentence has been pronounced, the execution
fourth of the maximum amount prescribed by law, of said sentence shall be suspended only with
without however, changing the minimum. regard to the personal penalty, the provisions of
The same rules shall be observed with regard of the second paragraph of circumstance number 1 of
fines that do not consist of a fixed amount, but are article 12 being observed in the corresponding
made proportional. cases.
If at any time the convict shall recover his reason,
his sentence shall be executed, unless the penalty
Art. 76. Legal period of duration of divisible
shall have prescribed in accordance with the
penalties. — The legal period of duration of
provisions of this Code.
divisible penalties shall be considered as divided
into three parts, forming three periods, the The respective provisions of this section shall also
minimum, the medium, and the maximum in the be observed if the insanity or imbecility occurs
manner shown in the following table: while the convict is serving his sentence
Art. 77. When the penalty is a complex one
composed of three distinct penalties. — In cases in INSANITY AT THE TIME OF TRIAL OR AFTER
which the law prescribes a penalty composed of THE CONVICTION OF THE ACCUSED BY FINAL
three distinct penalties, each one shall form a JUDGMENT
period; the lightest of them shall be the minimum ➢ There will be a suspension of sentence. The
the next the medium, and the most severe the accused cannot be made to suffer the sentence.
maximum period. However, the moment he regains his sanity he is
Whenever the penalty prescribed does not have required to serve his sentence. Provided, that the
one of the forms specially provided for in this period of penalty has not yet prescribed.

Art 80 (as amended by PD 603: Child and Youth the President for possible exercise of the
Welfare Code) pardoning power. (As amended by Sec. 25, RA#
Note: refer to R.A. 9344 (Minority) 7659)
Art. 81. When and how the death penalty is to be Art. 84. Place of execution and persons who may
executed. — The death sentence shall be executed witness the same. — The execution shall take place
with preference to any other and shall consist in in the penitentiary or Bilibid in a space closed to
putting the person under sentence to death by the public view and shall be witnessed only by the
lethal injection. The death sentence shall be priests assisting the offender and by his lawyers,
executed under the authority of the Director of and by his relatives, not exceeding six, if he so
Prisons, endeavoring so far as possible to mitigate request, by the physician and the necessary
the sufferings of the person under sentence personnel of the penal establishment, and by such
during the lethal injection as well as during the persons as the Director of Prisons may authorize.
proceedings prior to the execution. Art. 85. Provisions relative to the corpse of the
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections shall person executed and its burial. — Unless claimed
take steps to insure that the lethal injection to be by his family, the corpse of the culprit shall, upon
administered is sufficient to cause instantaneous the completion of the legal proceedings
death of the convict. subsequent to the execution, be turned over to the
institute of learning or scientific research first
The death sentence shall be carried out not earlier
applying for it, for the purpose of study and
than one(1) year but not later than eighteen(18)
investigation, provided that such institute shall
months after the judgment has become final and
take charge of the decent burial of the remains.
executory without prejudice to the exercise by the
Otherwise, the Director of Prisons shall order the
President of his clemency powers at all times . (As
burial of the body of the culprit at government
amended by RA# 8177)
expense, granting permission to be present
Art. 82. Notification and execution of the thereat to the members of the family of the culprit
sentence and assistance to the culprit. — The and the friends of the latter. In no case shall the
court shall designate a working day for the burial of the body of a person sentenced to death
execution but not the hour thereof; and such be held with pomp.
designation shall not be communicated to the
Art. 86. Reclusion perpetua, reclusion temporal,
offender before sunrise of said day, and the
prision mayor, prision correccional and arresto
execution shall not take place until after the
mayor. — The penalties of reclusion perpetua,
expiration of at least eight hours following the
reclusion temporal, prision mayor, prision
notification, but before sunset. During the interval
correccional and arresto mayor, shall be executed
between the notification and the execution, the
and served in the places and penal establishments
culprit shall, in so far as possible, be furnished
provided by the Administrative Code in force or
such assistance as he may request in order to be
which may be provided by law in the future.
attended in his last moments by priests or
ministers of the religion he professes and to Art. 87. Destierro. — Any person sentenced to
consult lawyers, as well as in order to make a will destierro shall not be permitted to enter the place
and confer with members of his family or persons or places designated in the sentence, nor within
in charge of the management of his business, of the radius therein specified, which shall be not
the administration of his property, or of the care more than 250 and not less than 25 kilometers
of his descendants. from the place designated.
Art. 83. Suspension of the execution of the death Destierro
sentence. — The death sentence shall not be ➢ is considered as a principal correctional and
inflicted upon a woman while she is pregnant or divisible penalty. Therefore, jurisdiction over
within one(1) year after delivery, nor upon any crimes punishable with destierro lies with the
person over seventy years of age. In this last case, MTC
the death sentence shall be commuted to the Destierro shall be imposed in the following cases:
penalty of reclusion perpetua with the accessory
1. death or serious physical injuries is caused or are
penalties provided in Article 40.
inflicted under exceptional circumstance
In all cases where the death sentence has become 2. person fails to give bond for good behavior in
final, the records of the case shall be forwarded grave and light threats
immediately by the Supreme Court to the Office of

3. concubine’s penalty for the crime of concubinage “The trial court shall, upon receipt of the application filed,
4. when after reducing the penalty by one or more suspend the execution of the sentence imposed in the
degree, destierro is the proper penalty judgment.
Execution of Distierro “This notwithstanding, the accused shall lose the benefit of
a. Convict shall not be permitted to enter the place probation should he seek a review of the modified decision
designated in the sentence nor within the radius which already imposes a probationable penalty.
specified, which shall not be more than 250 and “Probation may be granted whether the sentence imposes
not less than 25 km from the place designated. a term of imprisonment or a fine only. The filing of the
b. If the convict enters the prohibited area, he application shall be deemed a waiver of the right to appeal.
commits evasion of sentence “An order granting or denying probation shall not be
appealable.”
Art. 88. Arresto menor. — The penalty of arresto
menor shall be served in the municipal jail, or in “SEC. 9. Disqualified Offenders. — The benefits of
the house of the defendant himself under the this Decree shall not be extended to those:
surveillance of an officer of the law, when the
“a. sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment
court so provides in its decision, taking into
of more than six (6) years;
consideration the health of the offender and other
reasons which may seem satisfactory to it. “b. convicted of any crime against the national security;
“c. who have previously been convicted by final judgment
of an offense punished by imprisonment of more than six
PROBATION LAW (PD 968, as amended by RA
(6) months and one (1) day and/or a fine of more than one
10707)
thousand pesos (P1,000.00);
PROBATION – disposition by which a convict after
“d. who have been once on probation under the provisions
conviction and sentence is released subject to the
of this Decree; and
conditions imposed by the court under the supervision of a
probation officer. “e. who are already serving sentence at the time the
substantive provisions of this Decree became applicable
pursuant to Section 33 hereof.”
SEC. 4. Grant of Probation — Subject to the
provisions of this Decree, the trial court may, after it shall
have convicted and sentenced a defendant for a “SEC. 16. Termination of Probation. — After the
probationable penalty and upon application by said period of probation and upon consideration of the report
defendant within the period for perfecting an appeal, and recommendation of the probation officer, the court
suspend the execution of the sentence and place the may order the final discharge of the probationer upon
defendant on probation for such period and upon such finding that he has fulfilled the terms and conditions of his
terms and conditions as it may deem best. No application probation and thereupon the case is deemed terminated.
for probation shall be entertained or granted if the “The final discharge of the probationer shall operate to
defendant has perfected the appeal from the judgment of restore to him all civil rights lost or suspended as a result
conviction: Provided, That when a judgment of conviction of his conviction and to totally extinguish his criminal
imposing a non-probationable penalty is appealed or liability as to the offense for which probation was granted.
reviewed, and such judgment is modified through the “The probationer and the probation officer shall each be
imposition of a probationable penalty, the defendant shall furnished with a copy of such order.”
be allowed to apply for probation based on the modified
decision before such decision becomes final. The
application for probation based on the modified decision “SEC. 24. Miscellaneous Powers of Regional,
shall be filed in the trial court where the judgment of Provincial and City Probation Officers. — Regional,
conviction imposing a non-probationable penalty was Provincial or City Probation Officers shall have the
rendered, or in the trial court where such case has since authority within their territorial jurisdiction to administer
been re-raffled. In a case involving several defendants oaths and acknowledgments and to take depositions in
where some have taken further appeal, the other connection with their duties and functions under this
defendants may apply for probation by submitting a Decree. They shall also have, with respect to probationers
written application and attaching thereto a certified true under their care, the powers of a police officer. They shall
copy of the judgment of conviction. be considered as persons in authority.”

“SEC. 27. Field Assistants, Subordinate DISQUALIFIED TO AVAIL OF PROBATION:

Personnel. – Regional, Provincial or City Probation 1. those whose maximum term of imprisonment is
Officers shall be assisted by such field assistants and more than 6 years
subordinate personnel as may be necessary to enable them 2. those who have been convicted of crimes against
to carry out their duties effectively.” national security
3. those who have been previously convicted by final
“SEC. 28. Volunteer Probation Assistants (VPAs). judgment of a crime to which the law attaches a
— To assist the Chief Probation and Parole Officers in the penalty of imprisonment of more than 6 months
supervised treatment program of the probationers, the and 1 day and/or a fine of more than 1000php
Probation Administrator may appoint citizens of good 4. those who have already availed the benefit of
repute and probity, who have the willingness, aptitude, probation because probation can be availed of
and capability to act as VPAs. only once
5. those convicted of an election offense under the
“VPAs shall not receive any regular compensation except
Omnibus Election Code
for reasonable transportation and meal allowances, as may
6. those convicted of drug trafficking or drug
be determined by the Probation Administrator, for services
pushing
rendered as VPAs.
“They shall hold office for a two (2)-year term which may
Q: X was convicted of alarms and scandals. The penalty
be renewed or recalled anytime for a just cause. Their
imposed on him by the court was within probationable
functions, qualifications, continuance in office and
penalty. Can he apply for probation?
maximum case loads shall be further prescribed under the
implementing rules and regulations of this Act. A: If this was asked before RA 10707, he cannot apply
for probation because alarms and scandals, although
“There shall be a reasonable number of VPAs in every
punished by aresto menor, is a crime against public
regional, provincial, and city probation office. In order to
order.
strengthen the functional relationship of VPAs and the
Probation Administrator, the latter shall encourage and However, under RA 10707, the said offender can
support the former to organize themselves in the national, already apply for probation because those who have
regional, provincial, and city levels for effective utilization, been convicted of a crime punished under crimes
coordination, and sustainability of the volunteer program.” against public order had been deleted as among those
disqualified under RA 10707.
Q: X was charged with frustrated homicide before the
OBJECTIVES:
RTC. He was convicted. He appealed before the Court of
1. to promote the correction and rehabilitation of Appeals. The CA affirmed the conviction for frustrated
the offender because he is placed under a homicide. He again appealed to SC. In his appeal, he was
personalized treatment insisting on his innocence. He said he acted in said defense
2. to provide an opportunity for the reformation of and therefore he cannot be held criminally liable. After
penitent offender reviewing the case, the SC again convicted the accused but
3. to prevent further commission of crimes because this time of attempted homicide and the court imposed
the offender is placed under an individualized upon him the maximum penalty of four years. Can he go
treatment back to the trial court and apply for probation?
4. to decongest jails
A: He can.
5. to save the Government from spending much-
needed funds when the offender will be placed Q: What if the accused was convicted of frustrated
behind bars homicide? The penalty imposed on him has a maximum of
8 years. He appealed to the CA. The CA affirmed the
conviction but lowered the imposable penalty to only 6
IS PROBATION A RIGHT OR A PRIVILEGE? years. Now that his penalty has been lowered to 6 years,
➢ Privilege. Thus, even if a convict is not among can he go back to the trial court and apply for probation?
those disqualified of probation, the judge can still A: Yes.
deny the application. This denial is not
Q: What if after the CA affirmed of the conviction and
appealable. The grant or denial of application is
lowered the penalty to six years. Instead of going back to
dependent solely on the sound discretion of the
the trial court to apply for probation, he further appealed
judge.
to the SC. The SC affirmed the conviction and lowered

further the penalty to four years. Can he go back to the appeal. Probation has nothing to do with the civil
trial court and apply for a probation? indemnity. Probation only has an effect on the
A: No. criminal liability of the offender, particularly on the
service of his sentence but it has no effect on the civil
Section 4 has been amended by RA 10707 which provides
liability on the offender therefore he can still appeal
that the defendant had been convicted of a crime and the
the civil indemnity imposed on him.
penalty imposed is a non-probationable penalty which
means that the penalty imposed is beyond six years, and
he appealed and the appellate court affirmed the APPLICATION FOR PROBATION:
conviction but modified the penalty within the ➢ Filed before the Trial Court which heard the case
probationable penalty, he is allowed to go back to the trial within the period of perfecting an appeal or
court and apply for a probation. Since it was the first within 15 days from promulgation of judgment.
instance that he was given a probationable penalty, then ➢ No application for probation shall be entertained
he can avail of the benefit of probation. when the offender has already perfected an
However, the moment the appellate court modified the appeal. Likewise, the filing of an application for
decision and imposed upon him a probationable penalty probation shall be a waiver of the right to file an
but instead of going back to the trial court and apply for appeal.
probation, he further appealed to the SC. Even if the SC ➢ Thus, appeal and probation are mutually
would lower the penalty again or would affirm the exclusive remedies. This is because the reason
probationable penalty, he can no longer be allowed to go behind appeal and the reason behind probation
back to the trial court and apply for probation. It is are diametrically opposed. If a person appeals, it
necessary that he applies for probation at the very first means that he is questioning the decision of the
instance that the penalty imposed was within the court. He is insisting on his innocence. On the
probationable penalty. The moment he appealed further, other hand, if a person applies for probation, it
he loses the right to apply for probation. means that he is accepting the judgment of the
court. He, however, does not want to serve his
sentence behind bars.
Colinares v. People
This case had many dissenting opinions because there was
a clear violation of Section 4 of PD 968 (before the EXCEPTIONS TO RULE THAT APPEAL
amendment) because it is expressly provided in PD 968 PREVENTS PROBATION:
that the moment you appeal, you cannot apply for 1. If the appeal is only for the purpose of
probation and Colinares appealed on the merits of the case reducing the penalty to a probationable
yet he was allowed to apply for probation. But before this penalty. That the only reason for appealing is to
decision was overturned by the SC by any other decision, question the high penalty imposed. However, if in
the decision in the case was put into law by Congress the said appeal, the offender questions the merits
through RA 10707 Section 4. So now, with Colinares as its of the case, he can no longer apply for probation.
basis, the moment the appellate court modifies the penalty
within the probationable penalty, the accused can go back
Q: Tarzan was charged with a violation of the Forrest
to the trial court and apply for probation even if the appeal
code. The penalty imposed is 8 years maximum. Because
was done on the merits of the case and not only on the
of this, Tarzan filed an appeal. He questioned the merits of
correction of an erroneous penalty.
the case and likewise questioned the penalty imposed. The
Appellate Court affirmed the decision but lowered the
Q: The accused was convicted of a crime for reckless penalty to a maximum of 4 years. Tarzan then went back to
imprudence resulting in homicide – a crime whose penalty the trial court to apply for probation, considering that the
is probationable. The accused filed an application for penalty imposed by the Appellate Court is a probationable
probation. The judge granted his application. After the one. The trial court denied the application. Tarzan elevated
grant of probation, he filed a notice of appeal as to the civil the matter to the Supreme Court via Certiorari contending
indemnity imposed on him by the court. The court denied that one of the exceptions to the rule that appeal excludes
to give due course to the appeal on the ground that the probation is when the issue raised on appeal is to question
court already granted the application for probation of the the high penalty imposed. Is Tarzan correct?
accused. Is the judge correct?
A: The judge is wrong. Civil indemnity is personal to A: The SC said no. Because the appeal first and
the private offended party therefore he can still foremost questioned the merits of the case. The

accused questioned his culpability. That being so, he

can no longer avail for probation. If the sole question EFFECT OF FINAL DISCHARGE OF PROBATION:
on appeal pertains to the penalty, the accused can still
1. Restore the civil rights lost or suspended by
apply for probation before the trial court.
reason of conviction, including the penalty of
fine. But the offender should still pay the civil
2. Under the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act, if the indemnity to the offended party
offender is a minor he can file an application 2. Will totally extinguish his criminal liability
for probation at any time even if after appeal. It is (according to RA 10707)
only necessary that the penalty imposed upon
him is a probationable penalty. Therefore, probation can now be included under
Article 89 – modes of totally extinguishing criminal
liability
CONDITIONS IMPOSED UPON OFFENDER
UNDER PROBATION:
1. MANDATORY Q: Lindsay Lohan, after conviction, applied for probation
and was granted the same. Thereafter, she filed an appeal
a. Appear before the probationary officer within
questioning the civil indemnity imposed upon her. The
72 hours from the receipt of the order.
judge denied the appeal on the ground that Lindsay
b. Report once a month
already applied for probation. Therefore, the appeal
cannot be granted. Is the judge correct?
2. DISCRETIONARY/ SPECIAL A: No, because the only effect of probation is to
➢ dependent upon the sound discretion of the suspend the execution of the sentence. It has nothing
court. to do with the civil aspect of the case. Insofar as the
➢ Usually involves engaging in a vocation, not civil aspect is concerned, the convict can still appeal it.
drinking alcohol, not going to house of ill-
reputes.
Q: D, under the probation for two years, was imposed the
➢ The only limitation on the discretionary
condition that he could not change his residence. For two
conditions is that they must not be so restrictive
years, he complied with this condition. After the lapse of
to the rights of the accused such that they will no
two years, D now changed his residence. The probation
longer be in consonance with his freedom.
officer learned about this and filed for a Motion to Revoke
EX: condition pertained to the prohibition of the
the probation. D contended that the period of probation (2
offender to teach during the period of probation.
years) has already been completed, so he is already
This is a restrictive condition. It deprives the
allowed to change residence. The trial court granted the
offender his means of livelihood.
revocation. Is the trial court correct?
A: Yes, the expiration of the period of probation does
PERIOD OF PROBATION: not ipso facto mean the termination of probation.
➢ If the penalty is imprisonment for 1 year or less, Probation is only terminated upon the issuance of the
then the period for probation is 2 years. In all court of a final discharge of probation. This happens
other cases, it will be six years. when after the lapse of the period of probation, the
➢ If the penalty is fine only with subsidiary probation officer will file a Motion before the court
imprisonment, the period should not be less than with a recommendation stating that the convict has
nor more than twice the total number of days of complied with the conditions imposed and therefore,
subsidiary imprisonment taking into account the he should be discharged. The court will then issue a
highest minimum wage rate at the time of the final discharge of probation. Only then will probation
rendition of the judgment. be terminated.
HOW FINAL ORDER OF DISCHARGED IS ISSUED

➢ After the lapse of the period of probation, the
probation officer shall submit to the court a
report saying that the probationer had complied
with all the rules and regulations and terms and
conditions. After reviewing the report, the judge
will order a final order of discharge.

TITLE FOUR proceeding before the executor or administrator

of the estate of the accused.
EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
➢ If the offender dies after conviction by final
CHAPTER ONE: TOTAL EXTINCTION OF judgment, his civil liability will survive. The
CRIMINAL LIABILITY private complainant can go after the executor or
administrator of the estate of the said offender. It
Art. 89. How criminal liability is totally
survives because judgment has already become
extinguished. — Criminal liability is totally
final and executory. Guilt has already been
extinguished:
proven beyond reasonable doubt.
1. By the death of the convict, as to the
personal penalties and as to pecuniary ➢ Extinguishes civil liability only if the offender
penalties, liability therefor is extinguished dies before conviction by final judgment because
only when the death of the offender occurs there is no final judgment as to render him civilly
before final judgment. liable for a crime.
2. By service of the sentence
3. By amnesty, which completely
extinguishes the penalty and all its effects II. SERVICE OF SENTENCE
4. By absolute pardon
5. By prescription of the crime ➢ Refers to the satisfaction of the penalty. If the
6. By prescription of the penalty offender has been imposed of the penalty of
7. By the marriage of the offended woman, as imprisonment, he has served his sentence of
provided in Art 344 of this Code imprisonment. If the penalty imposed is fine, he
has paid the said fine.
MODES FOR TOTALLY EXTINGUISHING
CRIMINAL LIABILITY
III. AMNESTY
1. Death
➢ An act of grace from the power entrusted with the
2. Service of Sentence
execution of the law which does not only exempt
3. Amnesty
the offender from the service of penalty for the
4. Absolute pardon
crime committed, but also obliterates the effects
5. Prescription of crime
of the crime. It does not only suspend the
6. Prescription of penalty
execution of the sentence. It also obliterates the
7. Valid marriage of the offended with the offender.
effects of the crime.
IV. ABSOLUTE PARDON

I. DEATH
➢ An act of grace received from the power entrusted
➢ Extinguishes criminal liability at any stage of the
with the execution of the law which exempts the
proceedings, be it before, during trial, or after
offender from the penalty prescribed by law for
conviction. This is because the moment the
the crime committed.
offender dies, there is no one to serve the
personal penalty.
➢ Both amnesty and pardon are acts of grace coming
from the Chief Executive.
➢ Death extinguishes civil liability if the offender
dies before conviction by final judgment. This AMNESTY vs. ABSOLUTE PARDON
refers to civil liability arising from the crime
itself, ex delicto. - Both amnesty and absolute pardon are acts of
grace coming from the Chief Executive. However,
However, if the civil liability arises from other insofar as amnesty is concerned, it does not only
sources of obligations: law, contracts, quasi excuse the convict from serving the sentence. It
contracts, quasi delicts, they survive even if death also erases all the effects of the crime as if no
occurs before conviction by final judgment. In crime has been committed. The following are the
such cases, the complainant must file a distinctions:

- Pardon only excuses the service of sentence, agents, and shall be interrupted by the filing of the
while amnesty does not only excuse the service complaint or information, and shall commence to
of sentence but also erases (obliterates) all the run again when such proceedings terminate
effects of the crime as if no crime had been without the accused being convicted or acquitted,
committed. or are unjustifiably stopped for any reason not
- Pardon may be granted only by the Chief imputable to him.
Executive after conviction by final judgment, The term of prescription shall not run when the
whereas amnesty may be given at any stage of offender is absent from the Philippine
the proceedings. Archipelago.
- Pardon is a private act of the Chief Executive
thus, the court will not take judicial notice of the PRESCRIPTION OF CRIME
pardon, whereas amnesty is a public act of the ➢ The loss or forfeiture of the right of the State to
Chief Executive done through a proclamation prosecute an offender who has committed a
requiring the concurrence of the congress, thus, violation of the law. The moment the crime has
courts take judicial notice of the amnesty granted already prescribed, the State loses the right to
to the offender prosecute. Therefore, the only jurisdiction of the
- Pardon may be given to all kinds of offenders or court is to dismiss the case. The accused need not
prisoners while amnesty is generally granted to move for the dismissal of the case. The judge
a class or a community of offenders who have must motu proprio dismiss the case because
committed political offenses there is nothing to hear. The crime has already
prescribed.
➢ The period of prescription of crime commences to
V. PRESCRIPTION OF CRIME
run from the time of the commission of the crime,
if it is known. If the time of the commission of the
Art. 90. Prescription of crime. — Crimes
crime is not known, the period will commence to
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or
run from the time the offended party, the
reclusion temporal shall prescribe in twenty
authorities or their agents discovered the crime.
years.
The said running of the prescriptive period is
Crimes punishable by other afflictive penalties
interrupted upon the filing of the case before
shall prescribe in fifteen years.
the office of the public prosecutor even if for the
purpose of preliminary investigation. So the moment
Those punishable by a correctional penalty shall
the private complainant files the complaint with the
prescribe in ten years; with the exception of those
public prosecutor, the running of the prescriptive
punishable by arresto mayor, which shall
period is interrupted.
prescribe in five years.
The crime of libel or other similar offenses shall An exception to this is when the crime
prescribe in one year.
committed is involves the registration of
title in real properties. It is the registration of
The crime of oral defamation and slander by deed the sale, conveyance or mortgage of the real
shall prescribe in six months. property which constitutes a notice to the whole
world, which must be considered as the start of
Light offenses prescribe in two months. the commencement of the prescriptive period.
Even if the offended party, in reality, did not
When the penalty fixed by law is a compound one, know that a crime has been committed, from the
the highest penalty shall be made the basis of the moment there has been registration, by virtue of
application of the rules contained in the first, constructive notice, the running of the
second and third paragraphs of this article. prescriptive period has commenced.
(As amended by RA 4661, approved June 19,
1966.) PERIOD OF PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES:
1. Death, reclusion perpetua, reclusion temporal-
Art. 91. Computation of prescription of offenses. 20 years.
— The period of prescription shall commence to 2. Prision mayor- 15 years
run from the day on which the crime is discovered
by the offended party, the authorities, or their

3. Correcional penalties- 10 years, except arresto Q: The husband chopped the deceased body of his wife
mayor- 5 years and placed it in different parts of the house. No one knew
4. Libel- 1 year of the incident except one of the children who saw the
5. Oral defamation, slander- 6 months incident but he preferred to keep silent about it. 25 years
6. Light offenses- 2 months. thereafter, he divulged the said incident to the authorities.
Can the state still prosecute the said offender?
The running of the prescriptive period shall be from the
time of the commission of the crime, if known. If not A: Not anymore. Because the son witnessed the
known, from discovery by offended party, authorities and commission of the crime. The son is an offended party
agents. because he is an heir of the victim. The time for the
prescription of the crime has commenced to run from
PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD SUSPENDED: the time he witnessed its commission and has
Upon filing of complaint or info before the fiscal’s office or prescribed 20 years thereafter.
before the court/public prosecutor for purposes of
preliminary investigation. It remains suspended until the Q: But what if it is the neighbor who witnessed the crime?
accused is convicted or acquitted or the case is terminated
without the fault of accused. A: Yes. The neighbor is not an offended party nor an
authority or an agent of the authorities. So even if she
People v. Pangilinan learns the commission of the crime, the period has not
The Supreme Court said whether it is a violation of a yet commenced to run.
special penal law like the BP 22 or a violation of the
RPC, the filing of a complaint before the office of the Q: Husband and Wife are quarreling. In the course of the
public prosecutor suspends or interrupts the running quarrel, H killed W. H buried the wife in the backyard.
of the prescriptive period. It remains suspended until Unknown to H, neighbor saw the incidents of killing and
the case has been decided the accused being acquitted burial. This neighbor, because of fear of H, remained
or convicted or the case has been dismissed for any silent. After 25 years from the commission of the crime,
reason not imputable to him. the neighbor became old and sickly. He then told the
police what he witnessed 25 years ago. The police then
In the case of People v. Pangilinan, the CA used the went to the backyard, dug the ground and saw the bones of
case of Zaldivia v. Reyes and ruled that the W. Can the State still prosecute H for parricide?
violation of BP 22 has already prescribed because
according to the CA, in case of violation of special A: Yes, the crime has not yet prescribed. The
penal laws, the running of the prescriptive period is authorities and their agents only came to know the
only interrupted upon the filing of the case before the crime 25 years from its commission. This is the only
appropriate court because the Supreme Court time when the prescriptive period for the crime shall
interpreted the word “proceedings” as judicial commence to run. Also, the neighbor who knew the
proceedings in Zaldivia v. Reyes but the SC said that commission of the crime is not the person required by
the interpretation of the CA is erroneous. law to discover the crime in order to start the running
of the prescriptive period. Therefore, the State can
SC said it is now settled in jurisprudence that whether still file the case of parricide.
it is a violation of a special penal law or a violation of Q: Niki and Mariah were friends. Niki, before going to
the RPC, the filing of the complaint with the public Mindanao, left the titles of her properties to Mariah for
prosecutor interrupts the running of the prescriptive safekeeping. Mariah became interested in one of the
period. properties. While Niki was in Mindanao, Mariah falsified a
Deed of Absolute Sale forging the signature of Niki,
In Zaldivia v. Reyes, what is involved is a violation of a making it appear that Niki sold the property to her. Mariah
municipal ordinance. It is only in case of violation of then registered the Deed before the Registry of Deeds. The
municipal ordinance wherein the running of the title was thereafter transferred to the name of Mariah. 20
prescriptive period is interrupted upon the filing of years thereafter, Niki came back to Manila and acquired
the complaint before the proper court. So long as it is the titles she left to Mariah. Niki noticed that one title was
a violation of municipal, city, provincial ordinances, missing. She eventually discovered that the property
the prescriptive period is interrupted upon the covered by such missing title was already transferred to
institution of criminal proceedings. the name of Mariah. Can Niki file case of falsification of
public doc (punished by Prision Mayor) against Mariah?

A: No, because the crime has already prescribed. If a Government has no extradition treaty, or should
document or transaction involves real properties commit another crime before the expiration of the
(sale, lease, attachment), the moment the document is period of prescription.
registered before the Registry of Deeds, such
registration constitutes constructive notice. As such, PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTY
the law presumes that the whole world, including ➢ The loss or forfeiture of the right of the state to
Niki, knows about the registration. The period of execute the final sentence imposed on the
prescription commences to run from that time. Since convict. The moment the penalty has prescribed,
20 years have already lapsed in this case, the crime the convict becomes a free man. The state can no
has already prescribed. This concerns only criminal longer arrest him and make him suffer the
liability. But Niki can still file a civil case for damages penalty imposed.
or any civil action to recover the property. ➢ The running of the prescriptive period of the
penalty commences to run from the time the
Q: Gerald and Kim were spouses. Gerald, as a medical convict evaded the service of his sentence. It is
representative, was assigned in Visayas leaving his wife, necessary that the convict is already serving his
Kim, in Manila. 20 years thereafter, Kim while watching sentence. And such convict escapes and evades
TV saw Gerald presenting another woman, Maja, as his his service of sentence.
wife. Furious, Kim went to Visayas and therein discovered
that there was a registered marriage certificate between PERIOD OF PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTY:
Gerald and Maja, the woman she saw on TV. Can Kim file
a case of bigamy? 1. Death and reclusion perpetua - 20 years
Other afflictive (reclusion temporal and prision
A: Yes, the crime has not yet prescribed. The rule on mayor) - 15 years
constructive notice by registration is applicable only if 2. Correccional - 10 years, except arresto mayor- 5
the transaction involves real properties. Registration years
as to other documents or transactions with the Office 3. Light- 1 year
of the Civil Registry does not constitute constructive
notice to the whole world. Since the wife herein ➢ The running of the period shall commence from
discovered the bigamous marriage only 20 years the time the convict evaded the service of his
thereafter, this shall be the starting point for the sentence. It is necessary therefore that the convict
running of the prescriptive period of the crime. is serving his sentence and while serving, he
escaped. It is from the time of the escape, the
time he evaded service of sentence, you start to
VI. PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTY count the running of the prescriptive period of
penalty.
Art. 92. When and how penalties prescribe. —
The penalties imposed by final sentence prescribe SUSPENSION OF PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD OF
as follows: PENALTY:
1. When offender surrenders
1. Death and reclusion perpetua, in twenty 2. When offender went to a country which has no
years; extradition treaty with the Philippines
2. Other afflictive penalties, in fifteen years; 3. When convict commits a crime before the
3. Correctional penalties, in ten years; with expiration of period of prescription
the exception of the penalty of arresto 4. When the offender is captured
mayor, which prescribes in five years;
4. Light penalties, in one year. In these four instances, the running of the
prescription of the penalty is interrupted or
Art. 93. Computation of the prescription of suspended.
penalties. — The period of prescription of
penalties shall commence to run from the date Q: Garcia was convicted of homicide. The judgment
when the culprit should evade the service of his became final and executory. He was brought to serve
sentence, and it shall be interrupted if the sentence in Muntinlupa. While serving sentence, he
defendant should give himself up, be captured, escaped. Police failed to capture and find him. It was only
should go to some foreign country with which this after 20 years that Garcia was located and brought behind

bars. Garcia’s counsel filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus looked for X and cannot find him. 30 years thereafter, they
contending that the penalty prescribed and therefore, got a tip as to where X was. X was placed behind bars.
Garcia could not be imprisoned. Is the counsel correct? Here comes a counsel for X filing for a petition saying that
A: Yes the penalty has prescribed. Homicide the penalty has already prescribed. Is the contention of the
prescribes in 15 years. Here, Garcia was captured 20 said counsel correct?
years from escape.
A: No. In fact, the running of the prescriptive period
Q: Cuenca was charged with homicide. Being a bailable of the penalty has not even commenced because X did
offense, Cuenca posted bail. During the arraignment and not evade the service of his sentence. He jumped bail.
pre-trial, Cuenca appeared before the court. However, It is different from evading the service of sentence. To
during the trial proper, he did not appear. Trial in absentia amount to evasion of service, it is necessary that the
ensued. Judgment was for conviction. Warrant of arrest convict is already serving sentence. In the problem, he
was issued against Cuenca. It was only 20 years thereafter was never placed behind bars. The running of the
that the police were able to arrest Cuenca and bring him prescriptive period has not even commenced.
behind bars. Cuenca’s counsel filed a petition for habeas
corpus contending that the penalty has prescribed. Is the Q: In the same problem, X was charged of homicide and
counsel correct? was found guilty of homicide. Judgment became final and
A: No, the penalty has not prescribed. In fact, executory. He is now serving sentence. One time, taking
prescription has not even commenced to run. For the advantage of an opportunity, he escaped. The prison guard
period to run, it is necessary that the offender is tried to catch him and look for him but failed to do so. 25
serving sentence and while serving sentence, he years thereafter, that is the only time they learned of his
escaped. The running of prescriptive period only whereabouts and the police placed him behind bars. The
starts from the escape of offender. In this case, the counsel filed a petition for habeas corpus, arguing that the
offender has not even served his sentence. penalty has already prescribed. Is the counsel correct?
Q: Offender was convicted and sentenced with reclusion A: Yes. The penalty has already prescribed. From the
perpetua. He was placed behind bars. While he was time he evaded the service of his sentence, it took the
serving his sentence by final judgment, during a riot, he police officers took 25 years to locate him. It is already
saw this as an opportunity, he escaped. He left the penal too late. The penalty has already prescribed.
institution. The prison guards with police tried to look for
him. They went to different provinces but they could not Q: What if the offender was charged with homicide? After
locate him. 25 years thereafter, they got news as to his posting bail, he jumped bail. He escaped. He no longer
whereabouts. They went to the place. They arrested him attended the hearing. Trial on the merits ensued in
and placed him behind bars. His counsel filed a petition absentia, after which the judge convicted him. No appeal,
for habeas corpus based on prescription of penalty. As a the judgment became final and executory. A warrant of
judge, would you grant the petition? arrest was issued against him, he could not be located.
A: As a judge, you should grant the petition. The After 25 years, the police got news as to his whereabouts.
penalty has already prescribed. The police officers are The police went to the place and arrested him. He was
too late in arresting him. 25 years had already lapsed placed behind bars. His counsel filed a petition for habeas
from the time he evaded the service of his sentence, corpus based on prescription of penalty. Will the petition
from the time that he escaped from the penal be granted?
institution. The penalty has already prescribed. The A: The petition shall be denied. The penalty has not
State has lost its right to execute the final sentence yet prescribed. In fact, the penalty has not yet even
imposed upon him. commenced to run therefore, in no way will it
prescribe. This is because he has not yet begun serving
Q: X has been charged with the crime of homicide. It is a his sentence. Since he has not yet began serving his
bailable offense so X posted bail. After posting bail, X is sentence, in no way he can evade any sentence. You
now on temporary liberty. During the arraignment, X will start counting the moment of evasion of sentence.
appeared. During the preliminary conference and the Since the penalty has not yet prescribed, he can be
marking of evidence, he also appeared. But on the initial made to suffer the penalty imposed on him.
date of trial, X no longer appeared. He already jumped bail
hence, trial in absentia pursued. After the trial, the judge
convicted X. No appeal so judgment became final and
executory. The judge issued a warrant of arrest. The police

VII. VALID MARRIAGE moment he accepts, it becomes incumbent upon

➢ Only applies to private crimes- seduction, him to comply with the strict terms and
abduction, acts of lasciviousness and one public conditions of the pardon.
crime which is rape. (R-SAL)
➢ Under Art 266, the subsequent valid marriage of ➢ Failure to comply with any of the strict
the offended with the offender extinguishes conditions, the State can file a criminal case
criminal liability as well as the penalty and under under Art 159 - evasion of service of sentence. In
Art. 344, it would also remit the penalty already addition, the Chief Executive can order the
imposed by the court. immediate incarceration of the offender under
the Administrative Code.
Q: Jack raped Rose. Rose filed a case of rape against Jack.
Trial on the merits ensued. During trial, Jack and Rose II. COMMUTATION OF SENTENCE-
would often see each other and because of this, they fell in ➢ The new sentence imposed shall be in lieu of the
love with each other. Later on, they got married. This valid original sentence.
marriage will extinguish the criminal liability of Jack.
A: Even if there is already a final and executory For instance, the penalty prescribed is death, it
judgment, such as when the offender is already will be commuted to Reclusion Perpetua.
behind bars, a valid marriage between the offender Reclusion perpetua now is the new penalty which
and the offended will still extinguish the criminal the convict shall suffer in lieu of original sentence
liability and the penalty imposed. which is death penalty.
➢ So in case of commutation, the new penalty is the

one to be executed by the offender.
CHAPTER TWO: PARTIAL EXTINCTION OF
CRIMINAL LIABILITY III. GOOD CONDUCT ALLOWANCE
Art. 94. Partial Extinction of criminal liability. — ➢ If the offender has been behaving properly in
Criminal liability is extinguished partially: prison, the Director of Prisons shall compute the
good conduct allowance in favor of the offender
1. By conditional pardon; so that he will be immediately released.
2. By commutation of the sentence; and ➢ This is given by the director of prisons depending
3. For good conduct allowances which the on how the offender behaves while in prison.
culprit may earn while he is serving his
sentence. Good conduct allowance under Article 96 has been
amended by RA 10592. Under RA 10592, not only
MODES FOR PARTIALLY EXTINGUISHING prisoners convicted by final judgment can be given the
CRIMINAL LIABILITY benefit of this good conduct allowance. Even detention
1. Conditional Pardon prisoners for their good behavior while in prison can avail
2. Commutation of sentence of the benefit of this good conduct allowance.
3. Good conduct of allowance
There is also fine allowance for mentoring, teaching,
4. By parole (not in codal)*** and studying under RA 10592. If the prisoner has finished
5. By probation (not codal)*** studying whether college degree, or post-graduate, high
school, or vocational, or inside the detention cell, he has
***Ma’am made no mention of these two but they are been mentoring, there is fine allowance. It is studying,
included in the notes I edited. - D teaching, mentoring fine allowance and it will be a
maximum of fifteen days for each man.
I. CONDITIONAL PARDON
Art. 98 provides for special allowance for loyalty. If in
times of calamities, earthquakes, typhoons, the said
➢ An act of grace received from a power entrusted person convicted by final judgment escaped from prison
with the authority to execute the law, but the
and within 48 hours from the declaration of the Chief
pardon herein is subject to strict conditions.
Executive that the calamity already lapsed, he returned
Because of these strict conditions, there must be and gave himself up to the authorities, there is a 1/5
acceptance on the part of the offender. The deduction from his sentence. There is a special allowance

for loyalty because he already escaped but still, he

returned. So he is given a deduction of 1/5 from his
sentence.
Article 98 has also been amended by RA 10592. Based on

the amendment, if the prisoner, in times of disaster or
calamity, stayed in the prison, he did not leave, there is a
greater deduction, he is given 2/5 deduction from the term
of his sentence because he is more loyal because he did not
leave the penal institution despite the disorder or
calamity.
If he left the penal institution and did not return within 48

hours, he will be charged with Evasion of Service of
Sentence under Article 158 and the penalty to be imposed
on him will be 1/5 of the remainder of his sentence but in
no way to exceed 6 months.
SPECIAL ALLOWANCE FOR LOYALTY (ART 98)

➢ If the offender escaped and returned to the
government, he shall be given a credit or
deduction in his sentence of 1/5 of his term.
Example:
During the time Bin Laden was serving his sentence
behind bars, an 8.9 magnitude earthquake suddenly
occurred prompting Bin Laden to escape. He then went to
the house of his mother. While Bin Laden was watching
TV in the house of his mother, he saw the President
announcing that the earthquake subsided. Within 48
hours from announcement, Bin Laden surrendered.
Because of this surrender, Bin Laden is entitled to the
special allowance for loyalty for being so loyal to the
government. However, if Bin Laden did not return, there
will be an additional 1/5 to the term of his sentence. If Bin
Laden merely remained in prison, there will be neither
deduction nor addition to his sentence.

TITLE FIVE 1. If the judgment of acquittal states that the

CIVIL LIABILITY accused in not the author of the crime.
CHAPTER ONE: PERSONS CIVILLY LIABLE FOR He is not the one who committed the acts
FELONIES alleged in the information
2. If the judgment of acquittal states that the
CIVIL LIABILITY accused is not guilty of criminal and civil
negligence
Art. 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of felony
– Every person criminally liable is also civilly Acquittal does not bar recovery in civil action:
liable. 1. When judgment of acquittal is based on
reasonable doubt.
For every criminal action filed in court, the civil action for This is because civil actions require mere
the recovery of civil liability is deemed impliedly preponderance of evidence
instituted. This is because in the commission of a crime, 2 2. When judgment of acquittal states that the
injuries are inflicted: liability of accused is not criminal but
1. Social injury against the State for the civil in nature.
disturbance of social order and This usually happens when the case is estafa
2. Personal Injury against the offended party and and there is a contract between the accused
his heirs. and complainant, upon which the accused
failed to comply with the terms of the contract.
The social injury against the state will be answered by There is breach of contract
reparation. The personal injury will be answered by the 3. When the judgment of acquittal states that the
civil indemnity. civil liability does not arise from the
crime but from other sources of obligations
Example:
A case of homicide was filed, convicted. Upon conviction, Lumantas v. Calapis
the court will not only impose penalty. It will also award The crime charged against the doctor was reckless
damages, civil indemnity in favor of the offended party as imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries. The
against the accused, as against the convict because for doctor was acquitted because the prosecution failed to
every criminal action filed in court, the civil action goes present an expert doctor to state that there was
with it. This is the general rule. negligence on the part of the accused. His negligence
was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. Since the
Exceptions to Implied Institution of Civil Action: basis of acquittal is lack of proof beyond reasonable
1. When offended party waives the civil action doubt, the acquittal was based on reasonable doubt so
2. When the offended party reserves the right to there can still be an award of civil indemnity.
file a separate civil action, which must be made
prior to the presentation of evidence of the SC said our law recognizes two kinds of acquittal, with
prosecution. different effects on the civil liability of the accused:
3. When the offended party files the civil action
prior to the criminal action 1. An acquittal on the ground that the accused is
not the author of the act or omission
In these three instances, the filing of the criminal complained of. This instance closes the door to
action does not include the civil action. civil liability, for a person who has been found to
be not the perpetrator of any act or omission
Q: What if the offender is acquitted in the cannot and can never be held liable for such act
criminal action? Does it mean that the offended or omission. There being no delict, civil liability
party can no longer recover from the civil action? ex delicto is out of the question, and the civil
action, if any, which may be instituted must be
A: It depends on the kind of acquittal. based on grounds other than the delict
complained of. This is the situation contemplated
ACQUITTAL, EFFECT ON CIVIL LIABILITY: in Rule 111 of the Rules of Court.
Acquittal in criminal action bars recovery in civil action 2. An acquittal based on reasonable doubt on
in the following instances: the guilt of the accused. In this case, even if

the guilt of the accused has not been satisfactorily with the consent of the authorities or their agents,
established, he is not exempt from civil liability indemnification shall be made in the manner
which may be proved by preponderance of prescribed by special laws or regulations.
evidence only.
Daluraya v. Oliva Third. In cases falling within subdivisions 5 and 6
In this case, the prosecution was not able to prove that of Article 12, the persons using violence or causing
the accused was the one who hit the victim resulting the fears shall be primarily liable and secondarily,
in her death. Since there was no evidence showing or, if there be no such persons, those doing the act
that he is the author of the crime. Since he is not the shall be liable, saving always to the latter that part
author of the crime, there cannot be any award of civil of their property exempt from execution.
indemnity against him because he is not the one who
committed the alleged act in the information. Who shall shoulder the civil liability if the
Therefore, his acquittal totally bars the recovery of the offender is insane, imbecile, or minor?
private complainant for any civil indemnity. ➢ The insane, imbecile, or minor is exempt from
criminal liability but not from civil liability.
Art. 101. Rules regarding civil liability in certain Primary liability – civil liability shall be
cases. — The exemption from criminal liability shouldered by the persons who have custody of
established in subdivisions 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of the insane, imbecile or minor except when there
Article 12 and in subdivision 4 of Article 11 of this is no fault or negligence on their part.
Code does not include exemption from civil
liability, which shall be enforced subject to the Secondary liability – falls on the property of the
following rules: insane, imbecile or minor, except those
properties which are prohibited from being
First. In cases of subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 of Article attached.
12, the civil liability for acts committed by an
imbecile or insane person, and by a person under In case of state of necessity?
nine years of age, or by one over nine but under ➢ All persons who have been benefited during the
fifteen years of age, who has acted without state of necessity shall bear the civil liability. If
discernment, shall devolve upon those having there are many persons benefitted, the liability
such person under their legal authority or control, shall be divided by the court proportionately.
unless it appears that there was no fault or
negligence on their part. Should there be no In irresistible force or uncontrollable fear:
person having such insane, imbecile or minor ➢ The offender is exempt from criminal liability but
under his authority, legal guardianship or control, not from civil liability.
or if such person be insolvent, said insane, Primary liability – borne by the person who
imbecile, or minor shall respond with their own enforced the threats on the offender.
property, excepting property exempt from Secondary liability – falls upon the principal by
execution, in accordance with the civil law. direct participation, who is the one who acted
under the compulsion of irresistible force or
Second. In cases falling within subdivision 4 of uncontrollable fear.
Article 11, the persons for whose benefit the harm
has been prevented shall be civilly liable in Art. 102. Subsidiary civil liability of innkeepers,
proportion to the benefit which they may have tavernkeepers and proprietors of establishments.
received. — In default of the persons criminally liable,
innkeepers, tavernkeepers, and any other persons
The courts shall determine, in sound discretion, or corporations shall be civilly liable for crimes
the proportionate amount for which each one committed in their establishments, in all cases
shall be liable. where a violation of municipal ordinances or
some general or special police regulation shall
When the respective shares cannot be equitably have been committed by them or their employees.
determined, even approximately, or when the Innkeepers are also subsidiarily liable for the
liability also attaches to the Government, or to the restitution of goods taken by robbery or theft
majority of the inhabitants of the town, and, in all within their houses from guests lodging therein,
events, whenever the damages have been caused or for the payment of the value thereof, provided

that such guests shall have notified in advance the Q: Same situation as above. But the guard of the hotel
innkeeper himself, or the person representing tried to fight the robbers. One of the robbers shot the
him, of the deposit of such goods within the inn; guard who died shortly thereafter. Prosecuted for robbery
and shall furthermore have followed the with homicide and was convicted. In case of insolvency, is
directions which such innkeeper or his the proprietor of the hotel subsidiarily liable?
representative may have given them with respect
to the care and vigilance over such goods. No A: No, because the crime committed is robbery with
liability shall attach in case of robbery with homicide, which is a crime under robbery with
violence against or intimidation of persons unless violence against or intimidation of persons. If the
committed by the innkeeper's employees. crime committed is robbery with violence against or
intimidation of persons, the proprietor is not
Art. 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other liable,
persons. — The subsidiary liability established in except if the offender is the employee of the hotel or
the next preceding article shall also apply to establishment.
employers, teachers, persons, and corporations
engaged in any kind of industry for felonies Q: A municipal ordinance provides that Establishment
committed by their servants, pupils, workmen, XYZ should only be open during weekdays. However, this
apprentices, or employees in the discharge of their establishment violated the ordinance as it opened on a
duties. Sunday. A crime was committed during the Sunday it
opened. Is the proprietor of the establishment liable?
SUBSIDIARY CIVIL LIABILITY A: Yes, because there was a violation of the ordinance.
Any crimes committed in the establishment will make
Parents, teacher, employers shall be subsidiarily liable for the proprietor subsidiarily liable for civil liability only,
the crimes committed by their children, students, not for criminal liability.
employees.
Q: Vin Diesel was a driver of XYZ Corporation engaged in
The the innkeeper, tavernkeeper, proprietor of the business of distributing goods to supermarkets. Vin
establishments for crimes committed in their Diesel was driving recklessly as he was headed to one
establishments. supermarket. In the course thereof, Vin Diesel hit a car.
The car was damaged. Because of this, a crime for reckless
They are subsidiarily civilly liable in case the persons who imprudence resulting to damage to property was filed
are charged in court, the offenders, would be insolvent to against Vin Diesel. Court found him guilty. The penalties
pay the civil indemnity. imposed were fine and payment of damage caused. When
the judgment became final and executory, a writ of
Q: Paris Hilton, a guest in a hotel, told the representative execution was issued but was returned unsatisfied due to
of the hotel that she carries valuables and cash. The the insolvency of Vin Diesel. If you were the complainant,
representative of the hotel told Paris about the rules what would you do to recover? Is there need to file a
regarding the care and vigilance of the valuables. Paris separate civil action?
complied with the rules and deposited her things to the
proprietor at the front desk. A: No need to file a separate and distinct civil action.
In the very same action for reckless imprudence
However, during nighttime, a robbery occurred inside the resulting to damage to property, the moment the
hotel. Among those taken were the valuables of Paris. The employee is found to be insolvent, the liability of the
offender was arrested, convicted and civil liability was employer becomes absolute.
imposed upon him. In case of insolvency of the offender,
who shall shoulder subsidiary civil liability? The SC said that the liability of an employer is
absolute the moment it was proven that the employee
A: The proprietor of the hotel or establishment. It is committed a crime in the course of the performance of
because the guest complied with the rules and his duty, the subsidiary civil liability of the employer
regulations as to the care and vigilance of the goods. is absolute. However, even if it is absolute, it is not
He also informed the representative of the hotel of the automatic. It is necessary that the employer is given
presence of his valuables. due process.

The complainant has to file a Motion for the Issuance not engaged in some kind of industry, it is a charitable
of a Subsidiary Writ of Execution and he must be institution that caters a certain group, there is no
given the opportunity to prove the following: profit. Lastly, granting that Dr. Solidum was held
1. Employer must be engaged in some kind of liable for civil liability, there was no proof that Dr.
industry Solidum was insolvent such that OM will be
2. Employer and employee relationship subsidiarily liable.
3. Employee committed a crime in the exercise of
his duties as employee
4. There must be conviction of the crime and the
employee was found insolvent to pay civil
indemnity. The moment the employee was found
insolvent, the liability of the employer now
becomes absolute. A motion for the issuance of a
subsidiary writ of execution must then be filed by
the complainant.
The Motion for the Issuance of a Subsidiary Writ of

Execution is not an ex parte motion, but a litigated
one. Thus, the other party (XYZ COrpo) must be
informed for due process.
Requisites to hold Employers subsidiarily liable

for crimes of employees: (DIRI)
1. Employer must be engaged in some kind of
industry
2. Employer and employee relationship
3. Employee committed a crime in the exercise of
his duties as employee
4. There must be conviction of the crime and the
employee was found insolvent to pay civil
indemnity. The moment the employee was found
insolvent, the liability of the employer now
becomes absolute. A motion for the issuance of a
subsidiary writ of execution must then be filed by
the complainant.
Solidum v. People
RTC convicted Solidum but acquitted the two other

doctors. However, the CA held that it is not only Dr.
Solidum who is civilly liable. The Court of Appeals
held that Ospital ng Maynila (OM) is subsidiarily
liable. The SC held that this decision of the CA is
wrong in two points: first, OM was not impleaded in
the information filed against the accused. OM is a
juridical entity. How can the CA impose civil liability
on OM when it was not even included in the case filed
against Dr. Solidum? Second, granting for the sake of
argument that OM was impleaded, still it cannot be
subsidiarily liable because the requisites for the
subsidiary liability of the employers are not present,
first, there is no employer-employee relationship
because based on the evidence, Dr. Solidum is a
consultant and not an employee of OM. Second, OM is

CHAPTER TWO: WHAT CIVIL LIABILITY INDEMNIFICATION OF CONSEQUENTIAL

INCLUDES DAMAGES
Consists of moral damages, exemplary damages, actual
Art. 104. What is included in civil liability. — The damages for the damages incurred by the offended party
civil liability established in Articles 100, 101, 102, and/or his heirs.
and 103 of this Code includes:
1. Restitution; If there were 2 accused convicted, insofar as the
2. Reparation of the damage civil liability is concerned, it is the court which
caused; 3. Indemnification for shall determine the civil liability of the 2 accused.
consequential damages.
What if the said offenders happen to be principals,
WHAT DOES CIVIL LIABILITY CONSISTS: accomplices and accessories? How should the civil
1. Restitution liability be claimed? Each within their class shall be liable
2. Reparation of damages in solidum or severally but among the classes,
3. Indemnification of consequential damages subsidiarily.
RESTITUTION X, Y and Z were charged in the case of robbery.

➢ Return of the thing itself, if it can be returned. They were all charged as principals. But the judge
Even if the thing is in possession of an innocent ruled that X is a principal, Y is an accomplice and
purchaser for value without prejudice to the Z is a mere accessory. The judge divided the civil
action that the said innocent purchaser may have liability proportionately. Their liabilities among
against the other person. Exception, if the themselves are in solidum. Against whom can the
innocent purchaser acquired the said property in private complainant recover said civil liability?
a public sale. Then, it can no longer be taken
away from him. The private complainant can recover the entire civil
liability from X, the principal but X now has a right of
action against Y and Z insofar as their respective civil
REPARATION liabilities are concerned. If X cannot pay, the private
➢ If restitution is not possible, we have reparation complainant can go against Y. Y can now go against X
of damages. The judge shall impose against the and Z because their liabilities are in solidum but
accused payment for the value of the thing subsidiary insofar as the private complainant is
together with the special sentimental value to the concerned.
owner thereof.
Civil liability is personal and cannot be extinguished by
INDEMNIFICATION pardon, amnesty, probation, commutation of sentence,
➢ Moral damages, civil indemnity, exemplary etc. Civil liability can only be extinguished in the same
damages incurred by the offended party and/or manner as in Civil Law, by the extinguishment of
his heirs obligations, i.e., payment, loss of the thing, remuneration,
compensation, etc.
Moral damages in case of rape or murder need not be
proved. It suffices that the crime has been committed. The
law presumes that the victim suffered moral indemnity Art. 105. Restitution. — How made. — The
because of the crime committed. restitution of the thing itself must be made
whenever possible, with allowance for any
deterioration, or diminution of value as
Exemplary damages can only be granted if there are
determined by the court. The thing itself shall be
aggravating circumstances in the commission of the crime.
restored, even though it be found in the
possession of a third person who has acquired it
EXTINGUISHMENT OF CIVIL LIABILITY:
by lawful means, saving to the latter his action
1. By pardon of the offended party
against the proper person, who may be liable to
2. Other modes for extinguishing civil liability
him.
under Civil Code (payment, Condonation, etc)
This provision is not applicable in cases in which
the thing has been acquired by the third person in

the manner and under the requirements which, by gratuitously in the proceeds of a felony shall be
law, bar an action for its recovery. bound to make restitution in an amount
equivalent to the extent of such participation.
Art. 106. Reparation. — How made. — The court
shall determine the amount of damage, taking into CHAPTER THREE: EXTINCTION AND SURVIVAL
consideration the price of the thing, whenever OF CIVIL LIABILITY
possible, and its special sentimental value to the
injured party, and reparation shall be made Art. 112. Extinction of civil liability. — Civil
accordingly. liability established in Articles 100, 101, 102, and
103 of this Code shall be extinguished in the same
Art. 107. Indemnification — What is included. — manner as obligations, in accordance with the
Indemnification for consequential damages shall provisions of the Civil Law.
include not only those caused the injured party,
but also those suffered by his family or by a third Art. 113. Obligation to satisfy civil liability. —
person by reason of the crime. Except in case of extinction of his civil liability as
provided in the next preceding article the offender
Art. 108. Obligation to make restoration, shall continue to be obliged to satisfy the civil
reparation for damages, or indemnification for liability resulting from the crime committed by
consequential damages and actions to demand him, notwithstanding the fact that he has served
the same — Upon whom it devolves. — The his sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty or
obligation to make restoration or reparation for other rights, or has not been required to serve the
damages and indemnification for consequential same by reason of amnesty, pardon, commutation
damages devolves upon the heirs of the person of sentence or any other reason.
liable.
The action to demand restoration, reparation, and
indemnification likewise descends to the heirs of
the person injured.
Art. 109. Share of each person civilly liable. — If

there are two or more persons civilly liable for a
felony, the courts shall determine the amount for
which each must respond.
Art. 110. Several and subsidiary liability of

principals, accomplices and accessories of a
felony — Preference in payment. —
Notwithstanding the provisions of the next
preceding article, the principals, accomplices, and
accessories, each within their respective class,
shall be liable severally (in solidum) among
themselves for their quotas, and subsidiaries for
those of the other persons liable.
The subsidiary liability shall be enforced, first
against the property of the principals; next,
against that of the accomplices, and, lastly, against
that of the accessories.
Whenever the liability in solidum or the
subsidiary liability has been enforced, the person
by whom payment has been made shall have a
right of action against the others for the amount of
their respective shares.
Art. 111. Obligation to make restitution in certain

cases. — Any person who has participated


Criminal Law Review 2017 Book 1 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Criminal Law Review 2017 Book 1 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

FROM THE LECTURES OF PROF.

Compiled and Edited by: Kaye and Dinty

These notes are not intended to substitute textbooks but merely

GENERAL PRINCIPLES 2. Special Penal Laws enacted by congress

A hit B. B sustained a fatal wound but he survived.

The first penalty of the judge is imprisonment due to social

Characteristics of Penal Laws:

1. Revised Penal Code

Compiled and edited by KCL and Dinty 1|P a g e

Compiled and edited by KCL and Dinty 2|P a g e

3. PROSPECTIVITY Two philosophies under the Criminal Law System:

Compiled and edited by KCL and Dinty 3|P a g e

RPC – Classical philosophy 4. EQUIPOSE RULE

Compiled and edited by KCL and Dinty 4|P a g e

body search, frisking and dangerous drug taken out from

1. When the law specially provides.

A: No, “nullem crimen nulla poena sine lege” there is

Q: Are there common law crimes in the Philippines?

A: Common law crimes are principles, usages and use

➢ There are no common law crimes in the Philippines

Compiled and edited by KCL and Dinty 5|P a g e

BOOK I A: This phrase means treaties entered with other

Remember the Larranaga Case, based on the RPC, a

Compiled and edited by KCL and Dinty 6|P a g e

Compiled and edited by KCL and Dinty 7|P a g e

Compiled and edited by KCL and Dinty 8|P a g e

it is committed inside the Phil.Embassy it is

Crimes against national security – treason,

If any of this crime is committed, even if it is done outside

Reason: extraterritorial application of the RPC.

Likewise, if the crime committed is against the Law of

Compiled and edited by KCL and Dinty 9|P a g e

TITLE ONE 1.) Deceit/dolo/intentional felony – when the act is

Compiled and edited by KCL and Dinty 10 | P a g e

Compiled and edited by KCL and Dinty 11 | P a g e

Compiled and edited by KCL and Dinty 12 | P a g e

Manner of committing the crime? After hitting A

Compiled and edited by KCL and Dinty 13 | P a g e

2. That the intention of the accused in doing the act

US v. Ah Chong A: Yes. There are 2 instances:

Ah Chong was acquitted because he acted under mistake of 1. Culpable Felony

Compiled and edited by KCL and Dinty 14 | P a g e

Compiled and edited by KCL and Dinty 15 | P a g e

Compiled and edited by KCL and Dinty 16 | P a g e

Compiled and edited by KCL and Dinty 17 | P a g e

Compiled and edited by KCL and Dinty 18 | P a g e

Compiled and edited by KCL and Dinty 19 | P a g e

Compiled and edited by KCL and Dinty 20 | P a g e

The son was hit by a thick piece of a wood while he was

Compiled and edited by KCL and Dinty 21 | P a g e

Compiled and edited by KCL and Dinty 22 | P a g e

Compiled and edited by KCL and Dinty 23 | P a g e

DIRECTLY BY OVERT ACT - means that the overt act

Compiled and edited by KCL and Dinty 24 | P a g e

Compiled and edited by KCL and Dinty 25 | P a g e

Compiled and edited by KCL and Dinty 26 | P a g e

Compiled and edited by KCL and Dinty 27 | P a g e

People vs. Jalosjos the act was not

Compiled and edited by KCL and Dinty 28 | P a g e

A: Attempted homicide. The act of stabbing Y and People v. Quinanola

Compiled and edited by KCL and Dinty 29 | P a g e

Art. 7. When light felonies are punishable. — Light

Compiled and edited by KCL and Dinty 30 | P a g e