CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER as per JUDGE LINGAN

Will give 25 questions only. Just answer 100 points.

1. Distinguish generic and qualifying circumstances

Generic aggravating circumstance

 Have the effect of the penalty being imposed in the maximum period. (NOTE: that the
penalty prescribed in Book II maximum imposable, thus the increase in the penalty cannot
be to the next higher degree but only on the maximum period.)
 Apply to all felonies generally
 Cannot be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance

Qualifying aggravating circumstances

 Cannot be offset by any mitigating circumstance.
 Change of nature of the crime and the designation of the offense.
 Must be alleged in the information otherwise cannot be considered as this will violate the
right of the accused to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him. (this is
because qualifying circumstances changes the crime committed besides the fact that it
requires specification in the information.)
 Must be proved as conclusively as the guilt of the offense because they are elements of the
offense.

2. Distinction and similarities between exempting, justifying and aggravating

Justifying circumstances - those where the act of a person is said to be in accordance with law,
so that such person is deemed not to have transgressed the law and is free from both criminal
and civil liability. There is no civil liability except in par. 4, Art. 11, where the civil liability is borne
by the persons benefited by the act.

An affirmative defense, hence, the burden of evidence rests on the accused who must prove the
circumstance by clear and convincing evidence.

There is NO crime committed, the act being justified. Thus, such persons cannot be considered
criminals.

1
Basis: Lack of criminal intent

1. Self defense

Elements:
a. Unlawful aggression
- Equivalent to an actual physical assault; OR threatened assault of an
immediate and imminent kind which is offensive and positively strong,
showing the wrongful intent to cause harm.
- The aggression must constitute a violation of the law. When the aggression
ceased to exist, there is no longer a necessity to defend one‘s self. EXCEPT:
when the aggressor retreats to obtain a more advantageous position to
ensure the success of the initial attack, unlawful aggression is deemed to
continue.
- Must come from the person attacked by the accused.
- Unlawful aggression must also be a continuing circumstance or must have
been existing at the time the defense is made. Once the unlawful aggression
is found to have ceased, the one making the defense of a stranger would
likewise cease to have any justification for killing, or even just wounding, the
former aggressor.

NB: No unlawful aggression when there was an agreement to fight and the
challenge to fight was accepted. BUT aggression which is ahead of an agreed
time or place is unlawful aggression.

b. Reasonable necessity of means employed to prevent or repel it.

The means employed depends upon:
- nature and quality of the weapon used by the aggressor
- aggressor‘s physical condition, character, size, and other circumstances
- and those of the person defending himself
- the place and occasion of the assault.
c. Lack of sufficient provocation on part of defender
- In case there was a provocation on the part of the person attacked, the
attack should not immediately precede the provocation for defense to be
valid.
- Never confuse unlawful aggression with provocation.
- Mere provocation is not enough. It must be real and imminent. Unlawful
aggression is an indispensable requisite.
- If there is unlawful aggression but one of the other requisites is lacking, it is
considered an incomplete self-defense which mitigates liability.
- Self-defense includes the defense of one‘s rights, that is, those rights the
enjoyment of which is protected by law.
- Retaliation is different from an act of selfdefense.

2. Defense of relatives

Elements:
a. Unlawful aggression
b. Reasonable necessity of means employed to prevent or repel it
c. In case person attacked provoked attacker defender must have no part therein

Relatives entitled to defense:

- Spouse
- Ascendants
- Descendants
- legitimate, natural or adopted Brothers/Sisters
- Relatives by affinity in the same degree
- Relatives by consanguinity w/in the 4th civil degree

2
 3. Defense of strangers

Elements:
a. Unlawful aggression
b. Reasonable necessity of means employed to prevent or repel it
c. The person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment or other evil
motive.

4. Avoidance of a greater evil

Elements:
a. Evil sought to be avoided actually exists
b. Injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it
c. There is no other practical & less harmful means of preventing it

The evil or injury sought to be avoided must not have been produced by the one
invoking the justifying circumstances.

5. Fulfillment of duty

Elements:
a. Offender acted in performance of duty or lawful exercise of a right/office
b. The resulting felony is the unavoidable consequence of the due fulfillment of
the duty or the lawful exercise of the right or office.
NB: If the first condition is present, but the second is not because the offender acted
with culpa, the offender will be entitled to a privileged mitigating circumstance. The
penalty would be reduced by one or two degrees.

6. Obedience to an order issued for some lawful purpose

Elements:
a. Order must have been issued by a superior
b. The order is for some lawful purpose
c. The means used to carry it out must be lawful

NB: A subordinate is not liable for carrying out an illegal order of his superior if he is
not aware of the illegality of the order and he is not negligent.

Exempting circumstances

The reason for the exemption lies in the involuntariness or lack of knowledge of the act:
a. one or some of the ingredients of criminal liability such as criminal intent, intelligence,
or freedom of action on the part of the offender is missing
b. In case it is a culpable felony, there is absence of freedom of action or intelligence, or
absence of negligence, imprudence, lack of foresight or lack of skill.

1. Imbecility/Insanity

Imbecile – advanced in age, has a mental development comparable to that of a child

between 2 and 7 years of age. Exempt in all cases from criminal liability.

Feeblemindedness is not imbecility. It is necessary that there is a complete deprivation of

intelligence in committing the act.

Insanity – There is a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act but capable
of having lucid intervals. During a lucid interval, the insane acts with intelligence and thus, is
not exempt from criminal liability.

3
 2. Minority
3. Accident
4. Compulsion of irresistible force
5. Impulse of uncontrollable fear
6. Insuperable or lawful cause

Mitigating circumstances or causas attenuates are those which, if present in the commission of
the crime, do not entirely free the actor from criminal liability, but serve only to reduce the
penalty.

1. Incomplete Justification and Exemption

2. Under 18 or Over 70 years of age
3. No intention to commit so grave a wrong
4. Sufficient Provocation or Threat
5. Immediate vindication of a grave offense
6. Passion or obfuscation
7. Voluntary surrender
8. Voluntary plea of guilt
9. Plea to a lower offense
10. Physical defect
11. Illness
12. Analogous Circumstances

Aggravating circumstances - those circumstances which raise the penalty for a crime in its
maximum period provided by law applicable to that crime or change the nature of the
crime.

1. Taking Advantage of Public Office

2. In Contempt Of Or With Insult To Public Authorities
3. With Insult Or Lack Of Regard Due To Offended Party By Reason Of Rank, Age Or Sex
4. Abuse Of Confidence And Obvious Ungratefulness
5. Crime In Palace Or In Presence Of The Chief Executive
6. Nighttime; Uninhabited Place; With A Band
7. On Occasion Of A Calamity
8. Aid Of Armed Men Or Means To Ensure Impunity
9. Recidivism
10. Reiteration or Habituality
11. Price, Reward Or Promise
12. Inundation, Fire, Poison
13. Evident Premeditation
14. Craft, Fraud Or Disguise
15. Superior Strength Or Means To Weaken Defense
16. Treachery
17. Ignominy
18. Unlawful Entry
19. Breaking Wall, Floor, Roof
20. With Aid Of Persons Under 15 By Motor Vehicle
21. Cruelty

3. Absolutory cause – who’s exempted from any criminal liability (set of the same relatives), in
case of theft, estafa. Any absolutory cause between spouses, siblings living together and
between parents and children.

Article 332 provides for an absolutory cause in the crimes of theft, estafa (or swindling) and
malicious mischief. It limits the responsibility of the offender to civil liability and frees him from
criminal liability by virtue of his relationship to the offended party. x x x The “continuing affinity
view”Pconsiders that, where statutes have indicated an intent to benefit step-relatives or
inlaws, the “tie of affinity” between these people and their relatives-by-marriage is not to be
regarded as terminated upon the death of one of the married parties. [This] view is more
consistent with the language and spirit of Article 332(1) of the Revised Penal Code.

4
4. Aggravating circumstances – presence of treachery. Please know what are the different
aggravating circumstances.

Par. 16 – ―That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia)

There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing
means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its
execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might
make.

Requisites:
1. The employment of means of execution that gave the person attacked no opportunity to
defens himself or retaliate; and
2. That the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of attack
employed by him.

Employment of means, methods and form in the commission of the crime:

 which tend directly and specially to ensure its execution
 without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.

The essence of treachery is that by virtue of the means, method or form employed by the
offender, the offended party was not able to put up any defense.
 If the offended party was able to put up a defense, even only a token one, there is no
treachery.
 Instead, some other aggravating circumstance may be present but it is no longer
treachery.

Rules Regarding Treachery:

1. Applicable only to crimes against persons.
2. Means, methods or forms need not insure accomplishment or consummation of the crime.
 The treacherous character of the means employed in the aggression does not depend
upon the result thereof but upon the means itself. Thus, frustrated murder could be
aggravated by treachery.
3. The mode of attack must be consciously adopted.
 The accused must make some preparation to kill the deceased in such manner as to
insure the execution of the crime or to make it impossible or hard for the person
attacked to defend himself or retaliate. (People v. Tumaob)
 It must be a result of meditation, calculation or reflection. (U.S. v. Balagtas)
4. Treachery cannot be presumed. The suddenness of the attack does not, of itself, suffice to
support a finding of alevosia, even if the purpose was to kill, so long as the decision was
made all of a sudden and the victim‘s helpless position was accidental. (People v. Lubreo). It
must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.

Attacks show intention to eliminate risk:

 Victim asleep
 Victim half-awake or just awakened
 Victim grappling or being held.
 Attacked from behind

Additional rules:
 When the aggression is CONTINUOUS, treachery must be present in the BEGINNING of
the assault.
 When the assault WAS NOT CONTINUOUS, in that there was an interruption, it is
sufficient that treachery was present AT THE MOMENT THE FATAL BLOW WAS GIVEN.

Treachery absorbs:
1. Abuse of superior strength (U.S. v. Estopia)
2. Use of means to weaken the defense (People v. Siatong)
3. Aid of armed men (People v. Ferrera)

5
 4. Nighttime (People v. Kintuan)
5. Craft (People v. Malig)
6. By a band (People v. Ampo-an)

5. You have to consider, in theft, it was consciously adopted to facilitate the commission of the
crime or to ensure impunity.

6. Justifying circumstances, what are the justifying circumstances, when is one not liable – if you
are performing a lawful act, its justifying. What are the examples of those kinds of acts.
NB: Judge might me presenting an example that will fall into this category.

Justifying circumstances - those where the act of a person is said to be in accordance with law,
so that such person is deemed not to have transgressed the law and is free from both criminal
and civil liability. There is no civil liability except in par. 4, Art. 11, where the civil liability is borne
by the persons benefited by the act.

An affirmative defense, hence, the burden of evidence rests on the accused who must prove the
circumstance by clear and convincing evidence.

There is NO crime committed, the act being justified. Thus, such persons cannot be considered
criminals.

Basis: Lack of criminal intent

1. Self defense
Elements:
d. Unlawful aggression
- Equivalent to an actual physical assault; OR threatened assault of an
immediate and imminent kind which is offensive and positively strong,
showing the wrongful intent to cause harm.
- The aggression must constitute a violation of the law. When the aggression
ceased to exist, there is no longer a necessity to defend one‘s self. EXCEPT:
when the aggressor retreats to obtain a more advantageous position to
ensure the success of the initial attack, unlawful aggression is deemed to
continue.
- Must come from the person attacked by the accused.
- Unlawful aggression must also be a continuing circumstance or must have
been existing at the time the defense is made. Once the unlawful aggression
is found to have ceased, the one making the defense of a stranger would
likewise cease to have any justification for killing, or even just wounding, the
former aggressor.
NB: No unlawful aggression when there was an agreement to fight and the
challenge to fight was accepted. BUT aggression which is ahead of an agreed
time or place is unlawful aggression.
e. Reasonable necessity of means employed to prevent or repel it.
The means employed depends upon:
- nature and quality of the weapon used by the aggressor
- aggressor‘s physical condition, character, size, and other circumstances
- and those of the person defending himself
- the place and occasion of the assault.
f. Lack of sufficient provocation on part of defender
- In case there was a provocation on the part of the person attacked, the
attack should not immediately precede the provocation for defense to be
valid.
- Never confuse unlawful aggression with provocation.
- Mere provocation is not enough. It must be real and imminent. Unlawful
aggression is an indispensable requisite.
- If there is unlawful aggression but one of the other requisites is lacking, it is
considered an incomplete self-defense which mitigates liability.

6
 - Self-defense includes the defense of one‘s rights, that is, those rights the
enjoyment of which is protected by law.
- Retaliation is different from an act of selfdefense.

2. Defense of relatives
Elements:
d. Unlawful aggression
e. Reasonable necessity of means employed to prevent or repel it
f. In case person attacked provoked attacker defender must have no part therein

Relatives entitled to defense:

- Spouse
- Ascendants
- Descendants
- legitimate, natural or adopted Brothers/Sisters
- Relatives by affinity in the same degree
- Relatives by consanguinity w/in the 4th civil degree

3. Defense of strangers
Elements:
d. Unlawful aggression
e. Reasonable necessity of means employed to prevent or repel it
f. The person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment or other evil
motive.

4. Avoidance of a greater evil

Elements:
d. Evil sought to be avoided actually exists
e. Injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it
f. There is no other practical & less harmful means of preventing it

The evil or injury sought to be avoided must not have been produced by the one
invoking the justifying circumstances.

5. Fulfillment of duty
Elements:
c. Offender acted in performance of duty or lawful exercise of a right/office
d. The resulting felony is the unavoidable consequence of the due fulfillment of
the duty or the lawful exercise of the right or office.
NB: If the first condition is present, but the second is not because the offender acted
with culpa, the offender will be entitled to a privileged mitigating circumstance. The
penalty would be reduced by one or two degrees.

6. Obedience to an order issued for some lawful purpose

Elements:
d. Order must have been issued by a superior
e. The order is for some lawful purpose
f. The means used to carry it out must be lawful

NB: A subordinate is not liable for carrying out an illegal order of his superior if he is
not aware of the illegality of the order and he is not negligent.

7. What is recidivism? What a recidivist is?

NB: Judge will give an example who’s penalty will be appreciated as recidivism.

Basis: the greater perversity of the offender, as shown by his inclination to commit crimes.

A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previously
convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal
Code.

7
 Requisites:
1. Offender is on trial for an offense
2. He was previously convicted by final judgment of another crime
3. Both the first and second offenses are embraced in the same title of the RPC
4. Offender is convicted of the new offense

NB: What is controlling is the time of trial, not the time of commission of the crime. (Reyes,
Revised Penal Code)

8. What is the aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence? What are the requisites?

Par. 4 – That the act be committed with abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness.

Par. 4 provides two aggravating circumstances. If present in the same case, they must be
independently appreciated.

Requisites:
1. That the offended party had trusted the offender.
2. That the offender abused such trust by committing a crime against the offended party.
3. That the abuse of confidence facilitated the commission of the crime.

 The confidence between the offender and the offended party must be immediate and
personal.
1. It is inherent in malversation (Art. 217), qualified theft (Art. 310), estafa by conversion
or misappropriation (Art. 315) and qualified seduction. (Art. 337).

9. Treachery. When there is treachery? (ie if spontaneous and continuous – no treachery, but if
there is a gap – the treachery must be at the inception of the attack. If there is a break, the
treachery must be present at the time of the fatal blow)

The essence of treachery is that by virtue of the means, method or form employed by the
offender, the offended party was not able to put up any defense.
 If the offended party was able to put up a defense, even only a token one, there is no
treachery.
 Instead, some other aggravating circumstance may be present but it is no longer
treachery.

Rules Regarding Treachery

1. Applicable only to crimes against persons.

2. Means, methods or forms need not insure accomplishment or consummation of the crime.
 The treacherous character of the means employed in the aggression does not depend
upon the result thereof but upon the means itself. Thus, frustrated murder could be
aggravated by treachery.
3. The mode of attack must be consciously adopted.
 The accused must make some preparation to kill the deceased in such manner as to
insure the execution of the crime or to make it impossible or hard for the person
attacked to defend himself or retaliate. (People v. Tumaob)
 It must be a result of meditation, calculation or reflection. (U.S. v. Balagtas)
4. Treachery cannot be presumed. The suddenness of the attack does not, of itself, suffice to
support a finding of alevosia, even if the purpose was to kill, so long as the decision was
made all of a sudden and the victim‘s helpless position was accidental. (People v. Lubreo). It
must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.

Attacks show intention to eliminate risk:

 Victim asleep
 Victim half-awake or just awakened
 Victim grappling or being held.

8
  Attacked from behind

Additional rules:
 When the aggression is CONTINUOUS, treachery must be present in the BEGINNING of
the assault.
 When the assault WAS NOT CONTINUOUS, in that there was an interruption, it is
sufficient that treachery was present AT THE MOMENT THE FATAL BLOW WAS GIVEN.

10. Proximate cause. Who is the cause? There should not be any intervening cause. What is the
proximate of the death? (ie lighting or earthquake)

Proximate Cause - That cause, which, in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any
efficient intervening cause, produces the injury without which the result would not have
occurred.

The felony committed is not the proximate cause of the resulting injury when:
(1) There is an active force that intervened between the felony committed and the resulting
injury, and the active force is a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of
the accused; or
(2) The resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the victim.

The following are not efficient intervening cause:

1. The weak or diseased physical condition of the victim, as when one is suffering from
tuberculosis or heart disease. (People v. Illustre).
2. The nervousness or temperament of the victim, as when a person dies in consequence
of an internal hemorrhage brought on by moving about against the doctor‘s orders,
because of his nervous condition due to the wound inflicted on the accused. (People v.
Almonte).
3. Causes which are inherent in the victim, such:
a. the victim not knowing to swim and
b. the victim being addicted to tuba drinking.
4. Neglect of the victim or third person, such as the refusal by the injured party of medical
attendance or surgical operation, or the failure of the doctor to give anti-tetanus
injection to the injured person. (U.S. v. Marasigan).
5. Erroneous or unskillful medical or surgical treatment, as when the assault took place in
anu outlaying barrio where proper modern surgical service was not available. (People v.
Moldes).

11. Requisites of the mistake of fact. Achong case. There must be no negligence on the part of the
person invoking the mistake of fact. It’s a justifying.

It is a reasonable misapprehension of fact on the part of the person causing injury to another.
Such person is NOT criminally liable as he acted without criminal intent.

Under this principle, what is involved is the lack of intent on the part of the accused. Therefore,
the defense of mistake of fact is an untenable defense in culpable felonies, where there is no
intent to consider.

An honest mistake of fact destroys the presumption of criminal intent which arises upon the
commission of a felonious act.

Requisites:
1. That the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed
them to be;
2. That the intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful;
3. That the mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused.
When the accused is negligent, mistake of fact is not a defense.

9
12. When there is an aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength and dwelling.

Dwelling – must be a building or structure, exclusively used for rest and comfort. A
“combination of a house and a store” or a market stall where the victim slept is not
a dwelling.
- dwelling includes dependencies, the foot of the staircase and enclosure under the house.

 The aggravating circumstance of dwelling requires that the crime be wholly or partly
committed therein or in any integral part thereof.
 Dwelling does not mean the permanent residence or domicile of the offended party or
that he must be the owner thereof. He must, however, be actually living or dwelling
therein even for a temporary duration or purpose.
 It is not necessary that the accused should have actually entered the dwelling of the
victim to commit the offense; it is enough that the victim was attacked inside his own
house, although the assailant may have devised means to perpetrate the assault from
without.

WHAT AGGRAVATES THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME IN ONE’S DWELLING:

1. The abuse of confidence which the offended party reposed in the offender by opening
the door to him; or
2. The violation of the sanctity of the home by trespassing therein with violence or against
the will of the owner.

13. Another question on treachery – the means and use, to ensure that the offended party will
not be able to put up a defense

14. Alternative circumstance – degree of education, intoxication, relationship

Circumstances which must be taken in consideration as aggravating or mitigating according to

the nature and effects of the crime.

1. Relationship
2. Intoxication
3. Degree of education/instruction

1. Relationship (BRADSS)
i. Spouse
ii. Ascendant
iii. Descendant
iv. Brother
v. Sister
vi. Relative by Affinity

a. Where relationship is exempting

In the case of an accessory who is related to the principal within the relationship prescribed in
Article 20.

Also in Article 247, a spouse does not incur criminal liability for a crime of less serious physical
injuries or serious physical injuries if this was inflicted after having surprised the offended
spouse or paramour or mistress committing actual sexual intercourse.

Those commonly given in Article 332 when the crime of theft, malicious mischief and swindling
or estafa.

b. Where relationship is aggravating

In CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS in cases where:
 the offended party is a relative of a higher degree than the offender (grandson kills
grandfather), or

10
  when the offender and the offended party are relatives of the same level, as killing a
brother, a brother-in-law, a half-brother or adopted brother.

When CRIME AGAINST PERSONS is any of the SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES (Art. 263), even if the
offended party is a descendant of the offender, relationship is AGGRAVATING.

 But the serious physical injuries must not be inflicted by a parent upon his child by
excessive chastisement.

When the crime is LESS SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES OR SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES

 if the offended party is a relative of a higher degree than the offender

When crime against persons is HOMICIDE OR MURDER

 relationship is aggravating even if the victim of the crime is a relative of lower degree.

In CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY:

 relationship is always aggravating

In the CRIME OF QUALIFIED SEDUCTION:

 the offended woman must be a virgin and less than 18 years old.
 But if the offender is a brother of the offended woman or an ascendant of the offended
woman,
- regardless of whether the woman is of bad reputation,
- even if the woman is 60 years old or more,
 crime is qualified seduction. In such a case, relationship is qualifying.

c. Where relationship is mitigating

When the CRIME IS LESS SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES OR SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES

 if the offended party is a relative of a higher degree than the offender

2. Intoxication

It is only the circumstance of intoxication which

a. if not mitigating,
b. is automatically aggravating.

a. When mitigating
1. There must be an indication that
a. because of the alcoholic intake of the offender,
b. he is suffering from diminished selfcontrol.
c. It is not the quantity of alcoholic drink.
d. Rather it is the effect of the alcohol upon the offender which shall be the basis
of the mitigating circumstance.

2. That offender is
a. not a habitual drinker and
b. did not take alcoholic drink with the intention to reinforce his resolve to commit
crime

b. When Aggravating:
1. If intoxication is habitual
2. If it is intentional to embolden offender to commit crime

3. Degree of Instruction/ Education

Refers to the lack of sufficient intelligence of and knowledge of the full significance of one‘s act
Being illiterate does not mitigate liability if crime committed is one which one inherently
understands as wrong (e.g. parricide)

11
 To be considered mitigating, degree of instruction must have some reasonable connection to
the offense.

15. Conspiracy

Conspiracy – exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it. (Article 8, RPC).

Requisites of conspiracy:
1. Two or more persons come to an agreement.
 Agreement presupposes meeting of the minds of two or more persons
2. The agreement pertains to a commission of a felony.
 Agreement to effect what has been conceived and determined.
3. The execution of the felony was decided upon.

Note: There must be participation in the criminal resolution because simple knowledge thereof
by a person may only make him liable as an accomplice.

GENERAL RULE: Conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony are not punishable.

EXCEPTION: They are punishable only in the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty
therefore.

Conspiracy as a felony, distinguished from conspiracy as a manner of incurring criminal liability:

 As a felony, conspirators do not need to actually commit treason, rebellion, insurrection,

etc., it being sufficient that two or more persons agree and decide to commit it.
 As a manner of incurring criminal liability, if they commit treason, rebellion, etc., they
will be held liable for it, and the conspiracy which they had before committing the crime
is only a manner of incurring criminal liability, not a separate offense.

In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.

GENERAL RULE: When the conspiracy is established, all who participated therein, irrespective of
the quantity or quality of his participation is liable equally, whether conspiracy is pre-planned or
instantaneous.

EXCEPTION: Unless one or some of the conspirators committed some other crime which is not
part of the conspiracy.

EXCEPTION TO THE EXCEPTION: When the act constitutes a ―single indivisible offense.

16. Self defense – figure out if there is an unlawful aggression

17. Conspiracy again

18. Absolutory cause – death under exceptional circumstances (ie if you catch your spouse
committing sexual intercourse, then you killed – what would happen? What is your liability?
When it is okay for you to kill?)

Any legally married person who having surprised his spouse in the act of committing sexual
intercourse with another person, shall kill any of them or both of them in the act or immediately
thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious physical injury, shall suffer the penalty of
destierro [banishment].

These rules shall be applicable, under the same circumstances, to parents with respect to their
daughters under 18 years of age, and their seducers, while the daughters are living with their
parents,” the law added.

Requirements:
1. The spouses must be legally married. If not the situation may only give rise to the
mitigating circumstance of Passion or Obfuscation.

12
 2. In case the accused is the husband, he should not have promoted or facilitated the
prostitution of his wife or daughter, or that the accused spouses had not consented to
the infidelity of the other spouse.

3. Meaning of the phrase” having surprised” (or element of surprise):

a. They were the offending spouses with the partner or the daughter and her seducer
who were caught by surprise. The phrase does not refer to the accused spouse
b. This includes the situation where the offended spouse had prior suspicion or
knowledge of the infidelity but simply resorted to a strategy to catch the guilty
parties spouse in flagranti.
c. The surprise must take place in the very act of sexual intercourse, during the
criminal conversation, not during the preparatory acts or after the sexual act

QUESTION: Must the guilty spouse and partner be aware that they were “discovered” as to be
literally surprised, or does Article 247 include situations where the offending spouses and
partners were killed without them being aware they were discovered and caught in flagrante?

4. At what point must the killing of wounding take place? It must be either:
a. During the discovery: i.e simultaneously with the discovery
b. Or immediately thereafter:
i. The strict traditional view held that there be no lapse of time from the discovery
to the killing.
ii. However, the better view is that Article 247 applies so long as there was no
unnecessary interruption or break from the time of discovery to the pursuit and
then to the moment of the killing or wounding. The discovery, pursuit, and
killing must be one continuous process.
iii. In the case of PP. vs. Abarca ( 153 SCRA 735) (one hour passed from the time of
discovery to the time the accused went to look for a weapon, returned to look
for the accused until he saw him inside a house playing mahjong) Article 247
was applied because although an interval of time elapsed, the law however
does not require the killing to be instantly or simultaneous with the discovery,
so long as the killing was the proximate result of the outrage which
overwhelmed the accused or that the killing was when the accused was still
acting under the influence of the infidelity

5. With respect to the killing of the daughter and her seducer, the daughter must be a
minor and the sexual intercourse must be in the dwelling of the accused parent and not
elsewhere.

Penalty:
1. If death or serious physical injuries resulted, the accused will be imposed the penalty of
destierro, which is intended more to protect him from the retaliation of relatives of the
victim, than as a punishment.

2. If what were inflicted were less serious or slight physical injuries, there is no criminal
liability.

19. Mistake of fact

20. Cruelty. Judge will have a case on cruelty aggravating

Requisites:
1. That the injury caused be deliberately increased by causing other wrong;
2. That the other wrong be unnecessary for the execution of the purpose of the offender.

For it to exist, it must be shown that the accused enjoyed and delighted in making his victim
suffer.

If the victim was already dead when the acts of mutilation were being performed,

13
  this would also qualify the killing to murder due to outraging of his corpse.

21. Battered wife syndrome. Requisites. When it is justifying and mitigating in case of lack of any
requisites.

Battered Woman Syndrome- refers to a scientifically defined pattern of psychological and

behavioral symptoms found in women living in battering relationships as a result of cumulative
abuse.

Battered Woman Syndrome as a Defense.

- Victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be suffering from battered woman
syndrome do not incur any criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any
of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the Revised Penal
Code.

In the determination of the state of mind of the woman who was suffering from
battered woman syndrome at the time of the commission of the crime, the courts shall
be assisted by expert psychiatrists/psychologists [SECTION 26, RA 9262].

Cycle of Violence:
1. Tension building phase
2. Acute battering incident
3. Tranquil Period

Four Characteristics of the Syndrome:

1. The woman believes that the violence was her fault;

2. She has an inability to place the responsibility for the violence elsewhere;
3. She fears for her life and/or her children‘s life
4. She has an irrational belief that the abuser is omnipresent and omniscient.

22. Impossible crime. Only applicable in crime against persons and property. No impossible crime
in cases of chastity and honor.

Purpose of punishing impossible crimes: To suppress criminal propensity or criminal tendencies.

Objectively, the offender has not committed a felony, but subjectively, he is a criminal.

Requisites:
1. That the act performed would be an offense against persons or property.
2. That the act was done with evil intent.
3. That its accomplishment is inherently impossible, or that the means employed is either
inadequate or ineffectual.
4. That the act performed should not constitute a violation of another provision of the
RPC.

****

 The offender intends to commit a felony against persons or against property, and the
act performed would have been an offense against persons or property.
 It must be shown that the actor performed the act with the intent to do an injury to
another.
 However, it should not be actually performed, for otherwise, he would be liable for that
felony.

Inherent impossibility: The act intended by the offender is by its nature one of
impossible accomplishment.

There must be either (1) legal impossibility or (2) physical impossibility of accomplishing
the intended act.

Legal impossibility: The intended acts, even if completed, would not amount to a crime.

14
 Legal impossibility would apply to those circumstances where:
a. the motive, desire and expectation is to perform an act in violation of the law;
b. there is intention to perform the physical act;
c. there is a performance of the intended physical act; and
d. the consequence resulting from the intended act does not amount to a crime.

Physical or factual impossibility: Extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor or

beyond his control prevent the consummation of the intended crime.

23. Anti fencing act. 2 questions for this

Presidential Decree No. 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law) One who knowingly profits or assists the
principal to profit by the effects of robbery or theft (i.e. a fence) is not just an accessory to the
crime, but principally liable for fencing.

The penalty is higher than that of a mere accessory to the crime of robbery or theft.

Mere possession of any article of value which has been the subject of robbery or theft brings
about the presumption of ―fencing.

PD 1612 has, therefore, modified Art. 19 of the RPC.

Elements:
1. Robbery or theft was committed
2. The accused is neither an accomplice nor principal and buys, accepts, sells, etc. the
stolen item
3. The accused knows or should know that the object is stolen
4. The accused was motivated to profit for himself or for another person

24. Another on justifying vs. exempting

25. Persons criminally liable: principal, accomplice and accessory

NB: Judge will give a situation where we will identify which one is the principal, accomplice
and accessory.

Principal
1. Principal by direct participation
2. Principal by inducement
3. Principal by indispensable cooperation

1. By Direct Participation

Those who are liable:

 materially execute the crime;

 appear at the scene of the crime;
 perform acts necessary in the commission of the offense.

Why one who does not appear at the scene of the crime is not liable:

 his non-appearance is deemed desistance which is favored and encouraged.

 conspiracy is generally not a crime unless the law specifically provides a penalty
therefore.
 there is no basis for criminal liability because there is no criminal participation.

2. By Inducement

Inducement must be strong enough that the person induced could not resist.

 This is tantamount to an irresistible force compelling the person induced to carry out
the crime.

15
  Ill-advised language is not enough unless he who made such remark or advice is a co-
conspirator in the crime committed.

When does a principal by induction become liable:

 The principal by induction becomes liable only when the principal by direct participation
committed the act induced.

What are the effects of acquittal of principal by direct participation upon the liability of principal
by inducement:

 Conspiracy is negated by the acquittal of codefendant.

3. By Indispensable Cooperation

The focus is not just on participation but on the importance of participation in committing the
crime.

The basis is the importance of the cooperation to the consummation of the crime.

 If the crime could hardly be committed without such cooperation, then such cooperator
would be a principal.
 If the cooperation merely facilitated or hastened the consummation of the crime, the
cooperator is merely an accomplice.

In case of doubt, favor the lesser penalty or liability. Apply the doctrine of pro reo.

Accomplice

When is one regarded as an accomplice

 Determine if there is a conspiracy.

 If there is, as a general rule, the criminal liability of all will be the same, because the act
of one is the act of all.

What are the other traits of an accomplice

 does not have previous agreement or understanding; or

 is not in conspiracy with the principal by direct participation.

Requisites

 That there be community of design; that is, knowing the criminal design of the principal
by direct participation, he concurs with the latter in his purpose;
 That he cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts,
with the intention of supplying material or moral aid in the execution of the crime in an
efficacious way; and
 That there be a relation between the acts done by the principal and those attributed to
the person charged as accomplice.

Accessories

1. When accessories are not criminally liable:

a. When the felony committed is a light felony

b. When the accessory is related to the principal as
i. spouse
ii. ascendant, or descendant, or
iii. brother or sister whether legitimate, or natural or adopted or
iv. where the accessory is a relative by affinity within the same degree,
o unless the accessory himself profited from the effects or proceeds of the crime
or assisted the offender to profit therefrom.

2. When one cannot be an accessory:

a. he does not know the commission of the crime

b. he participated

16
 3. When an accessory is NOT exempt from criminal liability even if the principal is related to him:

a. If such accessory:
o profited from the effects of the crime, or
o assisted the offender to profit by the effects of the crime

26. Self defense.

27. What are those kind of aggravating circumstances that has to be alleged in the information
and which are those that did not need to be alleged and maybe proven at the course of the
trial.

Generic
- it can be not alleged in the information and may be proven in the course of the trial.
- Affects only the imposition of the prescribed penalty but not the nature of the crime
committed.
- Applies to all crimes (1-6, 9-10, 14, 18, 19 and 20 except by means of motor vehicle)

Qualifying
- it must be alleged in the information and proven during trial.
- Changes the nature of the crime into a graver or more serious one.
- Ie. Treachery, evident premeditation

28. Indeterminate act. If its uncertain.

Purpose of the law: to uplift and redeem valuable human material and prevent unnecessary and
excessive deprivation of liberty and economic usefulness.
 It is necessary to consider the criminal first as an individual, and second as a member of
the society.
 The law is intended to favor the defendant, particularly to shorten his term of
imprisonment, depending upon his behavior and his physical, mental and moral record
as a prisoner, to be determined by the Board of Indeterminate Sentence.

The settled practice is to give the accused the benefit of the law even in crimes punishable with
death or life imprisonment provided the resulting penalty, after considering the attending
circumstances, is reclusion temporal or less.

29. Self defense in plagrante delicto. Caught in the act.

30. Anti fencing again

31. Theft. Elements of theft. Case of Dino and Espiritu. There is no case of attempted theft. As
long as you get hold of the property with the intent to gain even if your did not have time to
dispose it – consummated theft.

Theft
1. Once there is unlawful taking, theft is consummated.
2. Either the thing was taken or not.
3. Disposition of the stolen goods is not an element of theft under the RPC.

32. Treachery again. Persons criminally liable

33. Light felony, consummated light felony – when is light felony punishable in the consummated
stage. Persons criminally liable: principal only when consummated. Attempted and frustrated,
the offender will be liable if it’s a crime against person and property

FOR GRAVE AND LESS GRAVE FELONIES

1. Principals
2. Accomplices
3. Accessories

17
 FOR LIGHT FELONIES
1. Principals
2. Accomplices
o Accessories are not liable for light felonies.
REASON: In the commission of light felonies, the social wrong as well as the
individual prejudice is so small that penal sanction is deemed not necessary for
accessories.
o The classification of the offenders as principal, accomplice, or an accessory is
essential under the RPC. The classification maybe applied to special laws only if
the latter provides for the same graduated penalties as those provided under
the RPC.

Light Felonies are punishable only when they have been consummated.

EXCEPT: If committed against persons or property, punishable even if not consummated.

 Only principals and accomplices are liable, accessories are not liable even if committed
against persons or property.

34. Principal by direct participation, indispensable cooperation and by inducement. (kinds)

35. Impossible crime

36. Proximate cause

37. Impossible crime

38. Principle of territoriality. Who are those ambassadors, consuls. Are consuls included – NO.
Who will not be criminally liable even if they have committed offenses within our territory.

The following persons are exempt from the provisions of the RPC:
1. Sovereigns and other heads of state
2. Ambassadors, ministers, plenipotentiary, minister resident and charges d‘ affaires.
(Article 31, Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations)

Note: Consuls and consular officers are NOT exempt from local prosecution. (See Article 41,
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations)

Public vessels of a friendly foreign power are not subject to local jurisdiction.

39. Entrapment and instigation – its an absolutory cause. Distinguish the two.

Entrapment - Entrapping persons into crime for the purpose of instituting criminal prosecutions.
It is a scheme or technique ensuring the apprehension of the criminals by being in the actual
crime scene.

The law officers shall not be guilty to the crime if they have done the following:
a. He does not induce a person to commit a crime for personal gain or is not involved in
the planning of the crime.
b. Does take the necessary steps to seize the instrument of the crime and to arrest the
offenders before he obtained the profits in mind.

Instigation - The involvement of a law officer in the crime itself in the following manner:
a. He induces a person to commit a crime for personal gain.
b. Doesn‘t take the necessary steps to seize the instrument of the crime & to arrest the
offenders before he obtained the profits in mind.
c. He obtained the profits in mind even through afterwards does take the necessary steps
seize the instrument of the crime and to arrest the offenders.

18
EXAMPLE OF ENTRAPMENT:

A, a government anti-narcotics agent, acted as a poseur buyer of shabu and negotiated with B,
a suspected drug pusher who is unaware that A is a police officer. A then paid B in marked
money and the latter handed over a sachet of shabu. Upon signal, the cops closed in on B.

EXAMPLE OF INSTIGATION:

A, leader of an anti-narcotics team, approached and persuaded B to act as a buyer of shabu and
transact with C, a suspected pusher. B was given marked money to pay C for a sachet of shabu.
After the sale was consummated, the cops closed in and arrested both B and C.

19