CRIMINAL LAW I c.
lessens the penalty of a crime
REVISED PENAL CODE
Articles 1-10
PRELIMINARY TITLE
DATE OF EFFECTIVENESS AND APPLICATION OF THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS CODE
ARTICLE 1. Time when Act takes effect. This Code shall
take effect on the first day of January nineteen hundred
and thirty-two.
1. Comprehensively define criminal law.
Criminal law is that branch or division of law that defines
crimes, treats of their nature and provides for their
punishment.
• It defines crimes. It tells us what is punishable
and what is not.
• Treats of their nature. Crimes belong to
different classes and are divided or classified in
to 13 classifications. There are also many
classifications.
• Provides for their penalty. Every crime has a
corresponding penalty.
2. TRUE or FALSE. Common-law crimes are recognized
in the Philippines. Why?
False. It is because the sources of criminal law in the
Philippine are laws. Only laws, especially from the
Revised Penal Code and from the Special Laws are
where the criminal law is sourced from.
• Under the maxim nullum crimen, nulla poena
sine lege, there is no crime when there is not
law punishing it. Thus, criminal acts can only be
punished through what the is found in the law.
3. Is the Constitution a source of law? Why?
No. It is because it does not define crime, nor provide
for a penalty. The Constitution is a source of rights of an
accused, but you cannot find any crime defined and
penalized in it. Therefore, the Constitution is not a
source of law, but it is a source of rights.
4. An ex post facto law is:
a. makes the innocent past act criminally punishable
b. inflicts punishment without trial
c. lessens the penalty of a crime
d. extinguishes criminal liability through this law
5. A bill of attainder is:
a. makes the innocent past act criminally punishable
b. inflicts punishment without trial
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
d. extinguishes criminal liability through this law
6. What are the three characteristics of criminal law?
Explain each exhaustively yet concise.
The three characteristics of criminal law is that it is (1)
general; (2) territorial; and (3) prospective. It is general
in a sense that it is enforceable upon everyone who
resides or visits or sojourns in the country. It emphasizes
on the offender, whether resident or not.
It is territorial because penal laws of the Philippines are
enforceable only within its territory. We cannot force
them outside the Philippines unless the crime falls
under Article 2 (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) which extends
jurisdictions outside Philippine territory. It emphasizes
upon the place only.
It is prospective, or it is non-retroactive for a penal law
cannot make an act punishable in a way it was not
punishable when committed. Criminal law looks
forward as a general rule, however exceptions exists
such as a new law lowering the penalty of an offense.
7. Who are exempt from the general application of
criminal law?
There are two, (1) those who are exempt by virtue of the
principle of public international law and (2) those who
are exempt by virtue of treaties.
The first one includes the heads of state, and diplomatic
officials. Including ambassadors, ministers,
plenipotentiary, ministers, and charges d’affaires. You
cannot arrest anybody who holds a diplomatic rank.
The second one includes those who, through a treaty,
are granted immunity from criminal prosecution,
example was the former US-Philippine Military Bases
Agreement where for certain crimes committed they
could not be charged under the Philippine Courts.
8. During an international conference, Mr. Hyung Soo,
a Korean Ambassador landed in Manila, when he
arrived at the hotel he slapped the receptionist out of
anger.
(a) Can he be arrested and charged under our
courts?
(b) What if Mr. Hyung Soo is a consul?
A. No, he cannot be arrested. Article 14 of the Civil Code
states that:
s
 Article 14. Penal laws and those of public security
and safety shall be obligatory upon all who live and
sojourn in the Philippine territory, subject to the
principles of public international law and to treaty
stipulations.
Under the principle of generality, ambassadors of
diplomatic rank are exempted from criminal
prosecution by virtue of the principles of public
international law. Thus, the ambassador cannot be
arrested and charged under our courts.
B. Yes. Consuls are not exempt from the general
application of criminal law.
In Schneckenburger vs. Moran, a consul, vice consul
and other commercial representative is not entitled to
the privileges and immunities of an ambassador or
minister. The consul does not represent the political
interests of his country, but only the commercial
interest. In the absence of a treaty to the contrary, he is
subject to the laws and regulations of the country of
which he is accredited.
Thus, in the case if Mr. Hyung Soo is a consul, he can
be charged and arrested under Philippine Courts.
9. Nembrod and Casan-Ali are Filipino citizens, they
took a tour in Libya, during the last day of the tour,
Nembrod attacked Casan-Ali inflicting upon the latter
physical injuries, the latter wants to charge Nembrod.
(a) Can the Philippine courts try the case of
physical injuries because they are both
Filipinos?
A. No. Under the principle of territoriality, the crime
cannot be tried under Philippine courts. According to
Article 14 of the Civil Code:
Article 14. Penal laws and those of public security
and safety shall be obligatory upon all who live and
sojourn in the Philippine territory, subject to the
principles of public international law and to treaty
stipulations.
The crime of physical injury did not happen in the
Philippine territory and is not under the exemptions
described in Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code. It
happened in Libya, thus our criminal law cannot be
enforced outside the Philippine territory.
10. Iyyah was found guilty of selling marijuana. The law
in force of the time of the commission of the offense
was the Dangerous Drugs Act (RA 6425), which
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
penalizes selling of marijuana with life imprisonment.
Iyyah has been serving sentence since 1986. In 1995,
RA 7659 or the Heinous Crime Law amended RA 6425
and provided for a reduced sentence for her
considering she only sold two sticks of marijuana.
Can Iyyah now claim that she can have reduced
sentence even she was convicted by an old law? Why?
Yes. It is because a penal law can be given a retroactive
effect if it reduces the penalty of an offense, even if
accused.
In the case of Ordoñez vs. Vinarao, the new law should
be given retroactive application because it is favorable
to the convict. The application of the new law which
reduces penalty however cannot be applied if it (1)
expressly made inapplicable to pending actions and (2)
where the offender is a habitual criminal. In this case,
the newer law reduces her penalty, as she was not a
habitual criminal and the law does not expressly provide
its non-retroactivity, then it will be applied to her even
if she is already serving the sentence.
11. Present the principles in the construction or
interpretation of penal laws.
(1) Penal laws are strictly construed against the
State and liberally in favor of the accused.
(2) Doctrine of equipoise, when the evidence of
prosecution and defense are in balance, the
scale should be tilted in favor of the accused in
obedience with the constitutional presumption
of innocence.
(3) Doctrine of Pro Reo, when a circumstance is
susceptible to two interpretations, one
favorable to the accused and the other against
him, that favorable for him shall prevail – in
dubio, pro reo.
(4) The Spanish text is controlling, because it was
approved by the Philippine Legislature in
Spanish (People vs. Mangulabnan).
Where the inculpatory facts admit of several
interpretations, one consistent with accused’s
innocence and another with his guilt, the evidence thus
adduced fails to meet the test of moral certainty and it
becomes the constitutional duty of the Court to acquit
the accused.
12. Under Reyes, there are two (2) theories in Criminal
Law discuss and compare both.
The two theories are (1) classical theory and (2)
positivist theory. The classical theory bases criminal
liability is human free will and the purpose of penalty is
s
retribution. It believes that man is essentially a moral
creature with an absolutely free will to choose between
good and evil thus placing more stress upon effect or
result. It has endeavored to establish a mechanical and
direct proportion between crime and penalty.
On the other hand, the positivist theory views that man
is subdued by a strange and morbid phenomenon that
constrains one to do wrong, in spite of or contrary to his
own volition. It considers crime to be a social
phenomenon which cannot be addressed by laws and
punishments a priori. The penalty is imposed for the
reformation of the perpetrator.
ARTICLE 2. Application of its provisions. Except as
provided in the treaties and laws of preferential
application, the provisions of this Code shall be enforced
not only within the Philippine Archipelago, including its
atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone, but
also outside of its jurisdiction, against those who:
1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine
ship or airship;
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency
note of the Philippine Islands or obligations and
securities issued by the Government of the
Philippine Islands;
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the
introduction into these islands of the
obligations and securities mentioned in the
preceding number;
4. While being public officers or employees,
should commit an offense in the exercise of
their functions; or
5. Should any of the crimes against national
security and the law of nations, defined in Title
One of Book Two of this Code.
13. Differentiate the English Rule from the French Rule.
The English rule holds that when a crime is committed
on board of a foreign vessel while that vessel is in the
territory of another country, the crime shall be tried
under the rule of the territory where it committed.
Except when the crime is minor, only of internal
management of the vessels, it would be tried under
whose flag the vessel navigates.
On the other hand, the French rule holds the view the
that if a crime is committed on board a foreign vessel
while the same is anchored in another country, the
crime shall be tried not in that country, but in the home
state of the vessel. Except if its affects the peace,
security and safety of the territory where the crime was
committed, in which case it should be tried there.
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
The Philippines follow the English Rule (US vs. Bull),
however it will only cover those registered merchant
vessels under Philippines because warships are
considered extension of the territory of the mother
state wherever it may be. In the same way, warships of
foreign country in Philippine waters is not subject to the
laws of a foreign sovereign.
14. Mr. B killed Mr. A in a vessel not registered in the
Philippines. They were in the high seas when the
incident happened. In his defense, Mr. B contended
that his case is not triable in the Philippine Court as the
crime was committed outside its territory. Resolve.
(a) How about if the vessel is registered in the
Philippines?
(b) How about if the vessel is registered in the
Philippines but the vessel was already in the
territory of China when the killing happened?
A. The case will be triable under Philippine Courts.
Article 2 (1) of the RPC states that its provision should
be enforced not only within the Philippine Archipelago
but also outside its jurisdiction against those who, “(1)
should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or
airship”.
Provided that the Philippine ship was registered
under the Philippines, it is considered as an extension of
the territory of the Philippines. In the case, the killing
then happened in a Philippine ship, which shows that
the requirement under Article 2 (1) is present. This
renders the crime triable under Philippine court.
B. It depends. If the crime was committed while on a
Chinese territory but registered under the Philippines,
the jurisdiction is generally with that foreign country
because penal laws are primarily territorial in
application. But if that country will not take cognizance,
then pursuant to Article 2 (1), stating that “should
commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship”,
shall apply. Thus, in this case when the foreign country
does not take cognizance of the crime, the Philippine
courts can assume jurisdiction.
This is in the assumption that the vessels are merchant
vessels, but if the vessels are warships, then regardless
of the territory where the act committed, warships are
considered as extensions of the territory of their
respective country, and their respective national law
shall apply to such vessels, in this case, Philippine laws.
s
15. Mr. B, a Chinese killed Mr. A, also a Chinese, on
board of a Chinese vessel committed while within the
Philippine territory. Resolve.
The crime is triable under the Philippine Court and
covered by the Revised Penal Code. As stated in US vs.
Bull, the Philippines follow the English Rule, which
presents that when a crime is committed on board a
foreign vessel while in the territory of the Philippines, it
is under the rule of the country where the crime
happened. Except when the vessel is a warship, then
their courts shall have jurisdiction. In the instant case,
the crime is under the Philippine jurisdiction with
respect to the English Rule.
In addition, under the principle of territoriality
embodied in Article 14 of the Civil Code which states
that:
Article 14. Penal laws and those of public security
and safety shall be obligatory upon all who live and
sojourn in the Philippine territory, subject to the
principles of public international law and to treaty
stipulations.
Thus, the crime committed by Mr. B is triable under
Philippine Courts.
16. Mr. X, Philippine Consul for Thailand, were
reported to have ran over an old woman crossing the
road ten miles away from the embassy using his
personal Range Rover, which was alleged to be
purchased using the funds of the Philippine Embassy.
The old woman died as a result.
Is the consul liable under the Revised Penal Code and
triable under Philippine Courts? Resolve.
Yes, but only for the crime of corruption on the purchase
of the Range Rover using public funds not for the crime
of reckless imprudence resulting to homicide.
This is pursuant to Article 2 (4), “while being public
officers or employees, should commit an offense in the
exercise of their functions.” The crimes here are those
under the title of Crimes Against Public Office, which
corruption is considered as one. The crime then is under
the jurisdiction of the Philippine courts because it is
considered an offense of a public officer in the exercise
of his function even though he is outside the Philippine
territory and outside the embassy.
17. Which of the following is triable under Philippine
courts?
a. Murder in a Chinese warship in Palawan.
b. Murder in an unregistered Philippine merchant ship.
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
c. Murder in a Philippine warship in the Pacific Ocean.
d. Murder in a Chinese merchant ship in the Pacific.
18. Is the possession of opium, on a foreign merchant
ship, docked in a seaport in Digos City triable under Phil
courts?
Yes. It is triable when the merchant vessel is not in
transit and is docked in a Philippine port.
When merchant vessel is not in transit and possesses
opium and docks to a Philippine port is considered illegal
possession importation of opium (US vs. Ah Sing). If it is
in transit it shall not be triable until the opium is landing
our touches Philippine soil (US vs. Look Chaw). But when
the opium is smoked within the three-miles of the
territory they shall be liable for breach of public order
(US vs. Wong Cheng).
In this case, the foreign merchant ship docked in Digos
seaport is not in transit, then pursuant to the ruling in
US vs. Ah Sing, the ship will be liable for illegal
importation of opium.
TITLE ONE
Felonies and Circumstances
Which Affect Criminal Liability
ARTICLE 3. Definition. Acts and omissions punishable by
law are felonies (delitos).
Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit
(dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa).
There is deceit when the act performed is with deliberate
intent; and there is fault when the wrongful act results
from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of
skill.
19. Define felonies.
According to Article 3 of the Revised Penal Code, acts or
omissions punishable by law are felonies. Felonies are
committed not only be means of deceit (dolo) but also
by means of fault (culpa). There is deceit when the act is
performed with deliberate intent and there is fault
when the wrongful act results from imprudence,
negligence, lack of foresight and lack of skill.
20. TRUE or FALSE. Felonies are those only found in the
Revised Penal Code.
True. When Article 3 says punishable by law, it refers to
the Revised Penal Code only. The term felony refers to
the acts and omissions punishable by the Revised Penal
Code. The term ‘crime’ is a generic term compared to
s
felony. Offenses under special laws, like that issuance of
bouncing check under BP 22 is not a felony, because it is
not found in the RPC.
21. Lopez was driving a truck. A girl was crossing the
street during a torrential rain. The girl was struck down
by the truck. During the trial, Lopez claimed that he
had no intention of causing injury to the girl.
(a) Is Lopez criminally liable?
Yes. Acts under culpable felonies are voluntary, a man
must use common sense, and exercise due reflection in
all his acts; it is his duty to be cautious, careful and
prudent, if not from instinct, then from fear of incurring
punishment (US vs. Maleza). Causing death by reason of
reckless imprudence is still considered a felony
punishable by law, to wit:
Article 3. Acts and omission punishable by law are
felonies. Felonies are committed not only by means of
deceit (dolo) but also by fault (culpa). There is deceit
when the act is performed with deliberate intent, and
there is fault when the wrongful act results from
imprudence, negligence lack of foresight and lack of
skill.
In this case, Lopez committed reckless
imprudence resulting to the death the girl, even though
the malice or criminal intent is absent, it is still a felony
punishable by law.
22. What are the requisites of dolo or malice?
(a) Freedom, a person must not be under the
compulsion of an irresistible force or uncontrollable
fear.
(b) Intelligence is necessary to determine the morality
of human acts, which the insane or infant under nine-
year-old acting without discernment act without
intelligence.
(c) Intent, it is the intent to commit an act with malice,
being purely a mental process, it is presumed from the
proof of the commission of the unlawful act.
23. What are the requisites in a culpable felony?
(a) freedom of action
(b) intelligence
(c) fault or negligence
Imprudence means deficiency in action, lack of skill.
Negligence means deficiency in perception, lack of
foresight.
24. In the case of US vs. Ah Chong, why was Ah Chong
not liable for the death of his roommate?
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
He was not liable due to the mistake of fact. A mistake
of fact, ignorantia facti excusat is a misapprehension of
fact on the part of the person who caused injury to
another. He is not however, criminally liable because he
did not act with criminal intent, actus non facit reum,
nisi mens sit rea.
The requisites of mistake of fact include;
a. That the act done would have been lawful had
the facts been as the accused believed them to
be;
b. That the intention of the accused in performing
the act should be lawful; and
c. That the mistake must be without fault or
carelessness on the part of the accused.
In the case, the act done would have been lawful
because Ah Chong was believing that it was an intruder
and he was only acting under self-defense. That his
intention is also lawful and that he was not careless
because sent warning not to enter the room.
25. How is the case of People v. Oanis differ from the
case from the previous number?
In difference from the case Ah Chong, the four requisites
of mistake of fact were lacking, to wit:
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; and
3. That the mistake must be without fault or
carelessness on the part of the accused.
In the case, both are guilty of murder, because the first
requisite was lacking, for they were not acting under
reasonable force. There was negligence on their part for
they did not check the identity of the person.
The elements of voluntariness of culpable felonies is still
there; freedom, intelligence and fault or negligence.
26. A wanted to kill B by shooting him with a pistol.
Thinking that the person walking in dark alley was B, A
shot the person. It turned out the person killed was C,
the brother of A.
Can A invoke mistake of fact in his defense?
No. Error in personae or mistake of identity does not
apply in the mistake of fact. It lacks the requisites of the
mistake of fact, to wit,
(a) That the act done be lawful had the facts been
as the accused believed them to be;
(b) That the intention of the accused in performing
the act should be lawful; and
s
 (c) That the mistake must be without fault or
carelessness on the part of the accused.
In the case, it shows that the act and intention of firing
his pistol are unlawful, A cannot properly invoke the
principle of mistake of fact in his defense.
26. Why are culpable felonies punishable even though
they lack criminal intent?
Criminal intent is replaced by negligence and
imprudence, and that they are considered to be
voluntary done if there is freedom and intelligence.
(1) Freedom
(2) Intelligence
(3) Imprudence or negligence.
27. Why is criminal intent not necessary under special
laws?
It is because in those crimes punished by special laws,
the act alone, irrespective of his motives, constitutes the
offense. When the doing of an act is prohibited by a
special law, it is considered that the act is injurious to
public welfare and the doing of the prohibited act is the
crime itself (US vs. Go Chico).
28. Distinguish crimes mala in se and mala prohibita
Crimes mala in se are crimes which are inherently
immoral and wrongful from their nature, and so serious
in their effects on society as to call for unanimous
condemnation of its members. The criminal intent is
necessary and that it generally refers to those acts or
omission punished by the RPC.
On the other hand, mala prohibita, means wrong merely
because prohibited by the statue or law. These are
violation of mere rules of convenience designed to
secure a more orderly regulation of the affairs of the
society. Criminal intent is immaterial because the
inquiry is: has the law been violated? This generally
refers to acts or omissions made criminal by special laws
(People vs. Sunico).
29. Distinguish motive from intent
Motive is the moving power that impels one to actions
for a definite result. Intent is the purpose to use a
particular means to achieve a particular result. Intent
however, is an essential element of felony, particularly
of intentional felony.
Under criminal law, motive is immaterial, it will only
have import in procedural law, as it can be a
circumstantial evidence. It is important to prove the
probability, but it is not important to prove the
existence of a crime.
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
Motive is relevant (CUT-NID)
1. If the evidence is merely circumstantial
2. Where the identification of the accused
proceeds from an unreliable source and the
testimony is inconclusive and not free from
doubt.
3. In ascertaining truth between two antagonistic
theories or version of killing
4. When there is no eyewitness to the crime and
where suspicion is likely to fall upon a number
of persons
5. When there is doubt as to the identity of the
assailant; and
6. When the act is alleged to be committed in
defense of a stranger, because it must not be
induced by revenge, resentment or other evil
motive.
ARTICLE 4. Criminal liability. – Criminal liability shall be
incurred:
1. By any person committing a felony (delito)
although the wrongful act done be different
from that which he intended.
2. By any person performing an act which would
be an offense against person or property, were
it not for the inherent impossibility of its
accomplishment or on account of the
employment of inadequate or ineffectual
means.
ARTICLE 4 PARAGRAPH 1
EXTRAORDINARY MANNER IN COMMITING A CRIME
OR INCURRING CRIMINAL LIABILITY
30. In the case of People vs. Mario Mariano, the death
of the victim was brought by the rape committed by
the accused, it is of no moment that she died by
accident when she hit her head on the pavement while
struggling. Is the accused guilty of the death of the 6-
year-old victim? Explain.
Yes, because having performed an act constituting a
felony, he is responsible for all the consequences of the
said act. El que es causa de la causa es causa del mal
causado, he who is the cause of the cause is the cause
of the evil caused.
As stated in Article 4 (1), “By any person committing a
felony, although the wrongful act done be different
from that which he intended.”
In order that a person may be held criminally liable for a
felony different from that which he intended to commit:
1. Intentional felony is committed
s
 2. Wrong done is the direct, natural and logical
consequence of the felony committed by the
offender (doctrine of proximate cause)
In the case at bar, there is an intentional felony
committed through rape, and that when the victim hear
head on the pavement is because of her struggle to free
from the accused which is the proximate cause, which is
the direct, natural, logical consequence of the felony
committed. One is not relieved from criminal liability
from the natural consequences of one’s illegal acts. He
is then liable for the death of victim because of the
doctrine of proximate cause.
31. In the case of US vs. Villanueva, one because of
curiosity, snatched the bolo carried by the offended
party at his belt, and the latter instinctively caught the
blade of the said bolo in trying to retain it. Is the one
snatching the bolo criminally liable for the physical
injuries caused?
No, because there is no provision in the Revised Penal
Code punishing the act of snatching the property of
another to satisfy curiosity. When a person has not
committed felony, he is not criminally liable for the
result which is not intended. As stated in paragraph 1,
Article 4 of the RPC, “By any person committing a felony,
even though the wrongful act done be different from
that which he intended.” It must be a felony first.
32. In the case of People v. Bindoy, one who tries to
retain the possession of his bolo was being taken by
another and because of the struggle, the tip of the bolo
struck a bystander (Omamdam). Is Bindoy criminally
liable for the death of Omamdam?
No. The act of retaining the bolo is not a commission of
felony, because it has no intention of committing a
crime, and it is not punishable under the Revised Penal
Code. He did not have the intention to harm Omamdam,
there was no crime to speak of.
When a person has not committed felony, he is not
criminally liable for the result which is not intended. As
stated in paragraph 1, Article 4 of the RPC, “By any
person committing a felony, even though the wrongful
act done be different from that which he intended.” It
must be a felony first.
33. What are the causes which may produce a result
different from the which the offender intended?
A person committing a felony is still criminally liable
even if
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
(a) Error in personae – mistake of the identity of
the victim (People vs. Oanis)
(b) Aberratio ictus – mistake of blow.
(c) Praeter intentionem – the injurious result is
greater than that intended.
34. In the case of People v. Mabug-at, the accused fired
a shot to Juana but hit Perfecta, the latter did not die
due to proper medical attention. Resolve.
The accused is liable for frustrated murder against
Perfecta even though the wrongful act done be different
from that which he intended. According to Article 4 (1),
“Criminal liability shall be incurred: (1) by any person
committing the felony although the wrongful act done
be different from that which he intended.”
This is an illustration of aberratio ictus, or mistake of
blow wherein the victim of the felony was not the
intended victim of the accused due to the faulty aim of
the accused.
35. In the case of People vs. Cagoco, the accused had
the intention to inflict physical injuries upon the
person B. He fell down to the floor, head hit a rock, it
fractured his skull and caused his death. Is the accused
liable for the death of B?
Yes. The felony of afflicting physical injuries is the
proximate cause and the direct, natural and logical
consequence of the death of B. Under Article 4 (1) it
reads: “Criminal liability shall be incurred: (1) By any
person committing a felony although the wrongful act
done be different from the which he intended.”
This is an illustration of praeter intentionem, the result
exceeded the intention. In the case, the accused only
intended to afflict physical injury to B by means of
punching, however B died as a result of the act.
36. In the case of People v. Page, during a robbery in a
passenger jeepney, one of the culprits told the women
passengers “to bring out their money and not to shout
or else there will be shots.” One of the women jumped
out of the jeepney, her head struck the pavement, she
died as a consequence. Is the accused liable for the
death?
Yes, because the death arose as a consequence arising
from the commission of the felony of robbery. It is the
proximate cause of the death of the woman.
Under Article 4 (1) it reads: “Criminal liability shall be
incurred: (1) By any person committing a felony
although the wrongful act done be different from the
which he intended.”
s

This is a case when a person who creates in another’s
mind an immediate sense of fear, which causes the
latter to do something resulting in the latter’s injuries, is
liable for the resulting injuries.
37. When is a felony considered a proximate cause?
There must be direct, natural, and logical consequences
of the felonious act.
It is when that cause, which, in natural and continuous
consequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening
cause, produces the injury, and without which the result
would have not occurred. There must be a cause and
effect relation.
38. When is a felony committed NOT a proximate
cause?
a. 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.
b. the resulting injury is due to the intentional act
of the victim.
39. In the case of US vs. De Los Santos, the accused here
inflicted a wound upon the victim, which was not
serious. It was the type that would heal in a week, so it
is a crime of slight physical injury. The victim
contaminated his wound, deliberately causing it to be
infected. The wound worsened. Is the accused still
liable of the worsened wound?
No. The worsening of the wound due to the
contamination of the victim himself or herself is no
longer a direct, logical and natural consequences of the
act. The victim’s act of deliberately aggravating or
worsening his wound is considered an efficient
intervening cause.
An efficient intervening cause is something absolutely
foreign and totally unexpected which intervened and
break the relation of cause and effect, between the
original felonious act and the result.
In the case, the accused here should only be liable for
slight injuries, not for physical injuries which is caused
by the infection no longer under normal circumstances.
It is because of the bad faith of the part of the victim
himself.
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
40. In the case of People vs. Palalon, the accused
slapped a boy. The victim subsequently developed a
fever due to malaria. Then the boy died. The accused
was charged with homicide. Decide.
The accused is not liable for the crime of homicide. The
death of the boy was due to malaria. Malaria is
considered as the efficient intervening cause. It is
something absolutely foreign and totally unexpected
which intervened and break the relation between the
cause and effect, between the original felonious act and
the result.
41. A surprised B, B died of heart attack. Is B liable for
the death of B? Decide.
No. A is not liable for B’s death because there is no
felony. As presented in Article 4 (1) of the Revised Penal
Code, “Criminal liability shall be incurred: (1) By any
person committing a felony, although the wrongful act
done be different from the which he intended.”
There must be first a felony before a proximate cause
relating to the death of B can even be considered. There
is no provision on the Revised Penal Code that penalizes
surprise.
42. In the case of People vs. Quianson, the accused
stabbed B, but B was brought to hospital so he was
saved. In the hospital, there were many instruments
attached to him, the victim became restless and
started to remove the bandages on his wounds.
Eventually B died. Is the accused liable for the death of
B?
Yes. The one who inflicts injury on another is deemed
guilty of homicide if the injury contributes to the death
of the latter “even if the deceased might have recovered
if he had taken proper care of himself, or submitted to
surgical operation.
This is because the fault or carelessness of the injured
party will only become an efficient intervening cause if
it originates from his malicious act or omission, for
example the desire to increase the criminal liability of
his assailant (US vs. De Los Santos).
In the case at bar, the victim’s fault or carelessness was
not brought by malicious act or omission, there was no
malice, it is because he was just restless due to the
amount of equipment attached to him.
The accused the is still liable, el que es causa de la cause
es causa del mal causado, he who is the cause of the
cause is the cause of the evil caused.
s
 ARTICLE 4 PARAGRAPH 2
IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES
43. What is an impossible crime?
The Article 4 (2) defines the impossible crime;
Article 4. Criminal liability shall be incurred by: x x x (2)
By any person performing an act which would be an
offense against persons or property were it not for the
inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on
account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual
means.
44. Requisites of impossible crime
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. (PEIN)
45. TRUE or FALSE. Impossible crimes are not only
limited to those acts performed would be an offense
against persons or against property.
False. If the act which would be an offense is NOT
against persons or property then there is no impossible
crime.
46. Why do we punish impossible crimes?
The commission of an impossible crime is indicative of
criminal propensity or criminal tendency on the part of
the actor. Such person is a potential criminal. According
to the positivist thinking, the community must be
protected from anti-social activities whether actual or
potential, of the morbid type of man called “socially
dangerous person.”
47. What are the two instances of inherent
impossibility of accomplishment?
1. Legal Impossibility
Where the intended acts even if completed
would not amount to a crime. An example
would
2. Factual or Physical Impossibility
When extraneous circumstances unknown to
the actor or beyond his control prevent the
consummation of the crime.
There is no attempted or frustrated impossible crime. It
is always consummated and applies only to grave or less
grave felonies.
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
48. Mr. X stabbed Mr. A who appears to be sleeping. It
was proven however that Mr. A was already dead
when he was stabbed by Mr. X. Decide.
Mr. X can be liable for the commission of an impossible
crime under Article 4 (2), which reads that; “Criminal
liability shall be incurred by: x x x (2) By any person
performing an act which would be an offense against
persons or property were it not for the inherent
impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the
employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
In the case, there is the existence of a legal impossibility,
where the intended acts even if completed would not
amount to a crime. However, the commission of an
impossible crime is punishable under RPC.
There are four requisites of impossible crime:
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
inadequate or ineffectual.
4. That the act performed should not be in
violation with the RPC.
In the case at bar, Mr. X clearly had performed an
offense against a person, clear with his evil intent
because he believed he was committing a crime at that
moment, but was unable to do so due to the legal
impossibility of killing a dead person. Had he been still
alive, it would have been murder, however the victim is
already dead.
49. A knew that B owned and always carried a watch.
When A met B for the purpose, B forgot to carry it with
hum. Thinking the B had the watch, A pointed his gun
at him and asked for the watch. Finding that B did not
have the watch, A allowed B to go without further
molestation. Is A liable for the commission of an
impossible crime?
There is no impossible crime. A person could only be
liable for an impossible crime for an impossible crime
only if the act does not fall under any specific provision
of the Revised Penal Code. Impossible is the last resort.
The act can be fit in the definition of an impossible
crime. And the mere act of placing or poking a gun at
somebody is by itself already a felony. So, it falls under
a specific crime, then it should not be treated as an
impossible crime.
s
 ARTICLE 5. Duty of the court in connection with acts
which should be repressed but which are not covered by
the laws, and in cases of excessive penalties. – Whenever
a court has knowledge of any act which it may deem
proper to repress and which is not punishable by law, it
shall render proper decision, and shall report to the Chief
Executive, through the Department of Justice, the reason
which induce the court to believe that the said act should
be made the subject of penal legislation.
In the same way the court shall submit to the Chief
Executive, through the Department of Justice, such
statements as may be deemed proper, without
suspending the execution of the sentence, when a strict
enforcement of the provisions of this code would result
in the imposition of a clearly excessive penalty, taking
into consideration the degree of malice and the injury
caused by the offense.
50. Mr. Tigre is married to a nagger wife. He had filed
a complaint with the Office of the Prosecutor against
with his wife for psychological abuse. Her wife
countered that the complaint shall be dismissed as
there is no law against psychological abuse of men. Mr.
Tigre rejoined that a wrong was committed hence the
doer must be punished. Resolve.
The proper decision of the court is to acquit the person.
The doctrine of nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege
stands in this case. This is also in pursuant to Article 5 (1)
of the Revised Penal Code, which states that:
“Whenever a court has knowledge of any act which it
may deem proper to repress, and which is not
punishable by law, it shall render the proper decision,
and shall report to the Chief Executive, through the
Department of Justice, the reasons which induce the
court to believe that the said act should be made subject
of penal legislation.”
In the case, the judge is only given the capacity to render
the proper the decision, and that is to acquit the wife for
there was no law yet punishing such an offense. The
judge however has to recommend that a new law be
passed to cover this loophole.
51. In the case of People vs. Orefon, the girl was
convicted of parricide. However, the evidence showed
that she could no longer bear the repeated acts of rape
against her from time to time. The penalty of convicted
parricide is reclusion perpetua to death.
Based on the circumstances, can her penalty be
reduced because of the excessive nature of the
penalties thereof?
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
No. The court is ordered to apply the sentence of
reclusion perpetua to death, regardless of personal
beliefs, dura lex sed lex. But the court is to recommend
for executive clemency for consideration of the
executive branch pursuant to Article 5 (2) of the RPC:
Article 5. (2) “In the same way, the court shall
submit to the Chief Executive, through the Department
of Justice, such statement as may be deemed proper,
without suspending the execution of the sentence,
when the strict enforcement of the provisions of this
Code would result in the imposition of a clearly
excessive penalty, taking into consideration the degree
of malice and the injury cause by the offense.”
In the case at bar, the court has to follow the sentence
of penalty of the crime of parricide and it has to
recommend executive clemency for the girl.
ARTICLE 6. Consummated, frustrated and attempted
felonies. Consummated felonies as well as those which
are frustrated and attempted, are punishable.
A felony is consummated when all the elements
necessary for its execution and accomplishment are
present; and it is frustrated when the offender performs
all the acts of execution which would produce the felony
as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not
produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of
the perpetrator.
There is an attempt when the offender commences the
commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does
not perform all the acts of execution which should
produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident
other than his own spontaneous desistance.
52. In brief, how does a crime develop?
A. Internal Acts – mere ideas in the mind of the
person which are not punishable, even if it was
criminal idea. Intention and effect must occur.
B. External Acts
a. Preparatory Acts – generally not
punishable, like conspiracy ad proposal
to commit a felony, however there are
preparatory acts considered
independent crimes themselves like
possession of picklocks or illegal
possession of firearms
b. Acts of execution – punishable under
the RPC. The stages of acts of execution
include attempted, frustrated and
consummated felonies
.
s
53. Distinguish attempted, frustrated and
consummated felonies.
According to Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code:
Consummated felonies, as well as those which are
frustrated and consummated are punishable.
A felony is consummated when all of the elements
necessary for its execution and accomplishment are
present; and it is frustrated when the offender performs
all the acts of execution which would produce the felony
as a consequence, but which, nevertheless, do not
produce it by reason of causes independent of the will
of the perpetrator.
There is an attempt when the offender commences the
commission of the felony directly by overt acts, and
does not perform all the act of execution by reason of
some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous
desistance.
54. In the case of People vs. Lamahang, a man tried to
remove a portion of the wall, he was trying to create
an opening to enter the house. When he was able to
create one, he was in the act of entering the house in
the middle of the night, that was the time when the
policeman caught him.
Is there attempted robbery?
No. The external acts must have a direct connection
with the crime intended to be committed by the
offender. In case of robbery, there is the lack of the
element of taking possession for purpose of personal
gain of some personal property of another. The crime
was the attempt to trespass dwelling not robbery.
There was no attempt of robbery in this case because
the law requires in pursuant to Article 6 (3), “There is an
attempt when the offender commences the commission
of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform
all acts of execution by reason of some cause or accident
other than his own spontaneous desistance.
In the case, the attempt of robbery was not commenced
directly by overt acts thus it is an indeterminate offense
which its nature in relation to its objective is ambiguous.
In the attempt to trespass however, there is the
personal execution of the commission of crime such as
the breaking of the wall and the action of entering but
was stopped by the timely arrival of the policemen.
Thus, it is proper for Lamahang to be charged with
attempt to trespass dwelling.
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
55. A was trying to pick the pocket of the victim, as he
was trying to lift the wallet inside the pocket of the
bag, the owner detected it and held the hands of the
thief. So, he failed to take the wallet. At what stage of
execution was the act?
It is attempted theft. The element of taking possession
of wallet by the accused was not done due to owner
preventing him to do so. According to Article 6 (3),
“There is an attempt when the offender commences the
commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does
not perform all acts of execution by reason of some
cause or accident other than his own spontaneous
desistance.”
There was the act of taking, but he failed to complete
the possession of the wallet due to the detection and
prevention by the owner. Thus, it is an attempted theft.
56. X steals the wallet of Y during a meeting. Due to
conscience and belief in karma, X returns the wallet to
Y right after the meeting. Is X still criminally liable for
theft?
Yes. The desistance should have been done before the
subjective stage of the crime, during the objective stage
while he the actor is still in control of his act.
As a general rule, spontaneous desistance of the
accused will exempt criminal liability provided that (a) it
was made before all the acts of execution are all
performed and that (b) the acts already committed do
not constitute any offense. In this case, the X’s
desistance came after the consummation, which is no
longer under the subjective stage of the crime. He had
already committed theft.
57. X puts poison in Y’s soup. With the statements
below, when will the objective phase start?
a. mixing of the poison to the soup
b. offering of the poisonous soup to Y
c. Y begins to take into his mouth a spoon of soup
d. Y swallows the spoonful of soup
58. Sarah fires her gun at Wafirah with the intention to
committing homicide, rule on the following
circumstances when:
(a) Sarah misses to hit Wafirah
(b) Sarah hits Wafirah’s lower leg
(c) Sarah hits Wafirah’s forehead and saved by
medical practitioners.
(d) Sarah hits Wafirah’s forehead and died
A. Attempted homicide. The last act of causing a mortal
wound that would lead to death was not performed
s
thus not being able to perform all the acts of execution.
In relation of Article 6 (3), “There is an attempt when the
offender commences the commission of a felony
directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts
of execution that should produce the felony, by reason
of some cause of accident other than his own
spontaneous desistance.”
B. Attempted homicide. The last act of causing a mortal
wound that would lead to death was not performed
because a gunshot wound in the lower leg is not
considered a mortal wound, thus failing to consummate
the crime.
C. Frustrated homicide. This is because it has entered
the objective stage of the crime. This is when all of the
acts of execution, including the last act of inflicting a
mortal wound, are performed. Were it not for the timely
medical response afforded to Wafirah, it would have
been a consummated homicide. This is an example of
causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. As
Article 6 (2) presents: “ x x x and it is frustrated when the
offender performs all the acts of execution which would
produce the felony as a consequence, but which,
nevertheless, do not produce it, by reason of causes
independent of the will of the perpetrator.
D. Homicide. As described in Article 6 (2), “A felony is
consummated when all the elements necessary for its
execution and accomplishment are present.” In the
case, the fourth instance presents the existence of all
the elements and that the crime has been fully
consummated as a result, making Sarah liable for
homicide.
58. Distinguish attempted or frustrated felony from
impossible crime.
(1) In both, the evil intent of the offender is not
accomplished.
(2) In impossible crime, the evil intent of the
offender cannot be accomplished, while on the
other hand, attempted or frustrated felony the
evil intent is possible of accomplishment.
(3) In impossible crime, the intent was not
accomplished because it is inherently
impossible of accomplishment or the means
employed were inadequate or ineffectual; while
attempted or frustrated, what prevented its
accomplishment is the intervention of a certain
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
cause or accident in which the offender has no
part.
59. In the case of Valenzuela vs. People, the accused
were held by the guard loading cases of detergents in
a taxi, when the taxi was stopped and receipt was
asked, the accused fled on foot but was apprehended.
What was the stage of the theft?
Consummated. This ruling of the court establishes that
there is no crime of frustrated theft. Indeed, the court
held that unlawful taking is most material in theft.
Unlawful taking is deemed complete from the moment
the offender gains possession of a thing, even if he has
no opportunity to dispose the same. This is the
deprivation of one’s property, is the element that
consummates theft, without it the theft would be
attempted, if at all.
60. Three possibilities when the prosecution has
established only some of the elements but the others
are not.
(1) The accused can be found guilty only of
frustrated or attempted felony
(2) The accused cannot be convicted of the felony
charged in its consummated stage but he can be
found guilty of another felony also in
consummated stage.
(3) When a person is charge with a crime which
consists of two or more elements, with some
proven and some are not, the accused should be
acquitted because no crime was established.
61. What are the manners in committing crimes?
(1) Formal crimes – consummated in one instance,
no attempt. (slander and false testimony)
(2) Crimes consummated by mere attempt or
proposal or by overt act – flight to enemy
country, corruption of minors.
(3) Felony by omission
(4) Crimes requiring the intervention of two persons
to commit them are consummated by mere
agreement – betting in sports contest
(5) Material crimes – those with three stages of
execution. (FCFCM)
62. In the case of People vs. Hernandez, the accused lay
on top of a 9-year-old girl for 15 minutes. The girl
testified that there was partial penetration of the male
organ in her private parts and she felt intense pain.
s
 Is the rape attempted, frustrated or consummated?
It is consummated. Entry of the labia or lips of the
female organ without rupture of the hymen or
laceration of the vagina is generally held sufficient to
warrant conviction of the accused for consummated
crime of rape.
63. Mr. X was accused of rape of a 7-year-old girl, the
accused claimed that he only inserted the tip of his
genital organ but he desisted right after because of
conscience, thus he petitioned that he must only be
charged with frustrated rape.
If you were the judge, will you rule in favor of the
accused?
No. Basing from the People vs. Orita, the Supreme Court
held that for the consummation of rape, perfect
penetration is not essential. Any penetration of the
female organ by the male organ is sufficient. Entry of the
labia or lips of the female organ without rupture of the
hymen or laceration of the vagina is sufficient to warrant
conviction.
It can be argued however, using the People vs. Eriña
case that due to the arrival of the mother, there was
doubt upon the penetration of the female organ thus
rendering the decision to a frustrated rape. However,
this was a stray decision of the court and has not been
reiterated. There is no frustrated rape only attempted
(Tibong vs. People).
In the case at hand, the rape of the 7-year-old girl is
consummated rape. There is no frustrated rape, the
mere insertion of the male organ to the female organ is
enough to warrant the conviction of rape.
ARTICLE 7. When light felonies are punishable. Light
felonies are punishable only when they have been
consummated, with the exception of those committed
against persons or property.
64. When are light felonies punishable?
According to Article 7 of the RPC, “Light felonies are
punishable only when they have been consummated,
with the exception of those committed against persons
or property.”
65. What are the light felonies punishable by RPC?
(a) Slight physical injuries
(b) Theft
(c) Alteration of boundary marks
(d) Malicious mischief
(e) Intriguing against honor
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
ARTICLE 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony.
Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are
punishable only in the cases in which the law specially
provides a penalty, therefore.
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to
an agreement concerning the commission of a felony
and decide to commit it.
There is a proposal when the person who has decided to
commit a felony proposes its execution to some other
person or persons.
66. A, B, and C, after having conceived a criminal plan,
got together and decided to kill D. However, A, B and
C, failed to carry out the plan.
Can they be charged for conspiracy?
No. They cannot be charged for conspiracy of murder.
Article 8 (1) states that, “Conspiracy and proposal to
commit felony are punishable only in the cases in which
the law specially provides a penalty therefor.” This is
because as a general rule, conspiracy and proposal to
commit felony are only preparatory acts, there is no
overt acts yet, thus the law regards them as innocent
except in cases specially provided by law like treason,
rebellion, insurrection, coup d’état, sedition and
monopolies and combination in restraint of trade.
In the case, what was agreed and decided to be
committed is evident of murder, and the law does not
specially provide a penalty for its conspiracy. Thus, A, B
and C cannot be criminally liable for conspiracy on the
crime of murder.
67. A and B agreed and decided to rise publicly and
take arms against the government, and with the help
of their followers, they did rise publicly to overthrow
the government.
Can they be charged for conspiracy?
No. They cannot be charged for conspiracy as felony.
This is because when conspiracy relates to a crime
committed, it is not a felony but a manner of incurring
criminal liability, that is, when there is conspiracy, the
act of one is the act of all.
In this case, even if the crime is rebellion where
conspiracy is punishable, when the rebellion was
committed, conspiracy now becomes a manner of
incurring criminal liability, and they become liable for
the crime of rebellion and the conspiracy is absorbed.
When the conspiracy then becomes a manner of
incurring criminal liability, it is not punishable as a
s
separate offense. Thus, A and B cannot be charged for
conspiracy for rebellion as a separate offense because
the act was actually committed making the conspiracy
absorbed and a manner of incurring criminal liability.
68. X, Y, and Z killed P. Z held the hands of P while X
pulled the trigger to shoot P, while Y served as lookout
outside P’s house. During trial, three of them were
facing charges of murder, Y, however, claimed that he
should not be charged with murder for he was only
serving as a lookout and did not even touch P. Resolve.
Y can be charged with murder regardless of the extent
of his participation in the crime because Y is a co-
conspirator. This because the fundamentals for
conspiracy to exist must be unity of purpose and unity
in the execution of the unlawful objective. Their acts
must show a common design (People vs. Hernandez).
Y, acting as a lookout, is considered as performing a role
in the attainment of the object to kill P, though
apparently independent, their acts together are
concerted and cooperative indicating closeness of
personal association and concurrence of sentiments
(People vs. Geronimo). When the conspiracy is proved,
Y will be charged with same as his co-conspirators, for in
a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.
69. Ramon, Manuel and Ricardo agreed to break-in to
steal valuable items inside Arturo’s house. During the
commission of the crime, Manuel raped and killed
Arturo’s daughter Bethany.
(a) Can Arturo file rape charges against all of them?
No, Arturo can only institute the criminal action of rape
against Manuel. This is an exemption of the criminal
liability in conspiracy. Even though in a conspiracy an act
of one is an act of all and all are considered as principals,
when one or some of the conspirators commits a crime
out of the intended crime, it will be treated as a separate
offense (People vs. Valdez). However, when the other
co-conspirators have the knowledge that the separate
crime is being committed, they too will be liable for the
crime, but when they can prove that they tried to
prevent it to happen, then they will not be criminally
liable for the separate crime.
70. Donna has decided to kill Maria, she then went to
Leah, who also hates Maria and proposed to do the
crime with her. Leah refuses.
Can Donna be charged according to Article 8 (3)?
No, the proposal to commit murder is not specially
provided by law to be punishable. The law is clear,
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
Article 8 (1) states that the, “conspiracy or proposal to
commit felony are punishable only in cases which the
law specially provides a penalty therefor.”
Even though Donna has successfully proposed the
commission of a felony to Leah, the proposal to murder
someone is not punishable by law like those of treason,
rebellion or coup d’état. Because as a general rule,
preparatory acts are not punishable because there is no
overt act yet. Thus, Donna cannot be charged with her
proposal to commit a felony.
ARTICLE 9. Grave felonies, less grave felonies and light
felonies. Grave felonies are those to which the law
attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in
any of their periods are afflictive, in accordance with
Article 25 of this Code.
Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes with
penalties which in their maximum period are
correctional, in accordance with the above-mentioned
article.
Light felonies are those infractions of law for the
commission of which the penalty of arresto menor or a
fine not exceeding Forty thousand pesos (P40,000) or
both, is provided.
71. What are the classifications of felonies?
(1) Article 3
a. Felonies by act
b. Felonies by omission
(2) Article 3 - Means
a. Intentional felonies
b. Culpable felonies
(3) Article 6 – Stage of execution
a. Attempted felony
b. Frustrated felony
c. Consummated felony
(4) Article 9 - Gravity
a. Grave felonies
b. Less grave felonies
c. Light felonies
72. What are grave felonies and its penalties?
These are felonies to which the law attaches capital
punishment or penalties which in any of their periods
are afflictive, in accordance with Article 25 of this Code.
Capital punishment refers to death; while afflictive
penalties are:
a. Reclusion perpetua
b. Reclusion temporal
s
 c. Perpetual or temporary absolute
disqualification
d. Perpetual or temporary special disqualification
e. Prision mayor

73. What are less grave felonies and its penalties?

Less grave felonies to which the law punishes with
penalties which in their maximum period are
correctional, in accordance with the abovementioned
article.

Correction penalties are:

a. Prision correcional
b. Arresto mayor
c. Suspension
d. Destierro

74. What are light felonies

Light felonies are those infraction of law for the
commission of which penalty of arresto menor or a fine
not exceeding two-hundred pesos or both, is provided.

ARTICLE 10. Offenses not subject to the provisions of this

Code. Offenses which are or in the future may be
punishable under special laws are not subject to the
provisions of this Code. This Code shall be
supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should
specially provided for the contrary.

75. Define a special law.

A special law has two definitions:
a. A special penal law is a law which punishes acts
or omission not defined and penalized by the
RPC.
b. A statute enacted by the legislative branch,
penal in character, which is not an amendment
to the RPC.

76. A special law is passed penalizing a certain crime.

Somebody attempts to commit the crime but does not
succeed. Should the offender be liable for attempted
violation?

No. As a general rule, special laws punish crimes that are

mala prohibita. If the special law does not penalize the
attempted or frustrated stage of the crime, then, the
conclusion is that it is not punishable because the
provision of Article 6 does not apply. Penalties are
attached to such stages of execution, and special laws
provide their own penalties.

From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes s
 CRIMINAL LAW I
REVISED PENAL CODE
Articles 11-20
CHAPTER TWO
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH
AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Q. What are the circumstances affecting criminal
liability?
1. Justifying Circumstances (Article 11)
2. Exempting Circumstances (Article 12)
3. Mitigating Circumstances (Article 13)
4. Aggravating Circumstances (Article 14)
5. Alternative Circumstances (Article 15)
There are other circumstances found elsewhere in the
Revised Penal Code
1. Absolutory cause – the effect is to absolve the
offender from criminal liability
2. Extenuating circumstances – the effect is to
mitigate the criminal liability of the offender and has
the same effect as mitigating circumstance.
Imputability
It is the quality by which an act may be ascribed to a
person as its author or owner, it implies that the act
committed has been freely and consciously done and may
therefore be put down to the doer as his very own.
Responsibility, defined
It is the obligation of suffering the consequences of
crime. It is the obligation of suffering the consequences
of the crime. It is the obligation of taking the penal and
civil consequences of the crime.
Q. Distinguish Imputability from responsibility.
While Imputability implies that a deed may be imputed
to a person, responsibility implies that the person must
take the consequence of such a deed.
Guilt
It is an element of responsibility, for he cannot take be
made to answer for the consequence of a crime unless
he is guilty.
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
Justifying circumstances are those which, if the
attending commission is an act, it makes the act lawful.
The act is lawful, it is justified. It is in accordance with law.
• Therefore, the act committed is not a crime.
• Free from both criminal and civil liability.
SELF-DEFENSE
(1) Anyone who acts in defense of his person or
right provided that the following
circumstances concur:
First, unlawful aggression.
Second, reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel it.
Third, lack of sufficient provocation on the
part of the person defending himself.
Self-Defense; Only to Crimes Against Persons
Self-defense only applies to crimes against persons, as
when you are accused of homicide, murder, or physical
injuries.
Burden of Proof
It is the prosecution’s job to prove the guilt of the
accused who is presumed innocent. As these are matters
of defense, the burden is shifted to the accused. He cannot
rely to the weakness of the prosecution’s evidence.
Because in invoking self-defense one admits that you
killed the other, that you are the author of the death,
so better justify.
Self-Defense is Lawful
The State cannot protect everybody twenty-four hours a
day. Therefore, if somebody attacks you and there is no
policeman to defend you, you defend yourself.
If in the process, it becomes inevitable for you to disable
or kill the attacker, you are not liable because you are
only doing the state’s job.
REQUISITES OF SELF-DEFENSE
1. Unlawful aggression
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it.
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
person defending himself.
The following are the elements of self-defense which
refers to Article 11(1) of Revised Penal Code. The
following are the important elements to be remembered
as such contemplates different situation.
s
FIRST ELEMENT: UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION
It is a statutory and doctrinal requirement that for the
justifying circumstances of self-defense, unlawful
aggression is an indispensable requirement. The second
and third requisite are borne out of the first requisite.
Aggression; Definition
It means a physical attack. An aggression can cause you
injury or death, so if there is no physical aggression, there
is no physical aggression to speak of.
Q. A started to insult B with derogatory remarks, B hit
back and injured A. For the injury sustained by A, B pleads
for self-defense. Can B invoke self-defense?
A. No. B cannot because he himself is the aggressor,
there can be no self-defense here because the
aggression is verbal. What the law contemplates is a
physical attack. Insulting words, no matter how
slanderous, cannot cause death or physical injuries.
Principles under Self-Defense
1. When one claims self-defense, the law assumes
that there is no mutual agreement between both
parties to fight, no one can claim self-dense and
each one is responsible for each one’s injury.
Q. Two people agree to fight and in the course of the first
fight A has injured B, B injured A and they ended up suing
each other for physical injury and both invoke self-
defense. Who is entitled of Article 11(1)?
A. No one. Each of them became an aggression due to
an agreement, and in fact, each of them is liable for each
other’s injury. Verbal agreement is sufficient.
2. A person does not have to be cornered against the
wall before he can lawfully defend himself from
an unlawful aggression.
The rule now is maintain your ground when in the
right. Meaning, if you are walking peacefully and
somebody stabs you, there is no obligation to run. You
can defend yourself. Stand ground when you are right.
Two Types of Aggression
1. Lawful Aggression
Fulfillment of a duty. A public officer is acting in
fulfillment of the duty when trying to arrest the individual
he threw a stone. Neither can the criminal hit back the
police and use self-defense for the police is acting under
lawful means (People v. Gayrama)
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
Self-preservation. This is when you actually defend
yourself from the aggression, a natural response.
There is no unlawful aggression when the aggressor is
acting under lawful means.
US v. Merced: The husband killed by the paramour, the
husband caught him and the wife and the assaulted the
paramour with a bolo. In this case, there cannot be self-
defense because
2. Unlawful Aggression
It is equivalent to assault or a threatened assault of an
immediate or imminent kind. There is an unlawful
aggression when the peril to one’s life, limb or right is
either actual or imminent.
NOTE: When there is no peril to one’s life, limb or right,
there is no unlawful aggression.
Two Kinds of Unlawful Aggression
1. Actual
This means that the aggression is on-going. Herein we
refer to the case of US v. Laurel, he was under attack
when he made his move. That is actual. It was a sudden
and unexpected attack.
Other instances relayed in People v. Sabio:
• Mere push not followed by other acts does not
constitute unlawful aggression.
• Slap on the face constitutes unlawful aggression
due to the fact that the face represents a
person’s dignity.
• A “foot-kick greeting” is not an unlawful
aggression.
2. Imminent
A threatened aggression, it must be imminent or at the
point of happening. It is not always needed that you need
to be attacked in order to defend.
In the case of People v. Cabungcal, during a fiesta, this
drunk person was rocking the boat, he was told to stop
be he did not stop, there were women and children
aboard the boat, so the boatman punched the drunk guy.
The court said that this is a case of an imminent kind of
unlawful aggression for if the boatman did not act, then
the boat would have capsized causing more deaths.
NOTE: A mere belief of an impending attack is not
sufficient, even if one has an intimidating or threatening
attitude.
s
Q. If someone outside your shouts at you a threat that he
is going to kill you and you ran out and stabbed him first,
can you invoke self-defense? No, there must be an
imminent unlawful aggression.
Principles with respect to Unlawful Aggression
1. The aggression must be continuous.
If there is no more danger to life and limb, there is no
basis for the self-defense. When the aggressor flees,
unlawful aggression cannot anymore exist.
People v. Alconga. The deceased was the one who first
attacked the accused. However, having sustained several
wounds, the deceased ran away, but he was followed by
the accused and another fight took place, during which a
mortal blow was delivered by the accused. Alconga
invoked Article 11(1) in this case.
The court held that there is no self-defense because the
aggression is no longer continuous. He could have used
the self-defense during the first fight, but in the second
fight after the deceased fled is no longer continuous.
Retaliation is not a Justifying Circumstance
When you already disarmed the aggressor, you need not
kill him for there is no more danger. When the inceptual
unlawful aggression had already ceased, and an
appreciable time interval has already passed and there
was time enough for deliberation and cool thinking, then
self-defense cannot be invoked for the unlawful
aggression was no longer continuous and it has ceased.
NOTE: But if the aggressor “retreats” just to take a more
advantageous position to continue the aggression then
the unlawful aggression is considered continuous.
2. There is no unlawful aggression when there is
agreement to fight.
As already stated earlier, when the two parties already
agreed to fight, it does not matter who attacked first,
both cannot claim the justifying circumstance under
Article 11(1) because the agreement to fight already
extinguishes the element of unlawful aggression. The
agreement be accepted by the both parties.
Unlawful Aggression in Defense of Other Rights
It is important to note that, unlawful aggression by now,
together with reasonable necessity of the means
employed, as the first and second elements of Article
11(1) on self-defense is also applied in:
1. Article 11 (2) in defense of relatives and in
2. Article 11 (3) in defense of strangers.
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
The following are rights can be defended under Article
11(1) on self-defense:
1. Defense of right to chastity
The right to chastity of a woman, and if the guy is about
to rape the woman and the woman killed the would-be
rapist, she can avail of self-defense. Rape is now
considered a crime against the person (People v. De la
Cruz).
But is different when the reasonable necessity is
excessive. In People v. Jaurigue, the deceased touched
her upper thigh in the church then she stabbed him in
the neck, she cannot claim self-defense.
2. Defense of property
As a general rule, defense of property per se is cannot be
a ground for self-defense, but it can be when the attack
on one’s property is coupled with an attack on his person.
There must be attack on the person defending his
property, it must always be coupled with attack on the
person. Article 429 of the Civil Code still has to follow.
Certain situations: Is Article 11(1) applicable?
Robber steals your wallet and when you YES
resist he draws out his knife.
Robber enters your house and tries to kill YES
you but you kill him first.
Robber sees you and tries to get out NO
through window but you shot him.
3. Defense of home
In the defense of home, the application is quite different,
because again, a man’s house is his castle.
Example: When a person armed with a bolo enters your
house through a violent entry, and it is evident that he is
about to cause trouble, then there is no need to wait for
an attack against the person because it would be fatal, it
can be considered that there is already imminent
unlawful aggression.
Additional Instances Under Unlawful Aggression:
1. When the one who invokes self-defense acted
because the aggressor was bringing a toy pistol
in clear resemblance of a gun (People v. Boral).
2. Threat to inflict real injury, like pointing a gun is
considered to be unlawful aggression.
3. Picking up a weapon, when preceded by
intention to attack the defendant, is considered
unlawful aggression (People v. Javier).
s
SECOND ELEMENT: REASONABLE NECESSITY OF THE
MEANS EMPLOYED TO PREVENT OR REPEL THE
AGGRESSION
Necessitas non habet legem
As stated earlier, there can be two kinds of unlawful
aggression, and in the second requisite it should be that
when there is an actual unlawful aggression one should
repel it, or when there is an imminent aggression one
should prevent it.
Reasonable necessity then refers to:
a. Necessity of the course of action taken
Again, in People v. Alconga, there was no necessity
anymore on the course of action because unlawful
aggression has already ceased.
b. Necessity of the means used
In US v. Apego, when the woman was awakened by her
brother-in-law and happened to stab him there is no
necessity of the means used. So as the case of People v.
Jaurigue, the stabbing after the touch of the thigh did
not amount to a necessity to the means used.
Determining the Reasonableness of the Means
Employed depends on the Circumstances
The place, occasion and time all contribute to the
establish reasonableness of the act done or the means
employed.
Instance: If you are grabbed behind the back and you
punched the one who grabbed you, that would be
reasonable necessity in an uninhabited place but no in a
classroom setting.
Principles under Course of Action Taken
1. Necessity knows no reason
2. Person defending is cannot control his blow
A person is not expected to think clearly and he cannot
be expected to control such blow. The killing of the
unlawful aggressor may still be justified as long as
the mortal wounds are inflicted at a time when the
elements of complete self-defense are present.
If it was necessary for the accused to use his revolver, you
cannot be expected to take deliberate and careful aim as
to strike a point less vulnerable than the body of his
assailant (US v. Mack). However, he is not allowed to
attack back indiscriminately as to cause injury or death to
innocent people in the vicinity (People v. Galacgac).
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
Reasonableness of the Weapon Used
There is no need for perfect equality of weapons but a
reasonable equality. The law does not mean to say when
you are attacked by a bolo you have to attack back with
a bolo also. What the law requires is rational equivalence.
When a person is under attack you a person will
instinctively use the first available means that is there to
defend one’s self from the unlawful aggression. The
following are those you consider:
1. The nature and quality of the weapons
In the time of unlawful aggression, it is accepted that the
person attacked can use a weapon of greater order if
there is:
(a) no other available means, and
(b) if there were other available means, he could not
coolly choose the less deadly weapon to repel the
assault.
The above rules can apply when knife is used against a
club, firearm against a knife, pocketknife against a cane,
gun against a bolo.
NOTE: Fist blows being repelled by fist blows apply only
when both are of equal size and strength, thus if one if
facing against a trained boxer who unlawfully assaults the
person, he or she has the right to use a weapon.
2. Physical condition, character and size
When faced by a number of people, even with fists, the
number of aggressor rule would apply. If one person is
attacked by seven other men using their fists, this is when
you can use a club or knife in response to their attacks
and it can be justified.
3. Other circumstances considered
It should always be proven that there was no other means
available during the unlawful aggression to prove the use
of more deadly weapons.
NOTE: The first two requisites common to the three
kinds of legitimate defense under Article 11(1), (2),
and (3).
The first two requisites thus far explained are common to
self-defense, defense of a relative, and defense of a
stranger. These three kinds of legitimate defense differ
only in the third requisite.
Thus, it is always important to remember that the use of
reasonable means or cause of action to defend self from
the incoming threat or attack can be mediated by the
time, occasion, size, circumstance.
s
THIRD ELEMENT:
LACK OF SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION ON THE PART
OF THE PERSON DEFENDING HIMSELF
When the person defending himself from the attack by
another gave sufficient provocation to the latter, the
former is also to be blamed for having given cause for
the aggression.
The one making the defense must not have given the
cause for the aggression by his unjust conduct, or by
inciting or provoking the assailant.
Principles under Lack of Sufficient Provocation
1. There was no provocation at all on the part of the
person defending himself.
This is the most generic instance, when a person attacks
you and you were not doing anything, there is total
absence of any provocation.
2. The person defending himself might have given
some provocation but it is not sufficient.
Q. When a landowner asks a trespasser what is his
reasons, the guy did not answer and instead kill him. Is
there sufficient provocation on the part of the trespasser?
No. This is when if there is provocation, such was not
commensurate to the reaction of the attacker. To
determine such the sufficiency of the provocation, it is
normal and natural for one to react in such manner.
3. The provocation was sufficient, but the
provocation was not given by the person
defending himself.
This is quite self-explanatory, it will still as if, the person
defending himself did not give the provocation at all,
rendering the aggressor attacking with unlawful
aggression entitling the attacked with self-defense.
4. The person defending himself might have given
sufficient provocation, but his provocation was not
immediate to the act of aggression.
Thus, if A slapped the face B one or two days before and
B upon meeting A, attacked the latter but was seriously
injured when A defended himself, the provocation done
by A was no longer sufficient for it was not immediate
and proximate to the aggression.
In US v. Laurel, the kissing of the girlfriend was deemed
sufficient provocation, but upon passing for more than
two days, the provocation was no longer sufficient to
entitle the aggressor of self-defense on that important
element of self-defense.
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
Illustrations of Self-Defense
QUESTION: In the midnight, at the road, A saw his wife
B and suspected that she visited the house of C, the
paramour. Then A went to B and grabbed her by the
collar, and slapped her until her nose bled, put her
down to the ground and strangled her.
Because she had no other recourse as she was being
choked, she pulled out the knife and thrusted towards
B hitting his left upper part of the thigh and killing him.
In the proceedings, B was charged for parricide.
If you were her lawyer, do you think she can avail of
Article 11(1) under self-defense?
ANSWER: Yes, all the elements of self-defense is present
in this case. This is the case of People v. Boholst-Caballero
61 SCRA 180.
On unlawful aggression: The husband was in no position
to unlawfully assault her. It was a sudden and an
unexpected attack (US v. Laurel) and that the aggression
was immediate in her case.
On reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent
or repel it: As always discussed, necessitas non habet
legem, necessity knows no reason. The use of weapon
then is deemed reasonable as there was no other means
available and in addition, the strength and capacity to
repel in equal force was impossible due to the disparity
in the strength.
On lack of sufficient provocation. The wife did not give
any sufficient provocation to provoke the husband in
committing the assault, the mere presence of her wife in
the road at midnight is not sufficient provocation for the
husband to attack her.
BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME
In People v. Genosa 419 SCRA 537, Marivic Genosa was
still convicted of bigamy due to an inadequacy to prove
the battered woman syndrome just before the effectivity
of RA 9262. In Section 26 of RA 9262, the law grants the
effect of self-defense to those who were found to be
battered women.
Section 26 of RA 9262 reads “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 elements for
justifying circumstances under Article 11(1) of the RPC.”
s
A battered woman is one who is repeatedly subjected
to any forceful physical and psychological behavior by a
man in order to coerce her to do something he wants
without concern of her rights. This includes any form of
intimate relationship with men.
• To be qualified as a battered woman, the couple
must go through battering cycle at least twice.
This is because a battered woman exhibits low self-
esteem and false hopes that the relationship will
improve. Graphically, the battered woman syndrome is
characterized by the so-called cycle of violence.
1. Tension-building phase
2. Acute battering incident
3. Tranquil, loving, or non-violent phase
Effects of battery. Due to the recurring cycles of violence
experienced by the abused woman, her state of mind
changes because of the psychological effects caused by
the battery. She should not be subjected to the discretion
and judgment done by ordinary persons.
DEFENSE OF RELATIVES
(2) Anyone who acts in defense of the person or
rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants,
or legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or
sisters, or of his relatives by affinity in the same
degree, and those by consanguinity within the
fourth civil degree, provided that the first and
second requisites prescribed in the next
preceding article are present, and the further
requisite, in case the provocation was given by
the person attacked, that the one making the
defense had no part therein.
Relatives the can be defended
1. Spouse
2. Ascendants
3. Descendants
4. Legitimate, natural, or adopted brothers and
sisters, or relatives by affinity in the same
degrees.
5. Relatives by consanguinity within the fourth civil
degree.
ELEMENTS OF DEFENSE OF RELATIVES
1. Relative must be a victim of unlawful aggression
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it of one making the defense.
3. That the one making the defense had no part
therein.
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
FIRST ELEMENT: RELATIVE MUST BE A VICTIM OF
UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION
Q. If you defended your brother, then it turned out he
was the one who gave the sufficient provocation. Can you
still claim the justifying circumstance under Article 11(2)?
A. Yes, because the law does not state that the relative
must be the one who provoked, but the need to establish
unlawful aggression on the part of the aggressor needs
to be established.
Q. Suppose that A strangles and mauls B to the ground,
in trying to save himself; B draws his knife to stab A
aiming for the neck, before the knife would even hit the
neck, C, A’s brother immediately ran and kicked the hard
of B to save A. B died due to the severe blow to his head.
Is C entitled to Article 11(2)?
A. Yes. It is because he acted upon honest belief that B
was the one who committed the unlawful aggression.
Unlawful Aggression Can Be Made to Depend Upon
the Honest Belief on the One Making the Defense
In US v. Esmedia, it can be made upon the honest belief
of the one making the defense, see also the case of
Olbinar v. Court of Appeals, this is where the wife
defended her prostrate husband.
They are allowed to avail of Article 11(2) even if they have
committed a mistake of fact that the one who was
thought to be the aggressor turned out to be the victim
so long as they were considered to be in good faith.
SECOND ELEMENT: REASONABLE NECESSITY OF THE
MEANS EMPLOYED BY THE ONE MAKING DEFENSE
As held again, the reasonableness of the means adopted
is not one of mathematical calculation or material
commensurability but the imminent danger against the
subject to of the attack that is dictated by instinct.
THIRD ELEMENT: PERSON MAKING THE DEFENSE
HAD NO PART THEREIN
The fact that the relative defended gave provocation is
immaterial. So, for example, if A had slapped B, then C,
father of A, saw B trying to stab A, C killed B in defense
of his son, C’s act is completely justified even if the
provocation was given as long as he believed in good
faith.
But when C had induced A to stab B, that is when the
third element is lacking, because C now had part therein.
Thus, he will also be liable for the death of B.
s
 DEFENSE OF STRANGER
(3) Anyone who acts in defense of the person or
rights of a stranger, provided that the first and
second requisites mentioned in the first
circumstance in this article are present and that
the person defending be not induced by
revenge, resentment or other evil motive.
ELEMENTS OF DEFENSE OF STRANGERS
1. Unlawful aggression towards the stranger
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed by
the person defending
3. That the person defending be not induced by
revenge, resentment or other evil motive.
Stranger, Defintion
A stranger is a person not listed among the relatives in
paragraph 2, practically the whole human race. This is
due to humanitarian reason. It presupposes that you
acted due to motivated by human sentiment.
STATE OF NECESSITY
(4) Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or
injury, does an act which causes damage to
another, provided that the following requisites
are present:
First, that the evil sought to be avoided actually
exists;
Second, that the injury be greater than that
done to avoid it;
Third, that there be no practical or less harmful
means of preventing it.
State of Necessity or Emergency Rule
This is a situation when one is confronted with a situation
where one is left with no choice because either way you
do it, you case harm, injury or damage. In order to avoid
such, you injure others.
There is Civil Liability Under this Paragraph
This is the only circumstance under justifying
circumstances which has civil liability, but the civil liability
is borne by the persons benefited.
FIRST ELEMENT: THAT THE EVIL SOUGHT TO BE
AVOIDED ACTUALLY EXISTS
The evil must actually exist. If the evil sought to be
avoided is merely expected or anticipated or may happen
in the future, this paragraph is not applicable. This
presupposes an actual evil that must be avoided in order
to claim any defense under this paragraph.
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
SECOND ELEMENT: THAT INJURY FEARED BE
GREATER THAN THAT DONE TO AVOID IT
Instance. A person was driving his car with due diligence
and care when suddenly he saw an over speeding “six by
six” truck in front of his car. If he stayed or moved
forward, he would die. He can’t also go backward due to
a large truck at his back, and would kill him if he suddenly
reverses. If he turns to the left, he would fall to a cliff, but
if he swerves to the right he would kill a passerby.
Q. If the person chooses to swerve to the right, and
indeed the passerby dies, can he claim the justifying
circumstance of Article 11(4)?
The Instinct of Self-Preservation Will Always Make
One Feel that His Own Safety is of Greater Importance
Thus, in the above circumstance, if indeed that person
shall acted under due diligence then he can claim the
justifying circumstance.
This also is applicable when a mother, threatened to die
if she keeps the baby, chooses to abort the foetus, even
as a general rule, abortion is illegal.
Emergency Rule Inapplicable when Invoked by the
Person Who Cause the Emergency
By common sense, the greater evil should not be brought
about by negligence or imprudence of another. Thus, in
the above instance, if it was shown that he did not act
with due diligence and was found out to be over
speeding himself, or that he knew of the over speeding
truck from a distance, as such, he cannot avail of the
justifying circumstance anymore.
Other proper instances under Article 11(4):
• To save move properties from fire, a property will
be sacrificed, destroying three or more houses to
save more than fifty houses.
• To save a vessel and people’s lives, the cargoes
will be jettisoned.
THIRD ELEMENT: THAT THERE BE NO PRACTICAL OR
LESS HARMFUL MEANS OF PREVENTING IT
As ruled again, this circumstance shall only apply when it
has sufficiently shows that there is indeed no other less
harmful means of preventing it.
Thus, in the instance shown, if it was proven that there
was indeed enough space for the person to reverse and
avoid the whole disaster, then Article 11(4) won’t apply.
s
 FULFILLMENT OF A DUTY,
LAWFUL EXERCISE OF RIGHT OR OFFICE
(5) Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty
or the lawful exercise of a right or office.
Three Circumstances under Article 11(5)
This is a short provision, but when examined closely, it
has three separate and distinct justifying circumstances.
a. One who acts in fulfillment of duty
b. One who acts in the exercise of a right
c. One who acts in the exercise of an office
ELEMENTS UNDER ARTICLE 11(5)
1. That the accused acted in the performance of a
duty or in lawful exercise of his right or office.
2. That the injury caused or the offense committed
by the necessary consequence of the due
performance of duty or the lawful exercise of
such right or office.
FIRST CIRCUMSTANCE: FULFILLMENT OF A DUTY
This circumstance is usually applied to law enforcement
officers because in the performances of their duty, they
can hurt people. In order to avail of this justifying
circumstance, there must be proper fulfillment of a duty.
In People v. Oanis, this paragraph cannot be availed
because due to his impatience or over-anxiety the
accused exceeded in the fulfillment of their duty when
they killed a sleeping person whom they believed to be
the wanted criminal without checking his identity.
In People v. Delima, Napilon escaped from jail while
serving sentence, days after he found by policeman
Delima. The convict, armed with a bamboo lance, did not
respond to the surrender and instead attacked Delima
with the lance. Delima avoided the attack and he was able
to fire a shot but it did not hit the fugitive.
Napilon ran while bringing the weapon, while trying to
catch Napilon, Delima fried his revolver, this time hitting
and killing him. The Supreme Court held that Delima was
acting in performance of duty for the convict had no right
to disobey the orders and escape serving sentence.
In People v. Bisa, the ruling in Delima case was also used
in this case, a convict while trying to escape was given
warnings to not escape, the convict did not obey the
orders that is why the prison guard fired shots towards
the escaping fugitive that ultimately led to his death. In
this case he was entitled to acquittal under Article 11(5).
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
SECOND CIRCUMSTANCE:
LAWFUL EXERCISE OF RIGHT
Instance. In a busy sidewalk, a snatcher took from you
your iPhone 7, you chased him but he it turned out you
cannot outrun him, and in order to prevent him from
escaping, you drew your gun and shot him in the leg. As
a result, he could no longer run, thus you were able to
recover your phone.
Q. Is there such a thing as self-defense of property?
A. Under Article 11(1) there is none, because it still
requires that there must be an attack against the person.
But there is such defense of property under paragraph 5.
This paragraph is the one applicable now the protection
and defense of property, not paragraph 1.
Doctrine of Self-Help
Under Article 429 of the Civil Code it states that “The
owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to
exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal
thereof. For this purpose, he may use such force as may
be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or
threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of
his property.”
This means that you can force unlawful possessors out
from your property but in the instance cited above, the
doctrine of self-help can be lawfully invoked only when
there is a reasonable necessity. Thus, in the instance,
knowing that you cannot outrun the snatcher you shot
his leg. This is allowed. It is important to not invoke Article
11(1) or the Apolinar ruling when there is no assault
against the person.
But if the snatcher was killed, then Article 11(5) cannot
apply, killing the snatcher is no longer a reasonable
means to recover the property.
In People v. Depante, the act of the querida trying to get
the money from his was tantamount to theft, for she had
no right to get that money from him. However, the three
fist blows the accused inflicted to Paciencia were
excessive from the reasonable means contemplated by
law. Thus, he cannot claim full justification under 11(5).
The court here applied the mitigating effect of Article 69
of the Revised Penal Code due to the lack in the
requisites under Article 11(5), for the requisites not being
all present, a penalty lower by one or two degrees than
that prescribed by law may be imposed. This is one
situation which will happen if the accused fails to prove
all the elements necessary for the circumstance.
s
THIRD CIRCUMSTANCE:
LAWFUL EXERCISE OF OFFICE
If the action is due to the requirements and mandates of
one’s office, then he or she is justified from the act. The
classic example here is the executioner before when
death penalty was still allowed.
However, it is important that the act was done properly.
Thus, if the execution was done three hours earlier, which
the President is still able to give pardon, then the lawful
exercise of office can no more be availed.
OBEDIENCE FROM SUPERIOR
FOR SOME LAWFUL PURPOSE
(6) Any person who acts in obedience of an order
issued by a superior for some lawful purpose.
ELEMENTS
1. Than an order has been issued by a superior.
2. That such order must be for some lawful purpose.
3. That the means used by the subordinate to carry
out said order is lawful.
When the Order is Not for a Lawful Purpose, the
Subordinate Who Followed It is Criminally Liable
The following are instances that capture such
contemplation:
• Even if ordered by a superior to prepare a
falsified document is not excused, for the
instruction was for unlawful purpose.
• An order by a sergeant to a soldier to torture a
person is illegal and cannot be justified.
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES FROM
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
Justifying Circumstances Exempting Circumstances
Affects the act not actor Affects actor not the act
Done in accordance to Act is actually wrongful,
law and legitimate but actor is not liable
Act is lawful, no crime Act is wrong and a crime
but actor had acted
without voluntariness,
thus, no dolo or culpa.
No crime and no criminal Crime but no criminal
No criminal liability and No criminal liability but
no civil liability (except there is civil liability
Article 11(4) on state of (except Article 12 (4 and
necessity) (7) on mere accident or
prevent by lawful or
insuperable cause.
Unintentional acts which May be invoked in those
incompatible with dolo of culpable felonies.
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
Exempting circumstances are those which relates to
non-imputability, and that there is complete absence of
voluntariness, precisely absence of freedom, intelligence,
and intent or negligence.
Technically, one who acts by virtue in any of the
exempting circumstances commits a crime, although
there exists to be a complete absence of voluntariness
thus no criminal liability can arise.
IMBECILITY OR INSANITY
(1) An imbecile or insane person, unless the latter
had acted during a lucid interval.
When the imbecile or an insane person has
committed an act to which the defines as a
felony (delito), the court shall order his
confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums
established for persons thus afflicted, which he
shall not be permitted to leave without first
obtaining the permission of the same court.
Imbecility Distinguished from Insanity
While the imbecile is exempt in all cases from criminal
liability, the insane is not so exempt if it can be shown that
he acted during a lucid interval.
An imbecile is one who, while advanced in age, has a
mental development comparable to that of children
between two and seven years of age. An imbecile is
deprived completely of reason or discernment and
freedom of the will.
An insane is one who is completely deprived of
intelligence or freedom of the will. The mere
abnormality of mental faculties is not enough, especially
if the offender has not lost consciousness of his acts. At
most, it is only a mitigating circumstance.
NOTE: The court shall order his confinement in one of the
hospitals or asylums established for persons thus
afflicted, which they will not permitted to leave without
obtaining first permission of the same court. However,
the court has no power, unless the Director of Health
presents that the insane may be released without danger.
Burden of Proof is on the Defense
The presumption is always in favor of sanity such that
the defense is given the burden of proof to show to the
courts that there is insanity (People v. Bascos).
s
Overthrowing the Presumption of Sanity
In order to ascertain the person’s mental condition at the
time of the act, it is permissible to receive evidence of the
condition of his mind during a reasonable period both
before and after that time. Mind can only be known by
outward acts (People v. Bonoan).
Time when accused Effect on Criminal
suffers insanity Liability
At the time of the Exempt from criminal
commission of the crime liability
During trial Proceedings will be
suspended and accused is
sent to the hospital
After judgment or while Execution of judgment is
serving sentence suspended and
committed to a hospital
NOTE: The period of confinement in the hospital is
counted for the purpose of the prescription of the
penalty.
Tests of Insanity
In People v. Rafanan, Jr., the Formigones standard was
analyzed into two distinguishable tests.
1. Test of Cognition
This was whether a complete deprivation of intelligence
in committing the act, and
2. Test of Volition
This was whether there was a total deprivation of
freedom of the will.
It is observed that jurisprudence would show that the
courts shows common reliance on the test of cognition,
rather than on the test of volition, because it is difficult
to find a case on the deprivation on the freedom of the
will without accompanying complete deprivation of
intelligence.
CONDITIONS COVERED BY INSANITY
1. Schizophrenia
This condition is formerly known as dementia praecox,
this is a mental disorder characterized by inability to
distinguish between fantasy from reality. It is often
accompanied by hallucinations or delusions.
In People v. Organista, the fact that he was previously
treated for schizophrenia in a mental hospital is not
exempt from criminal liability in the absence of
convincing evidence that he had not been in the right.
Mere prior confinement does not prove anything.
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
2. Kleptomania
The case of a person suffering from kleptomania that has
committed theft, it has to be shown that the unlawful act
was due to his mental defect, rendering the person not in
control of the action which leads to an irresistible impulse.
3. Epilepsy
This is a chronic nervous disease characterized by fits
occurring at intervals, when an epileptic commits a felony
during an epileptic fit, then he or she is exempted from
criminal liability. Otherwise, the defense under Article
12(1) cannot be used.
4. Somnambulism
As ruled in People v. Bascos, the law presumes sanity,
thus if it was really committed in a dream, then it had to
be proven that there was absence of voluntariness as
ruled in People v. Taneo.
5. Malignant Malaria
In People v. Lacena, it was held that one who suffers
from such disease can have nervous system
complications like insanity and acute melancholia. Thus,
the wife was acquitted in killing her husband.
The following are not considered exempted:
1. Feeblemindedness
In People v. Formigones, this is a situation where a
person could distinguish from right or wrong thus he is
not an imbecile.
2. Pedophilia
In People v. Diaz 320 SCRA 168, it was held that a
person suffering from pedophilia can still distinguish
from what is right and what is wrong despite having
sexual fantasies to children.
3. Amnesia
In People v. Tabugoca, amnesia in and of itself, is no
defense to a criminal charge unless it was shown that
there is complete absence of intelligence. Failure to
remember is not in itself a proof of the mental condition
when the crime was performed.
The basis is always that there is always a complete
absence of intelligence, thus it is always to be
remembered that persons who are considered imbecile
are known to be unable to distinguish between right or
wrong.
Those persons who are insane are considered to be
deprived of intelligence due to the condition.
s
 MINORITY
(2) A person under nine years of age.
Amended by RA 10630 (RA 9344)
SECTION 3.
Section 6 of Republic Act No. 9344 is hereby
amended to read as follows:
"SEC. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal
Responsibility. – A child fifteen (15) years of
age or under at the time of the commission of
the offense shall be exempt from criminal
liability. However, the child shall be subjected
to an intervention program pursuant to Section
20 of this Act.”
“A child is deemed to be fifteen (15) years of
age on the day of the fifteenth anniversary of
his/her birthdate.”
(3) A person over nine years of age and under fifteen, unless
he has acted with discernment, in which case, such minor
shall be prosecuted against in accordance with the
provisions of Article 80 of this Code.
Amended by RA 10630 (RA 9344)
SECTION 3.
Section 6 of Republic Act No. 9344 is hereby
amended to read as follows:
xxx
“A child above fifteen (15) years but below
eighteen (18) years of age shall likewise be
exempt from criminal liability and be subjected
to an intervention program, unless he/she has
acted with discernment, in which case, such
child shall be subjected to the appropriate
proceedings in accordance with this Act.
"The exemption from criminal liability herein
established does not include exemption from
civil liability, which shall be enforced in
accordance with existing laws."
Article 12(3) of the Revised Penal Code
Impliedly Repealed by RA 9344 and RA 10630
Under Section 3 of RA 10630 which amends Section 6 of
RA 9344 increased the age of absolute irresponsibility
from nine to fifteen years of age. It must be understood
those children 15 years of age or under at the time of the
commission of the offense. They are deemed exempted
from criminal liability. Those who 15 above and under 18
who acted without discernment is also exempted.
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
Child in Conflict with the Law (CICL)
It refers to a child who is alleged as, accused of, or
adjudged as, having committed an offense under
Philippine laws. A person who at the time of the
commission of the offense is below 19 but not less than
15 years and 1-day old (Section 1, AM No. 02-1-18-SC).
Discernment
It means the capacity of the child at the time of the
commission to understand the difference between right
and wrong and the consequences of the wrongful act. It
is the mental capacity of a minor to fully appreciate the
consequences of his unlawful acts.
Discernment distinguished from Intent
In Guevarra v. Almodovar, this case was still before
effectivity of RA 9344, a child of 11 years of age played
with air rifle while shooting bottle caps. Unfortunately, his
friend Teodoro was hit by a pellet on his left collarbone
leading to his death. Prosecution however charged the
accused child of reckless imprudence due to negligence
stating that there is no intent thus no discernment.
The court ruled however that the terms intent and
discernment convey two distinct thoughts and are never
synonymous. The former refers to the desired of one’s
act while the latter refers to the moral significance a
person ascribes to the act. Hence, the shooter might not
intend to shoot but he may know the consequences of
his acts.
Discernment Can be Shown Through:
1. Manner of committing crime
In People v. Cortezano 411 SCRA 431 it declared that
the accused acted with discernment when the group of
minors designated a lookout, wetted the vagina of the
victim and even laughed while committing the crime.
2. Conduct of Offender
In People v. Alcabao, a child was using slingshots to hit
the mango fruit to get it but instead hit the victim. After
being scolded by the victim, the child shouted back,
“Putang ina mo! Mabuti nga sa’yo! Mamatay ka!” The
court ruled that such statement reflected satisfaction and
elation that it showed discernment of the child.
In Madali v. People, after Rodel punched Jovencio and
hanged him to a tree, he threatened victim not to reveal
their hideous acts to anyone or else he will kill him. Rodel
then knew that such act is condemnable and be kept in
secret thus had discernment knowing the unlawful
consequences of the act.
s
Periods of Criminal Responsibility ACCIDENT DUE TO LAWFUL ACT
Age Responsibility Penalty (4) Any person who, while performing a lawful act
with due care, causes an injury to another by
15 years below Age of Exempted
mere accident without fault or intention of
absolute Intervention
causing it.
criminal Section 20 of RA
irresponsibility 9344
ELEMENTS UNDER ARTICLE 12(4)
15 years and 1 Age of Exempted
1. A person is performing a lawful act
day but below conditional Intervention
2. With due care
18 years of age responsibility Section 20 of RA
3. Causes an injury to another by mere accident
without 9344
4. Without fault or intention on causing it
discernment
15 years and 1 Age of Privileged
Article 12(4) Has No Civil Liability
day but below conditional Mitigating
This together with Article 12(7) are the only exempting
18 years of age responsibility Circumstance
circumstances with no civil liability because of absence of
with of Article 68
intent or fault and also absence of intelligence.
discernment Diversion
Chapter 2 of RA
Accident from Negligence
9344
An accident is something that happens outside the sway
18 years of age Age of full Normal
of our will, and although it comes about through some
to 70 years responsibility
act of our will, it lies beyond the bounds of humanly
Above 70 years Age of Ordinary
possible consequences. If it was foreseeable, it will be a
of age mitigated Mitigating
case of negligence. In People v. Fallorina, it was held
responsibility Circumstance
that accident and negligence are intrinsically
Of Article 13(2)
contradictory, there can never be negligence and
absence together.
Presumption of Minority
The children in conflict with the law shall enjoy the
Q. Jay was hunting chickens with John. When Jay fired the
presumption of minority and shall enjoy all rights of a
bullet aimed towards the chicken it recoiled towards John
child in conflict with the law until proven to be 18 years
killing him. Can he claim accident under Article 12(4)?
old or older at the time of the commission of the offense.
A. Yes. It is because he was doing a lawful act and there
Determination of Age
was no intention nor fault in causing it for he had done
In accordance with AM No. 01-1-18-SC the rules are:
all the correct aiming to the chicken. The recoil was not
1. Original Birth Certificate
foreseen and there was no intention on harming him.
2. Similar authentic documents such as baptismal
This is the case of US v. Tañedo.
certificates and school records or any pertinent
document that shows the date of birth
Q. When a bus was on the slow-moving side of the road
3. Testimony of a member of the family related by
running at 30 Km/H, a cyclist moving opposite to the
affinity or consanguinity, testimonies of other
road on the sidewalk bumped on a stone, he then fell to
persons and physical appearance
the road right where the front of the wheel of the bus
was, then had his head crushed by the moving bus. Can
RA 9344 Applies Retroactively
the bus company claim under Article 12(4)?
In Ortega v. People, the accused was 13 years old at the
time of the commission of the crime, then when RA 9344
A. Yes. As similarly held in old case of US v. Knight, there
was effective he was already 25 years old.
was no more way for the bus to avoid such unfortunate
death because the cyclist fell just in front of the wheel of
The court held in this case the it applies. RA 9344 applies
the bus while it was moving.
retroactively to the accused for the reckoning point was
the age at the time of the commission of the crime, for
The bus was moving at a lawful speed, there was clearly
which the accused was 13 years of age at that time. Laws
no intention, and no fault can be attributed for it was
favorable to the accused shall have retroactive effect.
beyond foresight. It is considered an accident.

From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes s
 IRRESISTIBLE FORCE AND UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR
(5) Any person who acts under the compulsion of
an irresistible force
(6) Any person who acts under the impulse of an
uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater
injury
These two exempting circumstances presupposes that a
person is compelled to commit a crime by another but:
• Article 12(5) is by means of force, violence or
physical force to commit a crime.
• Article 12(6) is by means of intimidation or threat,
not force or violence.
The basis of Article 12(5) and (6) is the absence of
freedom. There is intelligence, there may be intent or fault
but there is no freedom. You were compelled against
your will to commit the felony. Thus, the maxim stating,
“actus me invito factus non est meus actus” meaning
that an act done against my will is not my act.
ELEMENTS OF IRRESISTIBLE FORCE
1. Compulsion is by means of physical force
2. That the physical force must be irresistible
3. That the physical force must come from a third
person
ELEMENTS OF UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR
1. That the threat which caused the fear is of an evil
greater than, or at least equal to that which he is
required to commit.
2. That it promises an evil of such gravity and
imminence that the ordinary man would have
succumbed to it.
Irresistible Force: US v. Caballeros
Baculi, a farmer, one of the accused who was not a
member of the band which murdered school-teachers,
was just in the plantation gathering bananas. Upon
hearing the shooting, he ran. He was seen by the band
and called him. Striking with the buts of their guns, they
compelled him to bury the bodies.
He was then charged as an accessory. Baculi was not
criminally liable as accessory for concealing the body of
the crime of murder committed by the band, because he
acted under the compulsion of an irresistible force.
NOTE: It must come from a third person, passion or
obfuscation from within is not an irresistible force
contemplated by law under Article 12(5).
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
Uncontrollable Fear: People v. Moreno
Accused was charged with murder for killing fellow
Filipinos upon order. Moreno claimed that he could not
refuse to comply with the order. If he will not comply, the
Japanese soldiers will take him along with them.
According to the court, this is not a fear of even equal
injury. Killing fellow Filipinos is not similar to be taken
along with the soldiers. In addition, the fear was
speculative, fanciful and remote.
NOTE: Threat of future injury is not enough, what the law
requires that there should be real, imminent, and
reasonable fear. Duress is such ground.
PREVENTED BY LAWFUL OR INSUPERABLE CAUSE
(7) Any person who fails to perform an act
required by law, when prevented by some
lawful or insuperable cause.
ELEMENTS
1. That an act is required by law to be done;
2. That a person fails to perform such act;
3. That his failure to perform such act was due to
some lawful or insuperable cause.
This is an exempting circumstance that is based on the
felonies by omission.
a. When prevented by some lawful cause
The usual example is when a confessor states to the priest
about him being a co-conspirator in the crime of treason.
The law under Article 116 of the RPC requires individuals
to report such knowledge or else he will be charged of
misprision of treason. Here the priest is prevented by
some lawful cause, which is the secrecy of confession.
b. When prevented by some insuperable cause
Insuperable cause refers to a cause beyond the control
of the peace officer.
Under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, law
enforcement officers are required to deliver the body of
those accused arrested without a warrant of arrest within
a certain time period or else they will be charged with
Delay in the Delivery of Detained Persons to Proper
Judicial Authorities. However, if the accused was caught
in a barangay in the hinterlands and it normally takes 3
to 4 days to reach the town where the court is found, and
keeps the person more than the prescribed time, he can
be exempted.
s
Absolutory causes are those where the act committed is
a crime but for the reasons of public policy and sentiment
there is no penalty imposed.
1. Spontaneous desistance
Article 6 – The spontaneous desistance of a person
who commenced the commission of the felony
because he could perform all the acts of execution.
2. Attempted or Frustrated light felonies
Article 7 – Light felonies are punishable only when
they have been consummated, except those
committed against persons or property.
Thus, it is acceptable that those attempted or frustrated
light felonies committed are not punishable, except when
they are committed against persons or property.
3. Accessory is relative of the principal
Article 20 – The penalties ascribed for accessories
shall not be imposed upon those who are such with
respect to their spouses, ascendants, descendants,
legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and
sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same
degrees.
The law understands our defense towards our closest of
kin. Single exception, when the accessories mentioned
above have fulfilled the condition under Article 19(1),
when they committed “by profiting themselves or
assisting the offenders to profit by the effects of the crime.”
4. Legal Grounds for Arbitrary Detention
Article 124. The commission of a crime, or violent
insanity or any other ailment requiring the
compulsory confinement of the patient in a
hospital, shall be considered legal grounds for the
detention of any person.
Thus, when an insane has exhibited violent insanity or any
other ailment, his or her confinement in the hospital
cannot be considered a ground for arbitrary detention.
5. Physical Injuries Inflicted upon Surprise of
Illicit Carnal Knowledge of Spouse
Article 247. Death or physical injuries inflicted
under exceptional circumstances. If the spouse
found surprised caught spouse in the act of
committing sexual intercourse with another
person and kills or inflict serious either or both of
them one is liable and shall suffer destierro. But if
he inflicts physical injuries of any other kind, he is
exempted from punishment.
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
6. Legal Grounds on Trespass to Dwelling
Article 280. However, it is stated under the law
that, there is no crime of trespass to dwelling if a
person:
(1) shall enter another’s dwelling for the purpose
of preventing some serious harm to himself,
the occupants of the dwelling, or a third
person;
(2) who shall enter a dwelling for the purpose of
rendering some service to humanity or justice;
(3) nor to anyone who shall enter cafes, taverns,
inn, and other public houses, while the same
are open.
7. Swindling or Malicious Mischief on Relatives
Article 332. No criminal liability, but only civil
liability shall result from the commission of the
crime of theft, swindling, or malicious mischief
committed or caused mutually by the following
persons:
1. Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or
relatives by affinity in the same line;
2. The widowed spouse with respect to the
property which belonged to the deceased
spouse before the same shall have passed into
the possession of another; and
3. Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and
sisters-in-law, if living together. The
exemption established by this article shall not
be applicable to strangers participating in the
commission of the crime.
8. Marriage extinguishing Criminal Action
Article 344 (4). In cases of seduction, abduction,
acts of lasciviousness and rape, the marriage of the
offender with the offended party shall extinguish
the criminal action or remit the penalty already
imposed upon him. The provisions of this
paragraph shall also be applicable to the co-
principals, accomplices and accessories after the
fact of the above-mentioned crimes.
Reflected in Article 266-C of RA 8353, Pardoned
Article 266-C. The subsequent valid marriage between
the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action
or the penalty imposed. "In case it is the legal husband
who is the offender, the subsequent forgiveness by the
wife as the offended party shall extinguish the criminal
action or the penalty: Provided, That the crime shall not
be extinguished or the penalty shall not be abated if the
marriage is void ab initio.
s
 9. Mistake of Fact Complete Defense in Criminal Cases
The offender is acting without criminal intent. So, 1. Any of the essential elements of the crime is not
in mistake of fact, it is necessary that had the facts proved by the prosecution and the elements
been true as the accused believed them to be, this proved do not constitute any crime.
act is justified. 2. The act falls under any of the justifying
circumstances.
If not, there is criminal liability, because there is no 3. The case of the accused falls under any of the
mistake of fact anymore. The offender must exempting circumstances.
believe he is performing a lawful act. 4. The case is covered by any of the absolutory
causes.
10. Instigation 5. Guilt of the accused is not established beyond
The accused when induced to commit a crime when reasonable doubt.
he was instigated to commit such is not criminally 6. Prescription of crimes.
liable (US v. Phelps, 16 PHIL 440) 7. Pardon by the offended party before the
institution of the criminal action in crime against
Instigation chastity.
This is where a public officer or a private detective
induces an innocent person to commit a crime and
would arrest him after the commission of the crime by
the latter. It is an absolutory cause, this is due to public Mitigating circumstances are those which, if present in
policy. This is because the peace officer should be the last the commission of the crime, do not entirely free the
one to instigate a crime. actor from criminal liability, but serve only to reduce the
penalty of such.
Entrapment; Not an Absolutory Cause
In an entrapment however, a person has planned and is It is based on the diminution of either freedom of action,
about to commit a crime, and ways and means are intelligence, or intent or to a lesser perversity of the
resorted to catch a public officer. Entrapment is not a offender. There is the less degree of voluntariness.
defense; the peace officer was just pretending along.
CLASSES OF MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Take note that in entrapment, the idea of committing the 1. Ordinary mitigating circumstance
crime did not come from the policeman but from the These are mitigating circumstances that can be offset, the
person arrested. The policeman only resorted to ways usual effect of a mitigating circumstance is to reduce the
and means to catch the criminal in the act of selling. But penalty to a minimum.
in instigation, the idea of committing the crime came • Ordinary mitigating circumstances cover those
from the policeman himself. It was he who induces an under Article 13(2) on senility under 13(10).
innocent person to commit a crime.
2. Privileged mitigating circumstance
INSTIGATION ENTRAPMENT A privileged mitigating circumstance however cannot be
Trap against an Trap against an offset by an aggravating circumstance, usually the
unwary innocent unwary criminal penalty is reduced by degree not periods.
Instigator induces the Ways and means are • Article 68 on minority
accused to commit the resorted to for the • Article 69 on incomplete justifying or exempting
crime, thus he becomes a capture of the lawbreaker
co-principal himself in the execution of his a. Specific privileged mitigating circumstance
criminal plan These are which the law itself states that the law
The plan originated from The plan originated from itself should prescribe a lesser penalty.
the mind of the peace the mind of the criminal. (Article 268 and Article 333)
officer and suggests to
the accused. b. Special privileged mitigating circumstance
It is an absolutory cause, Not a bar to the Article 64 (5). If there are two ordinary
acquitting the accused. prosecution or conviction mitigating circumstances and no aggravating
of the lawbreaker.
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes s
 circumstance present, the court shall impose
the penalty next lower.
INCOMPLETE JUSTIFYING AND EXEMPTING
(1) Those mentioned in the preceding chapter
when all the elements necessary to justify the
act or to exempt from criminal liability in the
respective cases are not attendant.
This applies when all the requisites necessary to justify
the act or to exempt from criminal liability are not
attendant. If majority of the requisites are present. Before
going to the circumstances, it is important to examine
Article 69 because of its application in Article 13(1).
Article 69. Penalty to be imposed when the crime
committed is not wholly excusable. – A penalty lower
by one or two degrees than that prescribed by law
shall be imposed if the deed is not wholly excusable
by reason of the lack of some of the conditions
required to justify the same or to exempt from criminal
liability in the several cases mentioned in Article 11
and 12, provided that majority of such conditions be
present. The courts shall impose the penalty in the
period which may be deemed proper, in view of the
number and nature of the conditions of exemption
present or lacking.
Important points to remember:
• Article 69 provides the incomplete justifying or
exempting circumstance with an effect of a
privileged mitigating circumstance when majority
of the requisites are present.
• If there is no majority, but the essential elements are
present, like unlawful aggression, then Article 13(1)
can still be applied but only of an ordinary
mitigating circumstance.
INCOMPLETE JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
1. Incomplete self-defense, defense of relatives,
and defense of stranger [Art.11(1), (2) and (3)]
There should always be unlawful aggression and any of
the other two requisites such is considered a privileged
mitigating circumstance in accordance to Article 69.
Q. What if there is only unlawful aggression without the
two other requisites?
A. Given that Article 69 cannot apply for there is no
majority, Article 13(1) can still be used and it can become
an ordinary mitigating.
2. Incomplete state of necessity [Art.11(4)]
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
There should always be an evil that exists and any of
the other two requisites. Then it is a privileged
mitigating circumstance.
3. Incomplete fulfillment of duty of lawful
exercise of right or office [Article 11(5)]
Here there are only two elements; (a) there must be a
duty, lawful right or office and that (b) the injury caused
must be due to the exercise of such. As held in People v.
Oanis, when the circumstance has only two elements,
Article 69 shall apply, thus it is a privileged mitigating
circumstance.
4. Incomplete justifying circumstance of
obedience to order [Article 11(6)]
When there is absence of any of its requisites then it is a
privileged mitigating circumstance.
INCOMPLETE EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
It is important to note that Article 12(1) and (2) are not
covered under Article 13(1) because there is no middle
ground for insanity, imbecility or even absence of
intelligence.
1. Incomplete exempting circumstance of
minority over 15 and under 18 [RA 9344]
When a minor in the age of conditional responsibility acts
with discernment then there is a lacking element in
Section 6 of RA 9344 as amended by RA 10630. Thus, one
is entitled to a privileged mitigating circumstance
under Article 68 of RPC as amended by RA 9344 of the
Juvenile Justice Welfare Act of 2006.
2. Incomplete exempting circumstance of
accident [Art.12 (4)]
The elements include that a person while (1) performing
a lawful act (2) with due care, (3) causes an injury by mere
accident, (4) without (a)fault or (b) intention in causing it.
If elements 2 and 4(a) absent, mitigating circumstance
due to a negligence or imprudent [Art. 365]. If elements
1 and 4(b) are absent then the act is unlawful and
intentional, thus there is no mitigating circumstance.
3. Incomplete exempting circumstance of
uncontrollable fear [Art. 12(6)]
There are two elements (1) the threat which caused fear
is greater or equal to that done to commit it and (2) evil
is of such gravity or imminence than an ordinary person
would succumb to it. If only one is present it is considered
a privileged mitigating circumstance.
s
NOTE: It is under the court’s discretion to impose
whether one or two degrees in case Article 69 becomes
applicable given the present elements necessary to
justify the act or to exempt from criminal liability.
MINORITY AND SENILITY
(2) That the offender is under eighteen years of age
or over seventy years. In the case of the minor he
shall be prosecuted against in accordance with the
provisions of Article 80 (Amended by RA 9344; RA 10630)
Before the effectivity of RA 9346, which effectively
suspended death penalty in the Philippines, seniors who
are over 70 years of age and are sentenced to the penalty
of death will have to be lowered to reclusion perpetua or
life imprisonment. Due to the belief that the person had
diminution of intelligence at the commission of crime.
PRAETER INTENTIONEM
(3) That the offender had no intention to commit
so grave a wrong as that committed.

This is also known as the mitigating circumstance of
minority or senility. Again, this looks upon the
determination of one’s mental liability. Most of this
provision except on seniority is impliedly repealed upon
the effectivity of RA 9344 as amended by RA 10630.
This circumstance shall only apply when there is notable
and evident disproportion between the means
employed to execute the criminal act and its
consequences like in People v. Cagoco. This
circumstance can only be applied to intentional felonies.

Criminal Responsibility and Age Important Principles under Article 13(3)

Age Responsibility Penalty • The weapon used, part of the body inured and
15 years below Age of Exempted injury may show intention which may negate the
absolute Intervention applicability of Article 13(3).
criminal Section 20 of RA • When there is brute force, Article 13(3) cannot be
irresponsibility 9344 applied due to the control of the blow.
15 years and 1 Age of Exempted • Cannot be applied to murder with treachery, for
day but below conditional Intervention such shows intent to commit so grave a wrong.
18 years of age responsibility Section 20 of RA • Applied when unintentional abortion was due to
without 9344 the violence inflicted to the woman.
discernment
15 years and 1 Age of Privileged Basis: There is lessened intent under this circumstance.
day but below conditional Mitigating
18 years of age responsibility Circumstance SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION
with of Article 68 IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ACT
discernment Diversion (4) That sufficient provocation or threat on the
Chapter 2 of RA part of the offended party immediately
9344 preceded the attack.
18 years of age Age of full Normal
to 70 years responsibility ELEMENTS
Above 70 years Age of Ordinary 1. That the provocation or threat must be sufficient
of age mitigated Mitigating 2. That it must originate from the offended party
responsibility Circumstance 3. That the provocation must be immediate to the act
Of Article 13(2)
Provocation
Diversion, Defintion This is understood as any unjust or improper conduct or
This refers to an alternative, child-appropriate process of act of the offended party, capable of exciting, inciting, or
determining the responsibility and treatment of a child in irritating any one.
conflict with the law on the basis of his/her social,
cultural, economic, psychological, or education 1. SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION shows that it is
background without resulting to formal court adequate to excite the person to commit the wrong and
proceedings. must accordingly be proportionate to its gravity. Vague
threats will not suffice as sufficient provocation. As cited
Seniority is Ordinary Mitigating Circumstance in People v. Marquez, a man jumped out of the window
and wife asked forgiveness, this is sufficient provocation.

From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes s
2. IT MUST ORIGINATE FROM THE OFFENDED PARTY 3. People v. Benito, six hours was enough to recover
It must directly come from the offended party, not from serenity after, composure test.
his mother or anyone else. In self-defense, it must absent 4. People v. Lopez, daughter was called a “flirt” and
from the other party. In invoking this mitigating stabbed the person two months not proximate.
circumstance, it must present from the offended party.
Provocation Vindication
3. PROVOCATION OR THREAT WAS IMMEDIATE TO Made directly to the May be committed to
THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME. There should not be person committing the one’s relatives until those
any interval of time. Same as threat, both should be of felony of affinity in same degree
imminent or actual existence. As ruled again however, The cause of provocation The offended party must
vague threats are not sufficient. need not be a grave have done a grave
offense offense to the offender.
Basis: Diminution of intelligence and intent. Necessary that the The vindication of the
provocation or threat offense may be done
VINDICATION OF A GRAVE OFFENSE immediately preceded after a lapse of time but
(5) That the act was committed in the immediate the act such that there is must be proximate, as
vindication of a grave offense to the one no interval of time. long as there is relation of
committing the felony (delito), his spouse, the cause and effect.
ascendant, descendants, legitimate, natural, or
adopted brothers or sisters, or relatives by PASSION OR OBFUSCATION
affinity within the same degrees. (6) That of having acted of an impulse so powerful
as naturally to have produced passion or
The essence of this circumstance is rooted in revenge or obfuscation.
retaliation, our laws do not justify revenge. It is important
that term grave offense here does not refer to those Basis: When there are causes naturally producing in a
under Article 9, this means that it is a serious offense to person powerful excitement, he loses his reason and self-
the one committing the felony (People v. Ampar). control thereby diminishing the exercise of his willpower.
It is important that it should arise from lawful
ELEMENTS OF VINDICATION OF GRAVE OFFENSE sentiments, or else this circumstance cannot be used.
1. That there be grave offense done to the one
committing the felony, his spouse, ascendants, ELEMENTS OF PASSION OR OBFUSCATION
descendants, legitimate, natural, or adopted 1. That there be an act, both unlawful and sufficient
brothers or sisters, or relatives by affinity within to produce such condition of the mind; and
the same degrees; 2. That said act which produced the obfuscation
2. That the felony is committed in vindication of was not far removed from the commission of the
such grave offense. A lapse of time is allowed crime by a considerable length of time, during
between the vindication and the offense. which the perpetrator might recover his normal
equanimity.
Immediate in Article 12(5) means Proximate
In proximate, the act is not literally immediate but what Q. Juan’s carabao grazed off on Lucio’s sugarcane
is important is the relation of cause and effect. In plantation. Lucio attempted to take away Juan’s carabao
People v. Diokno, the boy brought the girl to his house, away, Juan shot Lucio killing him due to the act of taking
the father searched for her daughter for three days his carabao. Can he claim passion or obfuscation?
furious against the boy. Thus, three days here is still
considered proximate. To determine lapse of time there A. No. As held in People v. Noynay, the act which caused
is need to conduct a composure test. the passion or obfuscation was lawful, thus he cannot
claim under such.
Certain cases discussing lapse of time:
1. People v. Palaan, killing of the paramour after one NOTE: The crime committed must be the result of a
day was considered proximate. sudden impulse of an uncontrollable or natural fury.
2. People v. Ignas, a passage of a fourth night was Thus, any kind of planning and meditation can never be
sufficient to cool down after an incident of infidelity, mitigated by reason of passion or obfuscation.
two weeks is not proximate.

From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes s
Article 13(5) cannot co-exist with Article 13(6), EXCEPTION: When there are other facts, although closely
vindication very different from passion or obfuscation, connected. In People v. Diokno, both can be considered
vindication contemplates some kind retaliation or when the other circumstance may be appreciated as
revenge, while passion is due to emotion. based on the other fact.

Principles under 13(6) Passion and obfuscation is also incompatible with

1. Passion or obfuscation must arise from lawful a. Treachery, Article 14 (16)
sentiments b. Evident Premeditation, Article 14 (13)
The usual case to be illustrated is the case of US v. Hicks, In both aggravating circumstances, the mitigating
this is when the lived illicitly as husband and wife for five circumstance of passion or obfuscation cannot be used
years, then the wife left to live with another man. Enraged because both considered deliberate intention not arising
by such conduct, the man killed the woman. In this case, from passion.
the court did not award the mitigating circumstance of
passion, because the passion did not come from Provocation Passion or Obfuscation
legitimate feelings, and not those from immoral Comes from the injured Produced by an impulse
passions. party which may be caused by
provocation
In US v. De la Cruz however, it was applied because of It must immediately It need not be immediate,
the sudden reveal of disloyalty as the man caught his precede the commission it is only required of that
common-law spouse in flagrante towards another man. of the crime influence thereof lasts
In both the effect is loss of reason and self-control on
2. Passion or obfuscation must not be the part of the offender.
committed in a spirit of revenge
In People v. Caliso, a maid was scolded by the employer Irresistible Force Passion or Obfuscation
and due to it, she got so emotional and killed their baby. Exempting circumstance Mitigating circumstance
In this case, passion or obfuscation cannot be applied Requires physical force A condition of mind
because the sentiment was generated by spirit of Must come from a third Is already in the offender
revenge. person himself
Unlawful sources Must arise from lawful
3. Passion or obfuscation must not be sentiments
committed in the spirit of lawlessness
In People v. Sanico and Court of Appeals, the accused
VOLUNTARY SURRENDER
who rape a woman is not entitled to the mitigating
OR CONFESSION OF GUILT
circumstance of “having acted upon an impulse so
(7) That the offender had voluntarily surrendered
powerful as naturally to have produced passion” just
himself to a person in authority or his agent, or
because he finds himself with that ravishing woman.
that he had voluntarily confessed his guilt
before the court prior to the presentation of
Q. Allan maltreated his two employees by whipping
the evidence for the prosecution.
rattan sticks at them while working in the sugarcane
plantation, after some period of time, the two employees
Under this circumstance, there are two mitigating
attacked back Allan, killing him after. Can the two
circumstances, thus if two are present then the accused
employees claim under Article 13(4), (5) and (6)?
is definitely entitled to two mitigating circumstances.
1. Voluntary surrender
A. No. Provocation and obfuscation arising from one and
2. Voluntary confession of guilt
the same cause should be treated as only one mitigating
circumstance. This is because they have a common
ELEMENTS OF VOLUNTARY SURRENDER
denominator – that the mind is overwhelmed by
1. That the offender had not been actually arrested
emotion or anger.
2. That the offender surrendered himself to a
person in authority or his agents
Vindication and Passion or Obfuscation Incompatible
3. That the surrender was voluntary
When arising from the same source, the proximate
vindication of a grave offense cannot co-exist with
passion and obfuscation.

From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes s
A surrender to be voluntary must be spontaneous,
showing the intent of the accused to submit himself
unconditionally to the authorities, either that (1) he
acknowledges his guilt, (2) because he wishes to save
them the trouble and expenses necessarily incurred in
the attempt of his search and capture.
Offender Had Not Been Actually Arrested
When the offender is in fact arrested, this circumstance
shall not apply. There can be no more voluntary
surrender when the offender is in fact arrested.
However, the offender can still surrender as long as he
was not actually arrested, even if an order of arrest was
already given by the courts. For the law does not require
that the surrender be before the order of the arrest
(Rivera v. Court of Appeals).
NOTE: People v. Babiera, when the accused helped in
carrying his victim to the hospital this is tantamount to
voluntary surrender.
Surrender to Persons in Authority or Agents
Article 152 of the Revised Penal Code names persons in
authority as those persons vested with jurisdiction in
charge with enforcement of law. A person who by direct
provision of law or by election or appointment is charged
with the maintenance of public order and the protection
of life and property like the baranggay chairman.
ELEMENTS OF CONFESSION OF GUILT
1. That the offender spontaneously confessed his guilt
2. That the confession of guilt was made in open court,
that is before the competent court that is to try the
case
3. That the confession of guilt was made prior to the
presentation of evidence for the prosecution
Plea of Guilty Before Presentation of
Evidence by the Prosecution
This is because the offender’s confession must not be
based on speculation on the basis of evidence
presented. This is because it is considered an act of
repentance and respect for the law as it indicates a
lesser perversity of the person.
NOTE: It is allowed for an offender to change his plea
from not guilty to guilty as long as this is done before
the presentation of the evidence of the prosecution if
the offender seeks to have Article 13(7) apply as a
mitigating circumstance on his case.
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
Plea of Guilty is Not Mitigating in Culpable Felonies
and In Crimes Punished by Special Laws
Under Article 365 (5), culpable felonies cannot be
pleaded guilty or not guilty as stated in such provision.
In addition, when the crime is punished by a special law,
Article 64 is not applicable, for the penalties prescribed
in special laws are not divisible into three periods.
DEAF AND DUMB, BLIND OR PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED
(8) That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or
otherwise suffering from some physical defect
which thus restricts his means of action,
defense, or communication with his fellow
beings.
There is diminution of freedom of action, any physical
defect of the accused is automatically mitigating even if
it does not have something to do with the crime. Lie, you
are deaf and dumb, or blind or cripple.
The mere fact that the person is not physically normal,
that is considered automatically as a mitigating
circumstance in his favor because that is a diminution of
his freedom.
ILLNESS AFFECTING WILLPOWER OF OFFENDER
(9) Such illness of the offender as would diminish
the exercise of the willpower of the offender
without however depriving him of
consciousness of his acts.
ELEMENTS
1. That the illness of the offender must diminish the
exercise of his willpower.
2. Such illness should not deprive the offender of
the consciousness of his acts.
NOTE: This presupposes a pathological state that
trouble the conscience or the will. The test to be used
here is the test of volition to check if there is freedom of
the will, as supposed to test of cognition which is used
for Article 12(1) on insanity.
Instances that applied Article 13(9)
1. Mild behavior disorder, although she is mentally
sane, the court is inclined of sympathy due to her
weak character (People v. Amit).
2. Feeblemindedness, this warrants the application
of paragraph 9 because he cannot control his will
like normal (People v. Formigones).
3. Schizo-affective disorder. A chronic mental
disease that affects faculties which is a form of
psychosis which affects the willpower of the
s
 person but did not deprive him of his acts
(People v. Antonio, Jr.).
NOTE: This is different from Article 12(1) because
there is complete absence of voluntariness, while in
this circumstance, it is accepted that the person is not
deprived of the consciousness of his acts.
ANALOGOUS MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE
(10) And, finally, any other circumstance of a
similar nature and analogous to those
abovementioned.
Any circumstance that is like any from paragraph 1 to 9.
IT is quite important to check to following which the
Supreme Court has decide to be similar or analogous
thus falling under Article 13(10).
ANALOGOUS CIRCUMSTANCES:
• Man 60 years of age and of failing sight
This person is of over 70 years of age and falls under the
mitigating circumstance of 12(3) (People v. Reantillo).
• Outraged feeling of owner of animal taken for
ransom
This circumstance is considered a vindication under
Article 13(5) like accused took his carabao for ransom.
• Outraged feeling of creditor versus debtor
This is considered to be falling under Article 13(6) under
passion or obfuscation. A person who killed his debtor,
who tried to escape and refused to pay is entitled to a
mitigating circumstance (People v. Merenillo).
• Impulse of jealous feeling
This is still considered to be under passion or
obfuscation. Thus, when accused committed slander by
charging the offended party with being concubine of the
husband of the accused under the impulse of a jealous
feeling apparently justified (People v. Ubengen).
• Esprit de corps
Mass psychology and appeal to esprit de corps is
considered to be similar to Article 13(6). In People v.
Villamora, many of the soldiers who took part in the
killing responded to the call of the lieutenant for the act
of the deceased was considered to be a grave insult to
their organization.
• Voluntary restitution of property
Considered to be voluntary surrender under Article 13(7).
In People v. Luntao, the voluntary restitution of the
property stolen by the accused or immediately
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
reimbursing the amount malversed is a mitigating
circumstance analogous to voluntary surrender.
• Restitiution in malversation case
Payment or reimbursement is not a defense for
exoneration in malversation; it may only be considered
to be a mitigating circumstance. This is because damage
is not an element of malversation (Perez v. People).
• Extreme poverty and necessity
This is considered under Article 13(1) in relation to an
incomplete Article 11(4) on state of necessity. It is
accepted that in a crime against property like theft, a case
of extreme poverty is considered as an incomplete state
of necessity, for there may be other means of solving
such necessity. However, this cannot be used against
murder cases and when the person impoverished himself
(People v. Agustin; People v. Pujinio).
NOT ANALOGOUS CIRCUMSTANCES
• Not resisting arrest
Not yielding to arrest without the slightest attempt to
resist is not analogous to voluntary surrender as held in
People v. Rabuya.
• Mistake in the blow
• Mistake in the identity of the victim
• Entrapment of the accused
Mitigating Circumstances Personal to the Offenders
1. Moral attributes of the offender
A and B killed C, but then A is acting under the impulse
which produced obfuscation. The circumstance of
obfuscation arose from the moral attribute of A and it
shall mitigate the liability of A only.
2. Private relations to the offended party
A, son of B, committed robbery against the latter, while
C, a stranger, bought the property taken by A from B,
knowing that the property was the effect of the crime of
robbery. The circumstance of relationship arose from the
private relation of A with B and it shall mitigate the
liability of A only. It shall not mitigate the liability of C, an
accessory.
3. From any other personal cause
A, 16 years old and acting with discernment, inflicted
serious physical injuries on C. B, seeing what A had done
to C, kicked the latter, thereby concurring in the criminal
purpose of A and cooperating with him by simultaneous
act. The circumstance of minority arose from other
personal cause and it shall mitigate the liability of A only.
It shall not mitigate the liability of B, an accomplice.
s
NOTE: Mistake in the blow, mistake in the identity of the
victim, entrapment of the accused, when accused is 18
years of age or even performance of righteous action is
not considered.
They are all circumstances which are neither exempting
nor mitigating. Thus, the law cannot provide any effect
on the criminal liability of such.
Aggravating circumstances are those which, if
attendant in the commission of the crime, serve to
increase the penalty to a maximum. This is due to the
greater perversity of the offender.
FOUR KINDS OF AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
1. Generic
These are which generally apply to all crimes:
a. Advantage by public position (1)
b. Contempt or insult of public authority (2)
c. Dwelling of the offended party (3)
d. Abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness (4)
e. Palace and place of commission of offense (5)
f. Nighttime, uninhabited place or band (6)
g. Recidivism (9)
h. Reiteracion (10)
i. Craft, fraud, disguised be employed (14)
j. Unlawful entry (18)
k. Breaking of parts of house (19)
l. Use of persons under 15 years of age (20)
2. Specific
Those which apply only to specific crimes, such as
ignominy in crimes against chastity and cruelty and
treachery which are applicable only to crimes against
persons found in:
a. Disregard of rank, age, or sex (3)
b. Abuse of superior strength (15)
c. Alevosia (16)
d. Ignominy (17)
e. Cruelty in Crimes against persons
3. Qualifying
Those that change the nature of the crime like alevosia in
homicide which qualifies to murder.
4. Inherent
Those that must of necessity accompany the commission
of the crime. Evident premeditation (13) is already
inherent in robbery, theft, estafa, adultery, and
concubinage.
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
5. Special
Increases the penalty be period if found to be present in
the commission of the crime regardless of the presence
of mitigating circumstance.
6. Extraordinary
Those which increase the penalty or that which impose
additional penalties like habitual delinquency.
Generic Qualifying
When not offset by any It places the author
mitigating circumstance, thereof in such a
is to increase the penalty situation as to deserve
which should be imposed no other penalty than
upon the accused to the that specially prescribed
maximum period. by law for said crime.
Can be offset by a Cannot be offset by a
mitigating circumstance mitigating circumstance
Both qualifying and aggravating circumstances must
now be alleged in the information or complaint to be
considered by the court for fixing penalty.
NOTE: When treachery is not alleged in the information,
then it would only be treated as an ordinary aggravating
circumstance not a qualifying circumstance.
Aggravating Circumstances
Which Does Not Increase Penalty
1. Those which in themselves constitute the crime
For example, by means of fire is under Article 14(12)
cannot be used in crime of arson.
2. Those which in themselves included in the
definition of the crime
Unlawful entry in the trespass of dwelling on the house
of another.
3. Inherent to the commission of the crime
Evident premeditation Article 14(13), is considered
inherent in robbery, or those crimes committed public
officers are inherently 14(1).
4. Personal to the offenders like moral attributes
The effect of treachery as aggravating circumstance in
parricide but qualifying in murder.
5. Depend their application upon the knowledge of
offenders
The circumstances which consist in the material
execution of the act and the means employed shall serve
only to aggravate the liability of those persons who had
knowledge of them.
s
Instance. A tells B to kill C. B kills C with treachery without
A knowing. The crimes charged are that murder for B,
homicide for A, even if they are in a conspiracy. Usually,
under conspiracy all the individuals are considered
principals which an act of one is an act of all, but here,
the crime of one is not the crime of all because A did not
have knowledge of the treachery. Thus, the aggravating
circumstance only affects B.
Under the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure,
Qualifying and Aggravating Circumstance Must Now
Be Alleged in the Information
The complaint or information must state not only the
qualifying circumstances but also the aggravating
circumstances. This rule may be now given retroactive
effect because of its applicability in regulating the
procedure of the courts.
If not alleged. The aggravating circumstances then will
not be considered as basis for fixing a heavier penalty but
they can be considered basis for award of damages.
ADVANTAGE OF PUBLIC POSITION
(1) That advantage be taken by the offender of his
public position.
NOTE: Now a special aggravating circumstance under
RA 7659 amending Article 62.
ELEMENTS
1. Offender is a public officer
2. Offender took advantage of this position to
facilitate the commission of the crime
Q. If a Congressman who was caught in during a raid in
the gambling house, can Article 14(1) apply to him?
A. No, in People v. Veloso, the reason is that the
Congressman did not take advantage of the influence or
reputation of his office.
This simply means that the offender would not have
committed the crime if he were not a public officer. The
question should be if the accused abused his office in
order to commit the crime.
NOTE: If the crime is already malversation of funds, this
aggravating circumstance is already inherent to the
definition thus, not affecting penalty.
In US v. Torrida, the councilman was charged for estafa
for collecting fines not mandated by law. Given that he
may not be able to do such without his position, then
Article 14(1) is applicable to aggravate his penalty.
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
Basis: Greater perversity of the offender
Important points:
As a means to realize his purpose; the public officer uses
a. Influence
b. Prestige
c. Ascendancy
CONTEMPT OR INSULT TO
PUBLIC AUTHORITIES
(2) That the crime be committed in contempt or
with insult to the public authorities.
ELEMENTS
1. Public authority is engaged in the exercise of his
functions
2. That he who is thus engaged in the exercise of
said functions is not the person against whom
the crime is committed
3. The offender knows him to be a public authority
4. His presence has not prevented the offender
from committing the criminal act.
Public Authorities
As far as Article 152 is concerned, the term public
authorities cover also the agents. In People v. Rodil, the
Court stated that public authorities are persons in
authority including their agents or persons in authority.
Public authorities are broader, in comparison with the
word persons in authority.
It Should Not be Committed Against Public Authority
Otherwise, one commits direct assault (Article 148)
because this will no more be considered “in contempt or
with insult” to his public position because this is now a
direct crime against that public officer.
Knowledge of Public Authority is Present; Essential
Lack of knowledge means that there is indeed no intent
to commit contempt or insult against them. Thus, if A
killed B in the presence of the town mayor, but he did not
know such, he cannot be made to answer for this
aggravating circumstance.
RANK, AGE, SEX OR DWELLING
(3) That the crime be committed with insult or is in
disregard of the respect due to the offended
party on account of his rank, age, or sex, or that
it be committed in the dwelling of the offended
party, if the latter has not given provocation.
There are four circumstances under this paragraph
s
 1. Rank
2. Age
3. Sex
4. Dwelling
This only applies to crimes against persons or honor,
because even if it included property it does not
distinguish between a male or female on the property
even the rank.
RANK OF THE OFFENDED PARTY
Rank refers to a high social position or standing as a
grade in the armed forces or designation conferred upon
an officer or even in privileges or profession.
There is a need however to prove that there is a deliberate
intent to insult such rank.
AGE OF THE OFFENDED PARTY
The reckoning standard is that “one is old enough to be
the parent of another”, thus an act against an elder,
especially of more than 20 years of gap, is considered a
crime in disregard of the respect on account of age.
In People v. Hernandez, the Court ruled that disregard
of age and sex may be appreciated only on crimes
against persons or honor, because it would be incorrect
to consider these circumstances against property.
SEX OF THE OFFENDED PARTY
In most of the usual crimes, the following applies:
1. Victim must be of opposite sex
2. Offender must have deliberately intended to
show manifest disrespect for the sex of the
offended party.
NOTE: In circumstances of passion or obfuscation, this
cannot be applied or when there is a relationship among
the two. Also, if it is already inherent in the definition of
the crime, then it can no more be considered as an
aggravating circumstance.
• Rape, Seduction, Parricide
• Disregard of sex absorbed in treachery
DWELLING OF THE OFFENDED PARTY
This is the aggravating circumstance of morada. The
guiding principle is that a man’s house is his castle. IT’s
his sanctuary that is why there is greater perversity.
ELEMENTS
1. Offender committed the crime in the dwelling of
the offended party
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
2. Offended party has no given sufficient
provocation
3. Offender committed the crime in disregard of
the sanctity of privacy and respect which the
dwelling is entitled.
NOTE: If the owner gave the provocation, no longer
aggravating. However, the provocation must be
immediate or else it will not be considered as sufficient
provocation and thus considered aggravating still.
Q. What if the accused dragged the deceased from the
house to the front of the gate and there he killed the
deceased. Can Article 14(3) on dwelling apply?
A. Yes. It is not necessary that the offense is
consummated inside the dwelling as long as it started
there. In fact, the offender may even devise means to
make the assault or to perpetrate the assault even if
outside the dwelling.
Rules on Dwelling to be an Aggravating Circumstance
1. It is not aggravating if the offended party has
given provocation
As stated earlier, if the owner is shouting at the people
passing by with imminent threats then one would attack
him inside, he has given provocation.
2. It is not aggravating when it is inherent in the
crime
The crime of trespass to dwelling is a crime that is
committed in the dwelling of the offended party thus not
anymore considered as an aggravating circumstance.
• Robbery with force upon things – inherent
• Robbery with violence and intimidation – not
inherent and can be aggravating
3. It is not aggravating if both offender and the
offended party lived in the same dwelling
If living in the same house then it is no more aggravating.
However, there are certain instances illustrated:
Bedspacer or boarder. In People v. Parazo, it’s not
necessary that the victim owns the place where he lives
or dwells. Be he a lessee, a bedspacer or a boarder, the
place is his home the sanctity of which the law seeks to
protect and uphold.
Staying in other’s house. In People v. Galapia, the
accused went to the house of his mother in law to make
love to his wife. But he was denied entry. The accused
waited, and during the night he was able to get inside the
s
room of his wife. A scuffle ensued between the accused
and the wife, the mother-in-law came in bringing a bolo,
which was wrestled by the accused from her. The accused
attacked the mother-in-law. According to the court, the
aggravating circumstance of dwelling is present since the
crime was committed in the house occupied by his
estranged wife, other than the conjugal home.
NOTE: If all four circumstances are present but refers to
a single source they are considered as one circumstance.
ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE
OR OBVIOUS UNGRATEFULNESS
(4) That the act be committed with abuse of
confidence or obvious ungratefulness.
Abuse of confidence is one of the ways of aggravating a
crime through the ways and means employed in its
commission.
ELEMENTS OF ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE
1. That the offended party has 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 premise then is that there is a special, personal,
relation between the accused and the victim.
Q. The master made indecent proposals to the female
servant, the latter fled and refused. The master followed
and after caching up with her, threw her on the ground
and committed the crime of rape. Is there abuse of
confidence in the commission of rape?
A. There is no none. The fact of indecent proposal and
there was no taking of advantage of such trust anymore
thus no abuse (People v. Luchico).
Q. X, a little girl was entrusted to the care of Y. While
playing, Y took X to the tall grasses and intimidated her
with a knife to force in having sexual intercourse. Is there
abuse of confidence?
A. In People v. Crumb, betrayal of confidence is not
aggravating. It was not shown that the confidence was
not taken advantage to the crime. The confidence
reposed to him may be betrayed, but it was in no way it
facilitated the commission of the crime.
Difference of Crumb case from Caliso case
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
In the case of People v. Caliso, it was a nine-month old
baby entrusted to a domestic servant. The confidence
reposed then to her care is considered to have facilitated
the commission of the crime. Thus, a child of tender
years, especially an infant is considered.
Abuse of Confidence is Inherent in:
1. Qualified seduction
2. Qualified theft
3. Estafa by conversion or misappropriation
4. Malversation
ELEMENTS OF OBVIOUS UNGRATEFULNESS
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 act be committed with obvious
ungratefulness.
The ungratefulness must be obvious, clear, and
manifest ingratitude on the part of the accused.
Illustrations of Obvious Ungratefulness
• In People v. Floresca, the accused killed his father-
in-law in whose house he lived and who partially
supported him.
• In People v. Lupango, accused was living in the
victim who employed him as an overseer and in
charge of carpentry work who had free access of the
house.
• In People v. Bautista, the victim was suddenly
attacked while in the act of giving the assailants their
bread and coffee for breakfast.
PLACE OF THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME
(5) That the crime be committed in the palace of
the Chief Executive, or in his presence, or where
public authorities are engaged in the discharge
of their duties, or in a place dedicated to
religious worship.
In all the succeeding places, it is important that offender
must have intention to commit a crime when he
entered the place it should not be merely incidental
such as held in People v. Jaurigue.
There are four circumstances here under this paragraph:
1. In the palace of the Chief Executive
This refers to the Malacañang Palace. The President need
not be there. What is important that it is committed in
such place.
2. In the presence of the Chief Executive
s
This refers to such presence of the President.
3. Place where public authorities are engaged in
the discharge of their duties
Thus, as held in US v. Punsalan, when the accused
attacked the deceased the adjoining room, it was no
longer aggravating because public authorities are no
longer in the discharge of their official duties.
4. Place dedicated to religious worship
Examples are churches, temples but not cemeteries.
Comparison on offenses towards public officers on
aggravating circumstances
Article 14(2) Article 14(3) Article 14(5)
Insult or Disregard of Place where
contempt rank they exercise
In his presence In his presence In his presence
Not the victim Must be victim May or may not
be the victim
NOTE: When a person has acted due to passion or
obfuscation, the place would not always matter to the
one committing the offense.
NIGHTTIME, UNINHABITED PLACE
OR BY A BAND
(6) That the crime be committed in the nighttime,
or in an uninhabited place, or by a band,
whenever such circumstance may facilitate the
commission of the crime.
Whenever more than three malefactors shall
have acted together in the commission of an
offense, it shall be deemed to have been
committed by a band.
ELEMENTS OF NIGHTTIME, UNINHABITED PLACE OR
BY A BAND AS AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE
1. When if facilitated the commission of the crime
2. When especially sought for by the offender to
insure the commission of the crime or for the
purpose of impunity
3. When the offender took advantage thereof of the
purpose of impunity
NOCTURNIDAD
Nighttime is described to be dusk till dawn, from sunset
to sunrise. Not every crime is committed in the nighttime
is considered to be aggravating. It has to be proven
through the objective or subjective test.
Objective test
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
Whenever the circumstance at night may facilitate the
commission of the offense.
Subjective test
It is when the nighttime is especially sought by the
offender to commit the crime with impunity. Impunity
herein refers to prevent identification.
Nighttime per se is Not Aggravating
When the darkness of the night was merely incidental to
the collision between the two vehicles which caused the
heated argument and the eventual stabbing.
Not aggravating when crime began in daytime. If the
crime was the result of a succession of acts which took
place within the period of two hours from 5 o’clock in the
afternoon to 7 o’clock in evening, without interruption,
nighttime cannot aggravate (People v Luchico)
Crime must begin and be accomplished in the nighttime.
Although the vault was thrown into the bay at night,
money was withdrawn on day, the crime of malversation
was not attended by nighttime (US v. Dowdell)
Instances covering the nighttime:
• People v. Boquila, the mere fact of the killing was
committed at night would not suffice if the facts do
not show that the accused-appellant purposely
sought or took advantage.
• People v. Demante, the Court said that the
subjective test was passed despite the room was
lighted, this is because the accused waited for the
night so not a lot can hear.
• People v. Ventura, while the bedroom where the
crime occurred was well lit, the evidence shows that
in furtherance of their murderous intent, the
offenders deliberately took advantage of nighttime
as well as the fact that the household members were
asleep in order to gain entry to the residence.
• People v. La Guardia, nighttime was not sought as
the victim’s trip schedule was the reason of the
nighttime, and not for the discretion of the culprits.
Impunity Test
It was sought specially for the purpose to prevent
identification, he was secure from detection.
DESPOBLADO
The circumstance of solitude. An uninhabited place is
where there are no houses at all, or a place at a
considerable distance from town, or where the houses
are scattered at a great distance from each other.
s
It should be whether or not in the place of the commission
of the offense there was a reasonable possibility of the
victim receiving some help. Fact that persons passed by the
uninhabited place is immaterial. It is the nature of the
place which is decisive and the advantage used to
facilitate the crime.
Accessibility Test
Cannot be heard and is difficult to reach
Obstruction factor cannot be seen due to tall grass or
certain obstruction
QUADRILLA
This is the circumstance of band, this is when there are
more than three armed malefactors then it shall be
deemed to have been committed by a band.
Q. Suppose that 100 people attacked you, yet only two
them have weapons, is the crime aggravated?
A. No, it must be more than three armed malefactors
Armed Men Must Act Together
in the Commission of the Crime
The mere fact that there are more than three armed
malefactors does not prove the existence of a band. They
shall have acted together in the commission if such.
Arms, Defintion
In People v. Manlolo, it even included stones as arms.
Arms or weapons then are considered as those capable
of inflicting serious or fatal injuries upon the victim.
Quadrilla is inherent: Under PD 532, the circumstance
is inherent brigandage or highway robbery.
Quadrilla absorbs abuse of superior strength as cited in
Article 14(15) in People v. Escabarte. The aggravating
circumstance of taking advantage of their superior
strength and with the use of firearms is absorbed by the
generic aggravating circumstance of the commission of
the offense by a band.
Q, A group of four armed men casually met another
group of three armed men in an abandoned chapel at 2
o’clock in the morning. Due to a previous tension on
gangs two groups fought one another. In this instance,
can the aggravating circumstances of nighttime,
uninhabited place or band apply?
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
A. Nighttime, uninhabited place, and even band cannot
be applied in this instance. There was not enough time
to form as a band to commit such crime to one another.
When the meeting between the offender and the group
of deceased was casual, the offenders could have not
sought for the circumstance of nighttime, uninhabited
place and their forming a band.
When the offender attacked the group of the deceased
in the heat of anger, they could not have taken
advantage of such circumstances. And since they did not
afford the offenders any advantage, such circumstances
could not have facilitated the commission of the crime.
ON THE OCCASION OF CALAMITY OR MISFORTUNE
(7) That the crime be committed on the occasion
of conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake,
epidemic or other calamity or misfortune.
This contemplates a debased form of criminality met in
one who, in the midst of a great calamity, instead of
lending aid to the afflicted, adds to their suffering by
taking advantage of their misfortune to despoil them.
Offender must take advantage of the calamity or
misfortune. Thus, if the accused was provoked by the
offended party to commit the crime during the calamity
or misfortune, this aggravating circumstance may not be
taken into consideration for the purpose of increasing
the penalty, for it was not taken advantage of.
AID OF ARMED MEN
(8) That the crime be committed with the aid of
armed men who insure or afford impunity.
This differentiates from the circumstance of a band
because under this, it does not require to be four, thus if
less than four this can be considered. They have acted
together in a band, here it can be indirectly.
Q. X in order to kill her husband, secured the services of
C and D. They armed themselves with clubs and killed the
husband with clubs while X was holding the lighted the
lamp.
A. This is considered with the aid of armed men in the
commission of crime.
ELEMENTS
1. That armed men or persons took part in the
commission of the crime, directly or indirectly.
s
 2. That the accused availed himself of their aid or Pardon Amnesty
relied upon them when the crime was Extinguishes the serving Extinguishes the penalty
committed. of the sentence and all of its effects
Records will still show Previous conviction
Exceptions: conviction deemed to be erased
• It shall not be considered when both the attacking Recidivist No longer recidivist
party and the party attacked are equally armed.
• This aggravating circumstance is not present when In People vs. Lacao, recidivism was properly considered
the accused as well as those who cooperated with since a pardon for a preceding offense does not
him has the same plan or purpose. obliterate the fact that the accused is a recidivist upon his
• Removed when conspiracy is proven. conviction of a second offense in same title.

Quadrilla absorbs this circumstance, obviously because Amnesty completely extinguishes the penalty and all its
when the armed men reach more than three malefactors effects so that a previous conviction of a crime covered
it shall be a band. by an amnesty cannot be a source of recidivism.

FOUR KINDS OF CRIMINAL REPETITION HABITUALITY

1. Recidivism [Article 14, par. 9]
2. Habituality [Article 14, par. 10]
3. Quasi-recidivism [Article 160]
4. Habitual delinquency [Article 62, par. 5]
RECIDIVISM
(9) That the accused is a recidivist
A recidivist is one who at the time of his trial
for one crime, shall have been previously
convicted of another crime embraced in the
same title of this Code.
ELEMENTS
1. That the offender is on trial for an offense
2. That the was previously convicted by final
judgment of another crime;
3. That both the first and the second offense are
embraced in the same title of the Code;
4. That the offender is convicted of the new offense
(10) That the offender has been previously
punished for an offense to which the law
attaches an equal or greater penalty or to two
or more crimes to which it attaches a light
penalty.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the accused is on trial for an offense
2. That he previously served sentence for another
offense to which the law attaches an equal or
greater penalty or for two or more crime to
which it attaches lighter penalty than that for the
new offense
3. That he is convicted of the new offense
Has been previously punished
a. Penalty for previous offense is equal
b. Penalty for previous offense is greater
c. Served at least two sentences even if the
penalties provided by the law are lighter.

Q. On February 28, 1948 the accused was convicted of Examples:

robbery with homicide committed on December 23, First Offense Second Offense Habituality
1947. He was previously convicted of theft committed on Forcible abduct Homicide Present
December 30, 1947. Is he a recidivist? Reclusion temp. Reclusion temp. Equal
Falsification Homicide Not Present
At the time of his trial Prision mayor Reclusion temp. First is Lighter
What is controlling is the time of trial, not the time of the Homicide Falsification Present
commission of the crime. It is not required that at the Reclusion temp. Prision mayor First is Greater
time of the commission of the crime, the accused is Theft Homicide Present
already convicted of another crime in same title.
Estafa Reclusion temp. Two lighter p..
NOTE: It is which the law attaches not the penalty
Previously Convicted by a Final Judgment
actually imposed after considering the circumstances.
Those which are under appeal are not considered final
judgment and shall not make the accused a recidivist.
Effect of Pardon

From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes s
Q. First offense is reclusion temporal for homicide but is
pardoned, and one is in trial for homicide again, can the
aggravating circumstance of habituality apply?
A. No, in habituality, the law requires that he has been
previously been punished not merely convicted.
Recidivism Habituality
It is enough that a final It is necessary that he
judgment rendered offender served sentence
Must be embraced in the Must not be embraced in
same title of this Code the same title of Code
Is always taken into Is not always an
consideration in fixing aggravating circumstance
penalty. on court discretion
QUASI-RECIDIVISM
Article 160. Any person who shall commit a felony after
having been convicted by final judgment, before
beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving the
same, shall be punished by the maximum period of the
penalty prescribed by law for the new felony.
Quasi-recidivism is a special aggravating, it cannot be
offset by a mitigating circumstance. This when a person
has committed a felony while serving a penalty. This
usually inside the correctional facilities.
HABITUAL DELINQUENCY
Article 62(5). A person shall be deemed to be habitual
delinquent, if within a period of ten years from the date
of his release or last conviction of the crimes serious
physical injuries, less serious physical injuries, theft,
robbery, estafa, or falsification, he is found guilty of any
of said crimes a third time or oftener.
Habitual delinquency or multi-recidivism is an
extraordinary aggravating circumstance, which
means it imposes a certain higher penalty. It will give rise
to the imposition of an additional penalty and cannot be
offset by a mitigating circumstance.
CONSIDERATION OF PRICE, REWARD OR PROMISE
(11) That the crime be committed in
consideration of a price, reward or promise.
This aggravates the crime done by two or more
principals, which is considered in a conspiracy. If affects
not only the person who received the price or reward but
also the person who gave it.
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
The motive, the reason for the crime is really this price,
the reward, or the promise. It‘s not always money. The
wording is such that it seemingly aggravates the penalty
of the one who committed the crime
• Principal by inducement – refers to the one
who hired the person and provided money,
reward or promise.
• Principal by direct participation – refers to the
one who actually did the crime.
As correctly held in People v. Alincastre, this
aggravating circumstance affects both offeror and
offeree. Not just the one who committed the crime in
consideration of the price, reward or promise. If you are
guilty of killing somebody for a price, then equally guilty
is the one who offered the price for the life of another.
BY MEANS INVOLVING GREAT WASTE OR RUIN
(12) That the crime be committed in
consideration of a price, reward or promise.
Unless used by the offender as a means to accomplish a
criminal purpose, any of the circumstances cannot be
considered to increase the penalty.
1. By means of fire
To constitute murder, there should be an actual design
to kill and that the use of fire should be purposely
adopted as a means to that end.
• Absorbed in ARSON (Art. 320)
2. By means of explosion
If grenade was used as means to facilitate the intent of
the accused to kill a family, this is an aggravating
circumstance.
• Absorbed in crime involving destruction (324)
3. By means of derailment of locomotive
This is when cars are removed to cause derailment. This
still is absorbed under obstruction to means of
communication (340).
Use of Poison in Murder Cases: When you kill
somebody by poisoning him under Article 248, the crime
is murder. That is one of the qualifying circumstance of
murder.
Q. Suppose the husband killed his wife by poisoning her.
The use of poison was alleged in the information. Is the
use of poison aggravating under paragraph 12?
s
A: Yes, because if the husband kills the wife, the crime is
not murder, but PARRICIDE. And the qualifying
circumstance in parricide is not poison, but relationship.
So, since the qualifying circumstance is relationship, the
use of poison becomes an aggravating circumstance
under Article 14(12). So, that's how you apply the
circumstances in relation to Book II.
On Arson: If the burning itself is the crime, the
aggravating circumstance of fire cannot be considered
because it is already inherent. If the house is burned but
there was no intent to kill, it is arson with homicide. But
if you burn the house down to kill, it is considered
murder. If the burning was used to conceal the other
crime, it is treated as an independent crime.
If falsification is used to conceal the malversation, it is
treated separately from the crime.
EVIDENT PREMEDITATION
(13) That the act be committed with evident
premeditation.
This refers to the ways, because it implies deliberate
planning of the act before executing it. This is directly
opposite from obfuscation. This is considered a specific
aggravating circumstance because this is applicable to
crimes against persons only.
It is preceded by cool though and reflection. The
execution of the criminal act must be preceded by full
thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out
the criminal intent during the space ad time sufficient to
arrive at a calm judgment.
ELEMENTS
1. The time when the offender determined to commit
the crime;
2. An act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung
to his determination;
3. A sufficient lapse of time between the determination
and execution, to allow him to reflect upon the
consequences of his act and to allow his conscience
to overcome the resolution of his will.
Inapplicable to Error in Personae; Exception
This cannot apply because in evident premeditation, the
victim must be a specific or a particular person. However,
in US v. Manalinde, he was instructed to kill the first two
persons he meet. The crime is still evidently premeditated
even if the victims are not known to the defendant and
not specified.
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
Time when Offender Determined to Commit Crime
Premeditation must be based on external acts and not
presumed from the lapse of time. The criminal intent
from outward acts must be notorious and manifest.
Second Requisite; Clung to Determination
This can be manifested by careful planning, previous
preparation of the offender or the place. Threats without
this requisite is not evident premeditation.
Lapse of Time
The offender must have an opportunity to coolly and
serenely think and deliberate on the meaning and the
consequences of what he planned to do, an interval long
enough for his conscience and better judgment to
overcome his evil desire and scheme. There must be
sufficient time between the outward acts and the actual
commission of the crime.
Conspiracy presupposes Evident Premeditation
When the conspiracy is directly established, with proof of
the attendant deliberation and selection of the method,
time and means of executing the crime, the existence of
evident premeditation can be taken for granted.
Article 14(13) and Article 14(11) Can Co-Exist
Even though the aggravating circumstance of price,
reward, or promise may be taken into consideration
independently on the fact that premeditation has already
been considered, inasmuch as there exists no
incompatibility because reward can be done without
premeditation.
Premeditation is absorbed by reward or promise. This rule
is only applicable to the principal by induction. The one
carrying out the offense does not necessarily mean he
had sufficient time to reflect on consequences of his act.
Inherent in Robbery; it is inherent in robbery because
they must have an agreement, they have to mediate and
reflect on the manner of carrying out the crime and they
have to act coordinately to succeed.
Aggravating in Robbery with Homicide; If there is no
evidence that the conspirators previously planned and
agreed to kill the victims, evident premeditation is not
aggravating in robbery with homicide. If the killing was
due to an incident, this aggravating circumstance should
be disregarded.
CRAFT, FRAUD OR DISGUISE
(14) That the act be committed with evident
premeditation.
s

Fraud is more on direct inducement by deceit or use of
insidious words or machinations to act in a manner which
would enable the offender to carry out his design. An
example is a forged handwriting.
Craft involves intellectual trickery and cunning on the
part of the accused. This includes imaginative ways to
commit the crime so as to deceive the victim. This usually
involves trickery on the part of the offender.
Disguise is an attempt to hide identity, it can be
superficial or dissembling to avoid recognition. In People
v. Sonsona, it cannot be considered when the disguise
fails to fulfill its purpose to hide the identity even with the
handkerchief. However, in People v. Cabato, the
disguise that fell is still considered because had it not fell,
it would hide the identity of the offender.
ADVANTAGE TAKEN BY SUPERIOR STRENGTH
(15) That advantage be taken of superior
strength or means be employed to weaken the
defense.
This is to purpose use excessive force out of the means
of defense available to the person attacked. This is
incompatible with obfuscation and passion or
unexpected quarrel for they did not take advantage of
their superior strength. This is not presumed and must
be proven with evidence.
Instances of advantage taken by superior strength:
• Strong man has ill-treated a child.
• Infant or children are victim.
• Use of weapon of man against woman.
• Weapon used is out of proportion to the defense
available to the party (shotgun vs. knife)
• Simultaneous attack of two persons using
weapon.
Instances there is no advantage of superior strength:
• It must appear that the accused cooperated
together is some way designed to weaken the
defense. Not applicable when one is principle
and two are accomplices.
Inherent in parricide. Like in nighttime, superior strength
is absorbed and inherent in treachery. Absorbed in
treachery.
Means Employed to Weaken the Defense
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
This is specific aggravating circumstance because it is
applicable only to crimes against persons. Usual example
is throwing sand, throwing a cloak over the head.
When you want to rape a girl, you get her drunk. Is that
a means employed to weaken the defense? Usually it is
under treachery. Of course, that can still be given as an
example because really, when you get somebody drunk
you are weakening the defense of that somebody. This is
also absorbed in treachery. If in her intoxicated state it
was impossible for the victim to put up any sort of
resistance at the time of attack, treachery may be
considered.
ARTICLE 14(6) ARTICLE 14(15)
By a band Superior strength
Number of armed Relative physical might
aggressors vis-à-vis the offended.
Absorbed by superiority Absorbed by treachery
and treachery
TREACHERY
(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 the offended
party might make.
ELEMENTS OF TREACHERY
1. That at the time of the attack, the victim was not
in a position to defend himself; and
2. That the offender consciously adopted the
particular means, method or form of attack
employed by him.
The Victim Was Not in a Position to Defend Himself
The person is not in the position to defend himself, like
when their hands are tied at the back before they were
killed, or shot from behind while dancing.
In People v. Canete, the deceased fled and was pursued,
the deceased fell to the ground face downwards, and
before he could recover to resume the fight, the accused
ran up and delivered a fatal thrust with his knife at the
back of the deceased. There is no treachery, the means
was not consciously adopted.
s
In US v. Baluyot, the attack started in face to face 4. Hands were raised and pleading for mercy.
however, governor fled and took refuge in closet at the 5. Reduced to helplessness and shot.
end of the corridor. The governor screamed for help, the 6. Gathering tuba on top of a coconut tree (People
accused paused and ascertained to position of the v. Sangalang)
governor fired his revolver on the direction of voice. 7. The man was peeing on the porch at night,
enemy was aiming a carbine four meters away
The court held in this case that there was treachery. The and shot him (People v. Manangan).
court held that, during the commencement of the attack 8. Tied and gagged before being stabbed.
until the second shot was fired, there was continuity. Even 9. Attacks showing intention to eliminate risk like
supposing that treachery was present, it would be when:
necessary to find this element present from the manner a. Victim is asleep or half-awake
in which the crime was consummated. b. Having lunch
c. Attacked from behind
RULES ON TREACHERY:
1. When the aggression is continuous, treachery Instances when there is no treachery:
must be present at the beginning of the assault. 1. Frontal encounter
2. Ominous warning of presence and fired
2. When the assault was not continuous, in that gunshots in the air
there was interruption, it is sufficient that 3. Announced their presence
treachery was present at the moment the fatal 4. If the decision to kill was sudden, there is no
blow was given. treachery if it was not deliberately sought.
5. After a heated argument

Remember: Passion and obfuscation cannot co-exist with TREACHERY ABSORBS:

treachery because the means should be consciously 1. Craft
adopted. 2. Abuse of Superior Strength
3. Nighttime
Unlike in evident premeditation, error in personae under 4. Aid of Armed men
treachery is still aggravating. 5. Cuadrilla
6. Employing means to weaken the defense
Treachery can be an aggravating or qualifying 7. Disregard of age and sex
circumstance, like in murder.
Treachery is a qualifying circumstance for murder thus
Rules on Treachery: making it inherent in such.
1. Crimes against persons
2. Means, methods, or forms tend and need not NOTE: When there is treachery, it is considered against
insure the accomplishment of the crime all perpetrators for those participating in the commission
3. Mode of attack was consciously adopted of the offense, but when the mastermind or the principal
by induction was not present he should have knowledge
On Ambush or Unexpected Attacks of the treachery committed.
Accused must make some preparation to ill the deceased
in such a manner as to insure the execution of the crime Evident premeditation Treachery
or to make it impossible or hard for the person attacked
Not applicable if there’s Still applicable despite
to defend himself or retaliate.
error in personae (except error in personae
when unspecified)
It should be DELIBERATE, SUDDEN, UNEXPECTED
Refers to the specific Refers to a consciously
attack to the victim without any warning and without
person or target adopted manner of attack
opportunity to defend oneself.
IGNOMINY
Instances of treachery:
(17) That means be employed or circumstances
1. Killing a child
brought which add ignominy to the natural
2. Shooting the victim from a distance.
effects of the act.
3. Surprise attack but was planned.

From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes s
This is a circumstance pertaining to the moral order
which adds disgrace and obloquy to the material injury
caused by the crime. These are shame, embarrassment,
insult. It is adding insult to the injury. Ignominy is more
on psychological pain and Art. 14(21) on cruelty refers
more to physical pain.
GENERAL RULE: Can only be committed to crimes against
persons, who are still alive, because when the victim is
dead, there is moral disgrace already.
EXCEPTION: Under Article 248, scoffing or outraging the
corpse of the victim can be a qualifying circumstance
from homicide to murder.
It requires means be employed or circumstances
brought about which adds to the natural effects. Rape
committed in the occasion of robbery with homicide
increases the moral evil of the crime, and it is incorrect to
say that there is no law which considers rape as an
aggravating circumstance. However, it was held in People
v. Racaza that such were considered as aggravating
circumstances.
Instances of Ignominy:
1. Forced to kneel in front of servants (US v. De Leon)
2. Rape using cogon grass (PP v. Torrefiel)
3. Laughing while rape is committed (PP v. Cortesano)
4. Made to dance before rape (PP v. Jose)
5. While defecating, grabbed by the hair and shot.
6. Used flashlight to examine the genital (PP v.
Bumindag)
7. The use of dogstyle, if not consensual (PP v. Saylan).
UNLAWFUL ENTRY
(18) That the crime be committed after an
unlawful entry.
There is unlawful entry when an entrance is
effected by a way not intended for the purpose.
UNLAWFUL ENTRY NOT EXIT
It is gaining entrance through an entrance not intended
for the purpose. This means that you enter first before
committing the crime. An example would be burglary
through the window. When you enter through the
window, and committed the crime inside, then that‘s
unlawful entry.
The rationale for that is that one who acts, not respecting
the walls erected by men to guard their property and
provide for their personal safety, shows a greater
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
perversity, a greater audacity; hence, the law punishes
him with more severity.
Q. If you go through the door, raped somebody inside,
and jumped out of the window after, is there aggravating
circumstance of unlawful entry?
A. When you leave through an opening not intended for
entrance, that is not aggravating. But if an entrance is
effected through an entrance not intended for such, and
the crime has been committed after, then, it is
aggravating.
This circumstance is inherent:
• Trespass to dwelling
• Robbery with force upon things
Dwelling and unlawful entry taken separately in murder
committed in a dwelling. When the accused gained
access to the dwelling by climbing through the window
and once inside, murdered certain person in the dwelling,
there were two circumstances – dwelling and unlawful
entry. This must be considered in connection with the
entrance to the window of the dwelling of the victim.
FORCIBLE ENTRY
(19) That as a means to the commission of a
crime, a wall, roof, floor, door, or window be
broken.
This is the aggravating circumstance of forcible entry,
similar to the previous circumstance, this is an unlawful
entrance but the offender here broke the wall, roof, floor,
door or window. NOTE: Forcible entry is inherent in
robbery with force upon things.
When breaking of door or window is lawful. An officer, in
order to make an arrest may break into any building or
enclosure.
AID OF PERSONS UNDER 15 OR MOTOR VEHICLES
(20) That the crime be committed with the aid
of persons under fifteen years of age, or by
means of motor vehicles, airships or other
similar means.
Two circumstances:
(1) When minors of age of absolute irresponsibility
are used to their advantage
(2) Use of motor vehicles to commit crime
Motor Vehicles; Facilitating the crime
s
When the motor vehicle is used in facilitating the crime,
jurisprudence would usually give the answer of yes. This
is very common in forcible abduction.
When Motor Vehicle is Used as Escape
It is not aggravating when it is used as an escape in
robbery or even in murder.
Instance of the use of Motor Vehicles
People v. Espejo, the accused used the motor vehicle, it
merely facilitated.
People v. Cuadra, accused realized his plan of
liquidating the purported victim, and conducted
surveillance to find the victim, aggravating. The accused
realized his plan of liquidating the victim, drove his
pickup with his companions, conducted a surveillance of
the victim‘s whereabouts while driving his pickup, killed
the victim upon meeting him, and made good escape by
speeding away in his vehicle. The vehicle, even if it is not
mainly used in the crime, but used to facilitate the
commission of the crime.
NOTE: The use of motor vehicles in the commission of
estafa can never be aggravating, for the latter
contemplates such.
CRUELTY
(21) That the wrong done in the commission of
the crime be deliberately augmented by
causing other wrong not necessary for its
commission.
This is the aggravating circumstance of cruelty, when the
culprit enjoys and delight afflicting unnecessary pain
towards the victim in the commission of the offense.
ELEMENTS OF CRUELTY
1. 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.
There is cruelty when the culprit making his victim suffer
slowly and gradually, causing him unnecessary physical
pain in the consummation of the criminal act (PP vs.
Dayug). It involves physical pain which is unnecessary.
Rape is aggravating in murder and robbery with homicid.
Ignominy Cruelty
Psychological suffering Physical suffering
The victim must still be alive
Qualifying Circumstances for Murder
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
Article 248. Murder. - Any person who, not falling
within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another,
shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by
reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, if
committed with any of the following attendant
circumstances:
1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior
strength, with the aid of armed men, or
employing means to weaken the defense or of
means or persons who to insure or afford
impunity.
2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise.
3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion,
shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or
assault upon a street car or locomotive, fall of an
airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the
use of any other means involving great waste
and ruin;
4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated
in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake,
eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone,
epidemic or other public calamity;
5. With evident premeditation;
6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly
augmenting the suffering of the victim, or
outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.
Scoffing or Outraging the Corpse
Scoffing or outraging his corpse is not aggravating, it’s
only qualifying the case to murder.
• Anal intercourse with a dead woman is outraging
the corpse of the dead. The crime committed is
Murder.
• Parading the head of the victim after the accused
beheaded him is scoffing at the corpse of the
dead. It qualifies the crime to murder.
• If the victim was already dead when the acts of
mutilation were being performed on him, this
would also qualify the killing to murder due to
scoffing or outraging his corpse.
• When they killed the priest, and used his
intestines as necklace, touching his kidneys and
liver. That is scoffing on the corpse.
OTHER AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
1. When the crime is committed by a syndicate.
It refers to a group of two or more persons collaborating
for the purpose of gain in the commission of any crime
of theft, estafa, robbery and illegal recruitment.
2. When the offender commits the crime under
the influence of drugs.
s
When a crime is committed by an offender who is under to the plan to commit said felony; but when the
the influence of dangerous drugs, such state shall be intoxication is habitual or intentional, it shall be
considered as a qualifying aggravating circumstance. considered as an aggravating circumstance.

3. Use of an unlicensed firearms and Three alternative circumstances:

explosives.
That is an ordinary aggravating circumstance of use of an
unlicensed firearm or exclusive. Therefore, because it is
ordinary, it is subject to the rule on offsetting. The
offender cannot be charged independently of illegal
possession of firearms. It is absorbed as ordinary
aggravating, subject to offsetting. Unlicensed firearm
may be those with license, but expired. It further includes
the unauthorized use of a licensed firearm in the
commission of a crime
4. When the owner, driver, or passenger of a
carnapped vehicle is killed.
The penalty of life imprisonment to death is imposed.
1. Relationship
2. Intoxication
3. Degree of instruction and education of the
offender
RELATIONSHIP
It is alternative in general, qualifying circumstance in
parricide and rape; exempting in theft, malicious mischief
and swindling. Includes (a) spouse, (b) ascendant, (c)
descendant, (d) legitimate, natural, or adopted
brother or sister, or (e) relative by affinity of the same
degree of the offender.
• Step-parents and step-children
• Adoptive parent and adopted child

NO ANALOGOUS PROVISION A. Crimes against Property

unlike mitigating circumstances, there are no any other Mitigating Exempting
analogous circumstances in Article 14. Article 14 is an Robbery Theft
exclusive list. Scoffing and use of an unlicensed effect, Usurpation Estafa or Swindling
though not listed as aggravating circumstances under Fraudulent Insolvency Malicious mischief if they
Art. 14, have a modifying effect to the crime committed. Arson live together

B. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS

Alternative circumstances are those which must be
taken into consideration as aggravating or mitigating
according to their nature and effects of the crime and the
other conditions.
It is aggravating in crimes against persons in cases where
the offended party is a relative of a higher degree than
the offender, or if at the same level.
On Murder or Homicide: Even if the victim is of lower
degree it is aggravating.

ARTICLE 15. Their concept. Alternative circumstances On Rape: It is aggravating when it is committed by a
are those which must be taken into consideration as father to his daughter or to steps.
aggravating or mitigating according to their nature
and effects of the crime and the other conditions On Trespass of Dwelling: Mitigating
attending its commission. They are the relationship,
intoxication, and the degree of instruction and PHYSICAL Serious Physical Less Serious or
education of the offender. INJURIES Injuries Slight Physical
To lower Aggravating Mitigating
The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be degree Except excessive
taken into consideration when the offended party is relatives chastisement
the spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, To higher Aggravating Aggravating
natural, or adopted brother or sister, or relative by degree
affinity in the same degree of offender. relatives

The intoxication of the offender shall be taken into C. CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY
consideration as mitigating circumstance when the Relationship is always aggravating regardless of whether
offender has committed felony in a state of the offender is a relative of a higher or lower degree of
intoxication, if the same is not habitual or subsequent the offended party.
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes s

When the qualification given to the crime derived from
the relationship between the offender and the offended
party, it is neither mitigating nor aggravating because it
is inseparable from and inherent in the offense like
adultery, concubinage or even parricide.
INTOXICATION
RULES ON INTOXICATION
Mitigating Aggravating
If the intoxication is If the intoxication is
not habitual habitual
If intoxication is not If it is intentional,
subsequent to the plan to knowing the effects, to
commit a felony find a stimulant to
commit a crime
To mitigate: Prove that (1) at the time of the commission
the accused has taken such quantity as to blur his reason
and deprive him of control, (2) not habitual or intentional.
To aggravate: Prove that one is a habitual drunkard
whom one is given to intoxication by excessive use of
intoxicating drinks. It must be actual and confirmed, not
necessarily a matter of daily occurrence.
Special Laws and Intoxication:
1. Section 27, RA 9262
Being under the influence of alcohol, any illicit drug, or
any other mind-altering substance shall not be a defense
under this Act.
2. Section 25, RA 9165
Section 25: whether the use of drugs is intentional or
unintentional, habitual or non-habitual, the circumstance
of under the influence of dangerous drugs attending the
commission of the crime is aggravating. So, if you are
under the influence of dangerous drugs, it does not
matter if it is habitual or not. It will always be aggravating.
DEGREE OF INSTRUCTION AND EDUCATION
It does not refer only to literacy but more to the level of
intelligence of the accused. It refers to the lack of
sufficient intelligence and knowledge of the full
significance of one’s acts.
MITIGATING, Elements
1. The offender, because of lack or low degree of
instruction and education, could have not fully
realized the consequences of the criminal act.
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
2. The crime must not be inherently wrong that
every man, schooled or ignorant, must have
known of its immoral character.
But take note that even if low degree of education, there
are some crimes where you don’t have to have education
or that high degree of intelligence to know that this crime
is bad—those crimes which are mala in se.
Tests to Apply Mitigating
1. Schooling or literacy (old test)
2. Intelligence and knowledge test
Crimes Inherently Immoral in Nature
1. Crimes against property
2. Crimes against person
3. Crimes against chastity
4. Treason
AGGRAVATING, Elements
1. The offender possessed the high degree of
instruction and education;
2. Offender took advantage of such high degree of
education in committing the crime.
It must be proved that he used his education IN
ADVANTAGE to commit such felony. It should be that
such should not be used to facilitate offenses.
Under this title, it will discuss who are criminally liable for
the felonies incurred from Articles 16-20.
ACTIVE SUBJECTS OF A FELONY
ARTICLE 16. Who are criminally liable. – The following
are criminally liable for grave and less grave felonies:
1. Principals.
2. Accomplices.
3. Accessories.
The following are criminally liable for light felonies:
1. Principals.
2. Accomplices.
Treble Division
If rests upon the very nature of their participation in the
commission of the crime. They have a different degree of
responsibility.
Accessories are not Liable for Light Felonies
s
Exempting circumstance by public policy. 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. Behind this rule is
also Article 7 where it states that “light felonies are
punishable only when they have been consummated.”
• Only principals are liable for light felonies
• The law deems it is not necessary.
• True even in crimes against crimes against persons.
Active subject and Passive subject; Natural Persons
There are always two parties, namely the criminal (active
subject) and the injured party (passive subject). Only
natural persons can be active subject of a crime. This is
because that:
1. It is an act or omission, and there is a
consequence on the physical, imprisonment.
2. RPC requires that the culprit should have acted
with malice or negligence.
3. A juridical person cannot commit a crime in
which a willful purpose or a malicious intent is
required.
4. Imprisonment can only be done against
individuals.
NOTE: Officers, not the corporation are criminally liable.
Corpse or animal cannot be passive subject. They have
no rights, except under Article 353, the crime of
defamation may be committed if the imputation tends to
blacken the memory of one who is dead.
PRINCIPALS
ARTICLE 17. Principals. – The following are considered
principals:
1. Those who take direct part in the execution of
the act;
2. Those who directly force or induce others to
commit it.
3. Those who cooperate in the commission of
the offense by another act without which it
would have not been accomplished.
Two or More Persons Participating in the Crime
When a single individual committing a crime is always
principal by direct participation, because he must
necessarily take direct part in the execution of the act.
NOTE: You can disregard these classifications of persons
criminally liable when if you have established
conspiracy, every person is liable and considered a
principal even if the role is relatively minor.
Three Kinds of Principals
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
1. Principals by direct participation. Those who take
a direct part in the execution of the act.
2. Principals by Inducement. Those who directly
force or induce others to commit it.
3. Principals by Indispensable Cooperation. Those
who cooperate in the commission of the offense
by another act without which it would not have
been accomplished.
Instance: A wants to kill C, thus the former hired the
services of B to kill C. However, C is living in a remote
island and the only way to get to the island is through
a motor boat owned by D. That is why B asked to
borrow the motor boat and D allowed.
A, although he did not actually participate in the killing
of C, is a principal because he directly induced B to kill C.
B is also a principal, because he took direct part in the
execution of the felony by direct participation.
D is also a principal, because he cooperated in the
commission of the offense by another act, without which
the commission of the offense would not have been
accomplished.
• Supposing that there are other boats in the area
or it can be swam to, indispensable is different
from necessary cooperation.
• If there are other means available, the
cooperation would have been necessary.
PRINCIPALS BY DIRECT PARTICIPATION
It is considered the material executor, he is the direct
actor who committed the crime.
Two requisites
1. That he must have participated in the criminal
resolution; and,
2. The principal by direct participation carried out
the plan and personally took part in the
execution by acts directly tended to the same
end.
1. That he must have participated in the criminal
resolution
Two are more persons are said to have participated in the
criminal resolutions when they were in conspiracy at the
time of the commission of the crime charged.
Conspiracy exists when at the time of the commission of
the offense, the accused had the same purpose and were
united in its very execution, it can even be instantaneous.
s
 • When there is no conspiracy, each of the
offenders is liable only for the act performed.
• Conspiracy per se is not a crime is not punishable
unless provided by law.
• Best evidence is prior actions (meeting of minds)
• The conspirators are only liable for the crime
contemplated in the conspiracy unless the other
injuries are due to it being the proximate cause.
Conspiracy can also be implied when there is unity of
purpose and intention in the commission of the crime:
• Spontaneous agreement
• Active cooperation by all offenders
• Contributing by positive acts to the realization of
the criminal intent
• Presence and lending moral support
• Conspiracy is presumed when committed by a
band unless proven otherwise.
Liability in Conspiracy
Where there is conspiracy to commit a felony, all the
conspirators are liable for its consequence.
• One who desisted before the commission of the
conspiracy is not criminally liable.
EXCEPTION: Not liable for another conspirator’s crime
not necessary and logical consequence thereof.
NOTE: They are all principals, but it does not mean that
all of them have the same penalty imposed because of
circumstances, like treachery, which requires knowledge
of employment of such.
2. The principal by direct participation carried out the
plan and personally took part in the execution by acts
directly tended to the same end.
To be a principal of direct participation, one must be at
the scene of the crime, personally taking part in its
execution. That their acts tend to the same end.
People v. Timbol, the brothers planned and agreed to
commit the felony, but on the day of the commission of
the crime, one of the brothers left before the execution.
He is not considered criminally liable for he was only
guilty in the conspiracy but conspiracy in the commission
of the murder it is not punishable.
• You must also take part in the commission not
only in the resolution.
PRINCIPAL BY INDUCTION
The second class of principals are those who directly
induce or force others to commit the felony. They are
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
only liable when the one induced commits the act.
Thus, there will only proposal but still not punishable.
Two Ways of Becoming Principal by Induction
(1) By directly forcing another to commit a crime
(2) By directly inducing another to commit a crime
A. Forcing Another to Commit a Crime
There are two ways of directly forcing another to commit:
1. By using irresistible force
2. By causing uncontrollable fear
In these two cases, there is no conspiracy, not even a
unity of criminal purpose and intention. Only the one
using force or causing fear is criminally liable.
Instance: A through a gunpoint, tells B to kill C, and B
killed C. B cannot be liable for he is used as an instrument.
It is done through uncontrollable.
B. Inducing Another to Commit a Crime
There are two ways of directly inducing another to
commit a crime:
1. By giving price, or offering reward or promise
2. By using words of command
ELEMENTS:
1. That the inducement be made with the intention of
procuring the commission of the crime; and
2. That such inducement be the determining cause of
the commission of the crime by the material
executor.
Thoughtless expression without intention to produce the
result is not an inducement to commit the crime. The
inducement through imprudent advice do not constitute
sufficient inducement (People v. Indanan).
Words of Advice. If it is not serious then he is not liable
but where the advice is so direct, efficacious, and so
powerful as to amount to physical and moral coercion,
he is liable as principal by inducement because this is
now considered a word of command.
Q. What if the one induced is exempted due to the
irresistible force or uncontrollable fear? Is there still a
principal by induction?
A. The inducer is such case is classified as a principal by
direct participation, not as principal by induction.
2. That such inducement be the determining cause of
the commission of the crime by the material executor
s
Inducement exists when the command or advice is of such
a nature that, without its concurrence, the crime would
have not materialized. Thus, the price given to the
principal after committing the offense is not considered
an inducement.
Words of Command. This is usually also the reason of
inducing other people to commit the crime. It should be
that it is the determining cause of the crime tied with the
intention of producing the result, the requisites are:
1. That the one uttering the words of command
must have the intention of procuring the
commission of the crime.
2. That the one who made the command must have
an ascendancy or influence over the person.
3. That the words used must be so direct, so
efficacious, so powerful as to amount to physical
or moral coercion.
4. It must be uttered prior to the commission of the
crime.
5. The material executor of the crime has no
personal reason to commit the crime.
NOTE: If the principal by direct participation has a
personal reason to commit the crime, the supposed
words of inducement cannot be the determining cause.
• Moral ascendancy would not matter if the crime
was proven to be done in a conspiracy.
Inducement by falsification. This is when an employee
was writing false facts over a document but the false facts
was given by the principal (PP v. Po Giok To).
PRINCIPAL BY INDISPENSABLE COOPERATION
Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by
another act without which it would not have been
accomplished.
ELEMENTS:
1. The cooperator knew and concurred in the
criminal design;
2. By performing an act different from that
constituting the crime; and
3. The cooperator’s act is indispensable to the
commission of the crime.
This co-delinquency that there must be conspiracy. But
concurrence with the principal by direct participation in
the purpose of the latter is sufficient because the
cooperation is indispensable to the accomplishment of
the commission of the offense.
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
Cooperation must be indispensable. The act of the
principal by indispensable cooperation should be
different from the act of the principal by direct
participation. The law says, “by another act” which means
that it should not be the act of one who would be
classified as direct participation.
US v. Javier, C dragged the girl to the back of the house
where J was waiting to rape the girl, after delivering the
girl, he left so J can rape the girl freely. In this case, C was
a principal by indispensable cooperation.
US v. Lim Buanco, C knowing that there were insufficient
funds, certified the check of J, which allows the latter to
fraudulently encash the check. C was a principal by
indispensable cooperation in estafa. BY ANOTHER ACT
Collective Criminal Responsibility
Principals by direct participation have collective criminal
responsibility. Principal by induction, except those who
are forced to commit the crime.
Individual Criminal Responsibility
In the absence of previous conspiracy, unity of criminal
purpose and intention immediately before the
commission of the crime, or community of criminal
design, the criminal responsibility arising from different
acts directed against one and the same person is
individual and not collective, and each of the participants
is liable only for the act committed by him.
• Incomplete self-defense of three individuals, the
first two inflicted wounds and the third had
delivered the final blow.
ACCOMPLICES
ARTICLE 18. Accomplices. – Accomplices are the
persons who, not being included in Article 17,
cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous
or simultaneous act.
The participation by the accomplice presupposes the
commission of the crime by the principal by direct
participation.
Rules under accomplice:
• In case of doubt considered as an accomplice
• If participation is not disclosed, only accomplice
ELEMENTS
1. That there be community of design, knowing the
criminal design of the principal by direct
participation, he concurs with the latter in his
purpose.
s
 2. That he cooperates in the execution of the offense themselves have decided after the principals have
by previous or simultaneous acts, with the intention upon such course of made the decision and
of supplying material or moral aid in the execution action. (DECIDES) only then do they agree
of the crime in an efficacious way; to cooperate in its
3. That there be a relation between the acts done by execution. (CONCURS)
the principal and those attributed to the person. Conspirator decide that Accomplices merely
the crime should be concur in the criminal
Conspiracy from Concurrence to Criminal Design committed. decision, they don’t
It is the participation in the criminal resolution, while decide.
concurrence is only concurrence to the community of Authors of the Crime Merely their instruments,
design; not necessarily conspiracy. This is what is called Both know and agree with the criminal design
quasi-collective liability.
Principal 17(3) Accomplice
Q. Identify the following criminal liability and the One must participate in It requires a community
participation of A and B in the following instances. the criminal resolution, of design wherein he
Instance No. 1. A and B has a common enemy C. A wants act in unity with the merely concurs.
to physical injure C, B wants to kill C. A inflicted physical criminal purpose and the Cooperates in the
injuries to C then left, and B arrived to stab C. cooperation in the execution of the offense
commission of the by previous or
Instance No. 2. A arrived and saw B stabbing C, then A offense by performing simultaneous acts. There
joined and kicked and punched C. A and B don’t know another act without must be a relation
each other. which it would not have between the acts done
been accomplished. In by principal and
Instance No. 3. A and B agreed to kill C, A inflicts physical other words, conspiracy. accomplice.
injuries and B stabs C.
1. Knowing the criminal design of the principal by
Part. of Part. of Conspiracy Criminal
direct participation, he concurs with the latter in his
A B Liability
Instance 1 Principal Principal None Individual purpose. Before there can be an accomplice, there must
17(1) 17(1) be a principal by direct participation. But the principal
Instance 2 Accomplice Principal None Quasi- originates the criminal design.
18 17(1) Collective
• The knowledge of the criminal intention is important.
Instance 3 Principal Principal Conspiracy Collective
17(1) 17(1)
• No knowledge, not accomplice.
• Agreement to conspiracy, principal.
Q1. Taxi Driver had four (4) passengers, on the way to
ABC Subdivision, he heard that four passengers Knowledge of Criminal Design can be gained:
conspiring a robbery. One of the passengers said, “Just 1. When the principal informs or tells the
wait, don’t turn off the meter.” What is his participation? accomplice of the criminal purpose.
2. When the accomplice sees the act of the
Q2. Suppose that one of the passengers asked, “Do you principal on the commission of the crime.
agree with our plan and you just wait?” Then the taxi
driver agreed. Will your answer be the same? 2. That he cooperates in the execution of the offense
by previous or simultaneous acts with the intention
A1. Accomplice. This is because he knew the criminal of supplying material or moral aid in the execution of
design and he concurred to it by staying. He was merely the crime in an efficacious way.
told stay. The accomplice cooperates with the principal by direct
participation, thus the cooperation of the accomplice is
A2. Principal. He agreed to the conspiracy by being part only necessary not indispensable.
of the agreement as contemplated by Article 8(1).
A. By previous acts
Conspirators Accomplices Example is the lending of a dagger or pistols to the
They know the criminal They come to know murderer, knowing the latter’s criminal purpose. Or that
intent because they about the criminal intent he gives the rapist a drug that will put the victim to sleep.

From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes s
 B. By simultaneous acts
Example is that a defendant held one of the hands of
victim and tried to take away the revolver, without
previous understanding or agreement.
• The accomplice should not have inflicted a
mortal wound to the victim, or else he would be
also be a co-principal (US v. Zalsos).
Q. A punched B, seeing the fight, C went in to stab B, they
do not know each other. Are C and A principals or
accomplices? Is there conspiracy?
A. Principal. Where there is no conspiracy, there is
individual criminal liability. A could have not known C’s
criminal design.
NOTE: When the conspiracy is failed to be proven beyond
reasonable doubt, the defendants will be charged as
being accomplices.
Q. Nembrod dragged Sophiya in his limousine. Jib, the
driver, heard cries, from the back, he saw Nembrod
kissing Sophiya and the latter resisted. Nembrod then
instructed Jib to close the partition and was instructed to
drive around the city. Nembrod was charged with rape
and Jib was charged as an accomplice. Decide with as to
the participation of Jib.
A. Accomplice. He already knew of the criminal design.
He concurred and complied to drive, as the rape was
being done and there is a relation. However, he is a not
principal because it was only necessary.
3. There must be a relation between the criminal act
of the principal and the act of the one charged as
accomplice.
It is not enough that a person entertains an identical
criminal design as that of the principal. There must be a
relation between the criminal act of the principal by
direct participation.
PP v. De la Cruz, the girl killed the guy, while the brother
with the pistol was waiting under the house to shoot, but
they did not know of both their criminal designs. There is
no such relation.
An Accomplice may Be Liable For a Crime Different
from that which the Principal Committed
X and guard, helped C to remove from the warehouse
sacks of rice belonging to the company, and sold them
to D. The qualifying circumstance of abuse of confidence
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
is applied in qualified theft. Then, C is only liable for
simple theft.
Accomplice Principal 17(1)
There is community of design
The law presumes complicity
There must be no There is conspiracy
conspiracy
Q. Borrows a gun, but kills a different person.
A. The criminal design is to kill C. The crime intended was
to kill C, but B was killed. My cooperative act and the
criminal design was for the killing of C not B. He cannot
be made liable. When the principal kills another person,
the concurrence of criminal design is lost.
ACCESSORIES
ARTICLE 19. Accessories. – Accessories are those who,
having knowledge of the commission of the crime, and
without having participated therein, either as
principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to its
commission in any of the following manners:
1. By profiting themselves or assisting the
offender to profit by the effects of the crime.
2. By concealing or destroying the body of the
crime or the effects or instruments thereof, in
order to prevent its discovery;
3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the
escape of the principal of the crime, provided
the accessory abuse of his public functions or
whenever the author of the crime is guilty of
treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt to
take the life of the Chief Executive, or is known
to be habitually of some other crime.
ACCESSORIES
An accessory does not participate in the criminal design,
nor cooperate in the commission of the felony, but, with
knowledge of the commission of the crime, he
subsequent takes part in three ways.
Like an accomplice must have knowledge of the crime,
he did not participate in the crime, either as principal, or
accomplice. The cooperation of an accessory always
after crime, he knows the criminal design.
ELEMENTS
1. Crime was committed by the principal
2. The participator must have knowledge of the
commission of the crime by the principal
3. Did not participate in the commission of the
crime as principal or accomplice
s
 4. The participator took part in the commission of
the crime by performing subsequent acts.
Three Ways of Being an Accessory
1. By profiting from the effects of the crime
2. By concealing the body, effects or instruments of
the crime in order to prevent its discovery;
3. By assisting in the escape or concealment of the
principal of the crime, provided he acts with
abuse of his public functions or the principal is
guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an
attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or
is known to be habitually guilty of some other
crime.
Additional requisites:
• If the crime is committed by the principal should
not be light felonies, otherwise the accessories will
not be liable (Article 16, RPC).
• If any of the second and third crime, if they are
spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural
or adopted brothers or sisters or relatives by affinity
within the same degrees. (Article 20, RPC).
The accessory follows the principal. Exception, when
the principal is exempted, but the accessory is not.
Q. What if the principal is unidentified, at large, or dead?
Can you be held liable as an accessory?
A. Determine if a crime was committed in a first place by
a principal, if that is established, then you can be held
liable. If the crime is unsure to have been committed, but
then the case will be dismissed on reasonable doubt.
The Billon Doctrine (People v. Billon)
Even if the principal was not tried but there is evidence
against the accessory:
• Determine if there is a crime committed by the
criminal, if none, no accessory.
• Even if the principal was not tried and convicted,
the offender may be held liable, if there is
evidence that the crime is committed by the
principal.
Vino v. People, reaffirming Billon
1. The acquittal of the criminal must likewise result
to the acquittal of the accessory, if it is shown
that no crime is committed.
2. If the principal died or escape before he could be
died or sentenced, the accessory may still be
held liable.
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
3. If the principal was not identified, but the
accessory is identified, the latter may be
prosecuted and be held liable.
FIRST MODE:
By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to
profit by the effects of the crime.
(a) Profiting themselves by the effects of the crime
(b) Assisting the offender to profit by the effects of
the crime
Profiting themselves by the effects of the crime
This usually happens when principals by kidnapping
received the ransom money then gave to a person a
share in such. Or when you receive stolen money from a
thief. NOTE: You must have permission to receive from
the thief, if not you will be a principal for theft.
Assisting the Offender to Profit by Effect of Crime
This happens when a person receives a stolen property
and knows of such, and sells the same for the thief and
shared the proceeds.
ANTI-FENCING LAW (PD 1612)
FENCING is the act of any person, who with intent to
gain for himself or another, shall buy, receive, possess,
keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and
sell, or in any manner deal in any article, item, object or
anything of value which he knows, or should be known
to him to have been derived from the proceeds of the
crime of robbery or theft.
• For the intent of gain
• From robbery or theft
• Section 5, presumption of fencing – the mere
possession shall be prima facie evidence of fencing.
The presumption of fencing is constitutional. In the
case of Dizon-Pamintuan v. People 234 SCRA 63, the
burden of proof then is shifted to the offender, there is
presumption of guilt as a fence.
• Under PD 1612, the accessory in robbery and theft
through profits themselves or assisting to profit
themselves is considered principal in fencing.
Defense of “I did not know.” There is that phrase of the
law stating that “that should be known to him”, and under
circumstances that there are certain objects could have
been a stolen object through robbery or theft.
Dual Liability under RPC and PD 1612
1. Under RPC, one is liable as an accessory and
penalty is two degrees lower than the principal.
s
 2. At the same, a principal for the violation of the
anti-fencing law. This carries higher penalty.
Intent is not essential.
NOTE: Cannot be double jeopardy, different offenses.
Intent to gain. If there is no intent to gain, obviously one
cannot be held liable to became.
SECOND MODE:
By concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or
the effects or instruments thereof, in order to prevent
its discovery.
Body of the crime, or corpus delicti refers to the fact of
the crime. The corpse should not be brought literally.
• By concealing the body, is in effect concealing
the crime itself (US v. Leal)
Instances:
• Burying the body of the victim
• Knife or gun used in the killing is concealed
• Burned the latter used for the crime
Q. Suppose that you were made to possess the object of
the crime, and you had no intent to gain, but you wanted
to conceal the item, determine his liability.
A. If you conceal items with the intent to gain, you save
the criminal from prosecution on that evidence. Aside
from being held liable for being an accessory under
19(2) of the RPC, you can also be made liable for
obstruction of justice under PD 1829.
PP v. Ortega, Jr., the victim was thought to be dead but
was actually buried alive. The one who buried is no longer
an accessory but a principal himself.
Rules on Recently Stolen Property
If you are in possession of recently stolen property, you
can be charged as principal for the crime of theft.
• Unexplained possession of stolen property is a
prima facie evidence of theft.
Dual liability under RPC and PD 1829. While in Article
19(2) one can be an accessory to the crime to the
destruction and concealment of the body of the crime.
The same accessory is deemed a principal in PD 1829 on
the basis of obstruction of justice.
Punished under PD 1829
1. Offender knowingly or willfully obstructs, impedes
or frustrates the investigation and prosecution of
criminal cases or delays the apprehension of
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
suspects and the investigation and prosecution of
criminal cases.
2. Offender alters, destroys, suppresses, or conceals
any paper, record document, nor object.
3. Offender intended to impair veracity, authenticity,
legibility, availability, or admissibility of the said
paper, record, document, or object as evidence in
any investigation of or official proceedings in
criminal cases, or to be used in the investigation of,
or official proceedings in criminal cases.
ARTICLE 19(2) PD 1892
Destroys or conceals the Destroys or conceals the
body of the crime, effects document or object used
or instruments thereof. as evidence in a case,
including the corpus
delicti or instruments.
Prevent discovery Prevent availability as
evidence in criminal case
Requires a crime to be It is not necessary
committed
THIRD MODE:
By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of
the principal of the crime
This refers to an active act not active act, not a passive
act. Suppose you witness the crime, and you did not
report. That is not concealing, in effect you are not liable
under 19(3), this requires an act.
But the law refers to such as active, not passive, there is
no law that requires or punish the citizen to keep silent.
It is a different story however, if there one went to the
crime and mislead the police and presented false facts
and allegation it is considered active harboring,
concealing or even assisting.
Two Classes of Accessories
1. Public Officers who harbor, conceal or assist in
the escape of the principal of any crime not of
light felony with abuse of his public functions.
REQUISITES:
(a) Must be a public officer
(b) He harbors, conceals, or assists in the escape of the
principal
(c) Acts with abuse of his public functions
(d) The crime committed by the principal is any crime
provided it is not a light felony.
2. Private Persons who harbor, conceal or assist in
the escape of the author of the crime who is
guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt
s
 against the life of the President, or who is known
to be habitually guilty of some other crime
REQUISITES:
(a) That the accessory is a private person
(b) That he harbors, conceals, or assists in the escape
of the author of the crime
(c) That the crime committed by the principal is
either:
a. Treason
b. Parricide
c. Murder
d. Attempt against life of the President
e. Principal is known habitually guilty
NOTE: The accessory must have knowledge of the
habitual guilt of the offender. The concealment of
principal is still under coverage of PD 1829, it did not
distinguish for light felonies.
Q. X, a public official, harbored and concealed the
principal of a light felony under his dwelling, is he liable?
A. No, under the RPC on accessories, because Article 16
expressly stated that accessories under light felonies are
not criminally liable. However, they are still considered
principals under PD 1829 because of such obstruction of
justice by the active act of harboring the principal.
Silence does not Make One Accessory
It does not make the person criminally liable, such
omission is not one of the grounds mentioned in 19.
• But if false reports and if it was tended to
deceive the prosecuting authorities he is
considered to have concealed the principal of
the crime that has been committed.
DIFFERENCE OF ACCESSORY FROM PRINCIPAL AND
THE ACCOMPLICE
1. The accessory does not take part or cooperate in,
or induce, the commission of the crime.
2. The accessory does not cooperate in the
commission of the offense by acts prior thereto
or simultaneous therewith.
3. The participation of the accessory in all cases
always takes place after the commission of the
crime.
ACCESSORIES EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY
ARTICLE 20. Accomplices who are exempt from
criminal liability. – The penalties prescribed for
accessories shall not be imposed upon those who are
such with respect to their spouses, ascendants,
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
descendants, legitimate, natural and adopted brothers
and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same
degrees, with the single exception of accessories
falling within the provisions of paragraph 1 of the next
preceding article.
Reason: The exemption provided for in this article is
based on the ties of blood and the preservation of the
cleanliness of one’s name, which compels one to
conceal crimes committed by relatives so near as those
mentioned in this article.
The following are exempted:
1. Spouse
2. Ascendant
3. Descendant
4. Legitimate, natural or adopted brother, sister or
relative by affinity within the same degree.
NOTE: Even if the spouse died the relationship by affinity
between the surviving spouse and the blood relatives of
the deceased spouse shall subsist.
• Nephews or nieces not included.
EXCEPTION: When the accessory by relationship falls
under paragraph 1 of Article 19, not exempted.
(1) By profiting by the effects of the crime
(2) By assisting the offender to profit by the effects
of the crime
The motivation is not based on love and affection, but by
detestable greed. The case of US v. Deuda, although the
mother had no part in the crime, she took steps to sell
the earrings to obtain profit from the theft. This is the
single exception contemplated under Article 20. This is
where it shows detestable greed.
Exempted under RPC, Still Liable under PD 1829
Under PD 1829, even if one is not deemed accessory
under the RPC, the special does not distinguish between
the relatives and even the crime.
• The lists of crimes are not enumerated.
• Relationship is not exempted.
The fact of the matter is, you are still considered a
principle.
Accessories in Light Felonies Liable in Special Laws
Only principals and accessories are liable for light
felonies, thus they are exempted under Article 16 or they
can also be exempted by Article 20 except 19(1).
s
However, they are still liable under as principals by either
PD 1612 or PD 1829. They don’t have counterpart
provisions of exempting such.

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES:
Actus me invito factus non est meus actus
Ejusdem generis

Doctrine of Equipoise
Whenever there is such balance between the evidence of
the defense and the prosecution, the decision will be in
favor of the accused on the presumption of innocence.

Crimes Punishable Under Article 8

Conspiracy Proposal
Treason Treason
Rebellion Rebellion
Insurrection Insurrection
Coup d’état Coup d’état
Sedition
Monopolies
Rules regarding Conspiracy
When conspiracy is established, all who participated
therein, irrespective of the quality of participation or
quantity, they are considered principals.

Doctrine of Implied Conspiracy

Conspiracy may be inferred if it is proven that two or
more persons aimed their acts towards the
accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing
a part so that their acts although apparently independent
were in fact connected and cooperative, thus indicating
closeness of personal association and a concurrence in
sentiment.
• Sufficient that their acts are in concert to fulfill
their common design (People v. Hernandez).
• Unity of purpose and unity in execution.

From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes s
 CRIMINAL LAW I
REVISED PENAL CODE
Articles 21-88
PENALTIES
Chapter One
Penalties in General
Penalty, Definition
It is the suffering that is inflicted by the state for transgression
of law. It signifies pain, especially considered in the juridical
sphere. It means suffering undergone.
Juridical Conditions of Penalty
1. Must be productive of suffering, without however
affecting the integrity of the human personality.
2. Must be commensurate with the offense
3. Must be personal
4. Must be legal
5. Must be certain
6. Must be equal for all
7. Must be correctional
Purpose of Punishing Crimes
To secure justice. The State has an existence of its own to
maintain, a conscience of its own to assert and moral principles
to be vindicated. Penal justice must therefore be exercised by
the State in the service and satisfaction a duty, and rests
primarily on the moral rightfulness of the punishment inflicted.
Theories Justifying Penalty
• Prevention – prevent or suppress danger of the State
arising from the criminal acts of the offender.
• Self-Defense – so as to protect society from the threat
and wrong inflicted by the criminal.
• Reformation – correct and reform offender
• Exemplarity – serve as an example to deter others
• Justice – vindication of the absolute right and moral
law violated by the criminal.
Three-Fold Purpose of RPC Penalties
1. Retribution or expiation
2. Correction or reformation
3. Social defense
Constitutional Restriction on Penalties
Excessive dines shall not be imposed nor cruel and unusual
punishment inflicted. The punishment is cruel and unusual
when it is so disproportionate to the offense committed as to
shock the moral sense of all reasonable men as to what is right
and proper under the circumstances.
• Inflicted at a whipping post
• Burning at the stake
• Breaking on the wheel and the like
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
NOTE: Neither fines nor imprisonment constitute in themselves
cruel and unusual punishment.
Article 21. Penalties that may be imposed. - No felony
shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law
prior to its commission.
Q. A was charged with infringement of literary right for selling
literary work, thirty years after, a copyright law was made
effective, can he be made liable? No.
Nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege.
An act or omission cannot be punished by the state if at the
time it was committed there was no law prohibiting it, because
a law cannot be rationally obeyed unless it has first been shown.
Article 22. Retroactive effect of penal laws. - Penal laws
shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the
person guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal,
as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code,
although at the time of the publication of such laws a
final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is
serving the same.
General Rule: Criminal laws have prospective effect.
Exception: Retroactive effect when favorable to accused.
Exclusion: (1) Habitual criminal and (2) When law is expressly
made inapplicable.
Ex Post Facto Law (Mejia v. Pamaran)
When a criminal law is applied retroactively but is unfavorable
to the accused it is one of ex post facto law. It is of:
1. makes criminal an act done before passage of the law
which was innocent
2. aggravates a crime or makes it greater than it was
3. changes the punishment and inflicts a greater
punishment
4. authorizes conviction on less testimony required
5. assuming to regulate civil rights only
6. deprives a person accused from lawful protection
NOTE: Not applicable to civil liability, it cannot be given
retroactive effect. It is also inapplicable as to jurisdiction.
Article 23. Effect of pardon by the offended party. - A
pardon by the offended party does not extinguish
criminal action except as provided in Article 344 of this
Code; but civil liability with regard to the interest of the
injured party is extinguished by his express waiver.
Pardon by Offended Party
What is extinguished is the civil liability. That is within your
control— condonation or remission of the debt, one of the
modes of extinguishing civil obligation. The only instance under
the Penal Code, where pardon by the offended party produces
certain effects.
s
Express Pardon in Private Crimes Light penalties:
Th offended party can pardon the following offenses and shall Arresto menor
be considered as a bar to criminal prosecution: Public censure
1. Seduction
2. Abduction Penalties common to the three preceding classes:
3. Rape Fine, and
4. Acts of Lasciviousness Bond to keep the peace.

Article 24. Measures of prevention or safety which are ACCESSORY PENALTIES

not considered as penalties. - The following shall not be Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification
considered as penalties. Perpetual or temporary special disqualification
1. The arrest and temporary detention of accused Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be
persons, as well as their detention by reason of voted for, the profession or calling
insanity or imbecility, or illness requiring their Civil Interdiction
confinement in the hospital. Indemnification
2. The commitment of a minor to any of the Forfeiture or confiscation of instrument and proceeds of
institutions mentioned in Article 80 and for the the offense.
purposes specified therein. Payment of cost.
3. Suspension from employment or public office
during the trial or in order to institute proceedings. DURATION PRESCRIPTION PRESCRIPTION
4. Fines and other corrective measures which, in the PERIOD OF CRIME OF PENALTY
exercise of their administrative or disciplinary
Death
powers, superior officials may impose upon their
Death 20 years 20 years
subordinates.
5. Deprivation of rights and the reparations which the
civil law may establish in penal form. AFFLICTIVE PENALTIES
Reclusion Perpetua
Not Considered Penalties 20 years and 1 20 years 20 years
Not imposed by the court those mentioned in 1, 3 and 4 are day to 40 years
merely preventive measures before conviction of offenders. Reclusion Temporal
12 years and 1 20 years 15 years
NOTE: Fines mentioned should not be imposed by the court,
day to 20 years
otherwise, it shall then be considered as a penalty.
Perpetual or Temporary Absolute Disqualification
6 years and 1 15 years 15 years
CHAPTER TWO
day to 12 years
CLASSIFICATION OF PENALTIES
Perpetual and Temporary Special Disqualification
6 years and 1 15 years 15 years
Article 25. Penalties that may be imposed. The penalties
day to 12 years
which may be imposed, according to this Code, and their
different classes, are those included in the following: Prision Mayor
6 years and 1 15 years 15 years
PRINCIPAL PENALTIES day to 12 years
Capital punishment:
Death CORRECTIONAL PENALTIES
Prision Correccional
Afflictive penalties: 6 months and 1 10 years 10 years
Reclusion perpetua day to 6 years
Reclusion temporal Suspension
Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification 6 months and 1 10 years 10 years
Perpetual or temporary special disqualification
day to 6 years
Prision Mayor
Destierro

Correctional penalties:
6 months and 1 10 years 10 years
Prision correccional day to 6 years
Arresto Mayor Arresto Mayor
Suspension 1 month and 1 5 years 5 years
Destierro day to 6 months

From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes s
 Rules for Computation of Penalties
1. When in prison – the duration of the temporary
LIGHT PENALTIES
penalties is from the day on which the judgment of
Arresto Menor
conviction becomes final.
1 day to 2 months 1 year 2. When not in prison – duration of penalty consisting
30 days of deprivation of liberty is from the day on which the
Public Censure offender is placed at the disposal of judicial authorities
Public Censure 2 months 1 year for enforcement of penalty.
3. Other penalties – the duration is from the day on
The penalties which may be imposed are those included. which the offender commences to serve sentence.
• Five years in bilibid
Article 29. Period of preventive imprisonment deducted
• life imprisonment/imprisonment for life
from term of imprisonment. - Offenders or accused who
• cardena perpetua
have undergone preventive imprisonment shall be
The following are not considered as penalties under the RPC.
credited in the service of their sentence consisting of
RA 9346 prohibited the imposition of death penalty.
deprivation of liberty, with the full time during which
they have undergone preventive imprisonment if the
Classification of Penalties detention prisoner agrees voluntarily in writing after
1. According to Article 25: (1) principal (2) accessory being informed of the effects thereon and with the
2. Divisibility: (1) indivisible, (2) indivisible assistance of counsel to abide by the same disciplinary
3. Subject-matter: (1) corporal, (2) deprivation of freedom, (3) rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, except in the
restriction of freedom, (4) deprivation of rights and (5) following cases:
pecuniary 1. When they are recidivists, or have been convicted
4. Gravity: (1) capital, (2) afflictive, (3) correctional, (4) light previously twice of more times of any crime.
2. When upon being summoned for the execution of
Article 26. FINES (As amended by RA 10951) the sentence they have failed to surrender
Afflictive If it exceeds P1,200,000 voluntarily.
Correctional If it does not exceed P1,200,000 but is
If the detention prisoner does not agree to abide by the
not less than P40,000
same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted
Light If it be less than P40,000
prisoners, he shall do so in writing with the assistance of
a counsel and shall be credited in the service of his
Fines are imposed in many articles of RPC as an alternatives sentence with four-fifths during which he has undergone
penalty. This article merely classifies that fine has nothing to do preventive imprisonment.
with the definition of the felony.
Credit for preventive imprisonment for the penalty of
CHAPTER TWO reclusion perpetua shall be deducted from thirty (30)
DURATION AND EFFECT OF PENALTIES years.
Section One. - Duration of Penalties
Whenever an accused has undergone preventive
Article 27. See previous table from preceding page. imprisonment for a period equal to the possible
NOTE: Bond to keep the peace shall require covering a period maximum imprisonment of the offense charged to
which he may be sentenced and his case is not yet
as the court determines. It is not usually imposed as a penalty.
terminated, he shall be released immediately without
prejudice to the continuation of the trial thereof or the
Article 28. Computation of penalties. - If the offender
proceeding on appeal, if the same is under review.
shall be in prison, the term of the duration of the
Computation of preventive imprisonment for purposes
temporary penalties shall be computed from the day on
of immediate release under this paragraph shall be the
which the judgment of the conviction shall have become
actual period with good conduct time allowances:
final;
Provided, however, That if the accused is absent without
justifiable cause at any stage of the trial, the court may
If the offender be not in prison, the term of the duration
motu proprio order the rearrest of the accused:
of the penalty consisting deprivation of liberty shall be
Provided, finally, that recidivists, habitual delinquents,
computed from the day that the offender is placed at the
escapees, and persons charged with heinous crimes are
disposal of the judicial authorities for the enforcement
excluded from the coverage of this Act. In case the
of the penalty. The duration of other penalties shall be
maximum penalty to which the accused may be
computed only from the day on which the defendant
sentenced is destierro, he shall be released after thirty
commences to serve his sentence.
(30) days of preventive imprisonment.

From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes s
Preventive Imprisonment Offender Not Entitled to Preventive Imprisonment Rules
The accused undergoes preventive imprisonment when the 1. Recidivists or those convicted previously twice or more
offense charged is nonbailable, or if bailable, he cannot furnish time of any crime.
the required bail. 2. Those who, upon execution of their sentence, failed to
surrender voluntarily.
Deduction rules on service of preventive imprisonment 3. Habitual delinquents
Deduction is the actual period of detention and with good 4. Escapees
conduct time allowances (Article 97). 5. Persons charged with heinous crimes

Full time deduction: If the offender agrees voluntarily in Section Two. – Effects of the Penalties According
writing after being informed of effects and with the assistance to their Respective Nature
of counsel to abide by the disciplinary rules.
Article 30. - 1. Deprivation of public offices
Four-fifths deduction: If the detention prisoner does not Perpetual or and employment, even if by
agree to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon Temporary Absolute election.
convicted prisoners, he shall do so in writing and in assistance Disqualification for 2. Deprivation of right to vote or
of counsel and shall be credited. Public Office to be elected.
• Deduction rules include destierro. Perpetual last during 3. Disqualification for the offices
• Fines as principal are not affected by Article 29. the lifetime of the or public employments and for
convict even after the the exercise of any rights
Q. What if you were detained but was found innocent service of the mentioned.
thereafter? Can you seek for compensation from the State? sentence. Temporary 4. Loss of right to retirement pay
only during the or pensions for any office
RA 7309. An Act Creating Board Of Claims sentence except 1 formerly held.
Section 3. Who may File Claims. – The following may file and 4.
claims for compensation before the Board: Article 31. - 1. Deprivation of the office,
(a) any person who was unjustly accused, convicted Perpetual or employment, profession or
and imprisoned but subsequently released by Temporary Special calling affected.
virtue of a judgment of acquittal; Disqualification for 2. Disqualification for holding
(b) any person who was unjus1.tly detained and Public Office, similar offices or employments
released without being charged; Profession or Calling perpetually or temporarily.
(c) any victim of arbitrary or illegal detention by the
authorities as defined in the Revised Penal Code
under a final judgment of the court; and Article 32. - 1. Deprivation of the right to vote
(d) any person who is a victim of violent crimes. For Perpetual or or to be elected to any public
purposes of this Act, violent crimes shall include Temporary Special office.
rape and shall likewise refer to offenses committed Disqualification for 2. Cannot hold any public office
with malice which resulted in death or serious the Exercise of the during the period of
physical and/or psychological injuries, permanent Right of Suffrage disqualification.
incapacity or disability, insanity, abortion, serious
trauma, or committed with torture, cruelly or
barbarity. Article 33. – 1. Disqualification from public
Suspension from office or exercising such
Section 4. Award Ceiling. – For victims of unjust public office, profession or calling or right of
imprisonment or detention, the compensation shall be profession or calling suffrage during the term of the
based on the number of months of imprisonment or or the right of sentence.
detention and every fraction thereof shall be considered one suffrage 2. If suspended from public office,
month; Provided, however, That in no case shall such the offender cannot hold
compensation exceed One Thousand pesos (P1,000.00) per another office having similar
month. functions during suspension.
Article 34. – 1. Deprivation of the rights of
In all other cases, the maximum amount for which the Board Civil Interdiction parental authority or
may approve a claim shall not exceed Ten thousand pesos guardianship of any ward.
(P10,000.00) or the amount necessary to reimburse the 2. Deprivation of marital authority
claimant the expenses incurred for hospitalization, medical 3. Deprivation of the right to
treatment, loss of wage, loss of support or other expenses manage property and of the
directly related to injury, whichever is lower. This is without right dispose such by any act or
prejudice to the right of the claimant to seek other remedies conveyance inter vivos.
under existing laws.

From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes s
 Article 35. Effects of the Bond to Keep the Peace. – It shall
be the duty of any person sentenced to give bond to
keep the peace, to present two sufficient sureties who
shall undertake that such person will not commit the
offense sought to be prevented, and in that case such
offense be committed they will pay the amount
determined by the court in its judgment, or otherwise,
to deposit such amount in the office of the clerk of the
court to guarantee said undertaking.
The court shall determine, according to its discretion, the
period of duration of the bond.
Should the person sentenced fail to give the bond as
required, he shall be detained for a period which shall in
no case exceed six months, if he shall have been
prosecuted for a grave or less grave felony, and shall not
exceed thirty days, if for a light felony.
Bond to Keep the Peace is Not Bail Bond
Bond to keep the peace o for good behavior is imposed as a
penalty in threats. This is different from a bail bond, which
secures the provisional release of an accused person after his
arrest or during trial but before the final judgment of
conviction.
Article 36. Pardon, its effects. – A pardon shall not 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 pardon.
A pardon shall in no case exempt the culprit from the
payment of the civil indemnity imposed upon him by the
sentence.
Pardon in General Terms does Not Include Accessory
When the principal penalty is remitted by pardon, only the
effect of the principal penalty is extinguished, but not the
accessory penalties attached to it.
Exception: When an absolute pardon expressly states that the
pardon shall ‘restore full civil and political rights’ as stated.
When it is termed only as ‘you are hereby pardoned’ then the
accessory penalties are deemed to be not included in the
remission of the pardon.
Pardon by Offended Party Pardon by Chief Executive
Crimes against chastity Applies to any crime
under the RPC
In seduction, abduction and Can only one or any or all the
acts of lasciviousness it accused.
benefits the co-principals,
accomplices and
accessories. In adultery and
concubinage must include
both offenders.
Cannot be made subject to Can be granted absolute or
condition conditional.
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
Article 37. Costs – What are included. – Costs shall
include fees and indemnities in the course of the judicial
proceedings, whether they be fixed or unalterable
amounts determined by law or regulations in force, or
amounts not subject to schedule.
Costs, Included
1. Fees
2. Indemnities, in the course judicial proceedings.
Payment of Costs, Discretionary
Costs are chargeable against the accused. In case of acquittal
the costs are de oficio, each party bearing his own expenses.
The payment of costs is a matter that rests entirely upon the
discretion of courts.
Article 38. Pecuniary Liability – Order of Payment. – In
case the property of the offender should not be
sufficient for the payment of all his pecuniary liabilities
the same shall be met in the following order:
1. The reparation of the damage caused.
2. Indemnification of the consequential damages.
3. The fine.
4. The costs of the proceedings.
Article 38 [R-I-F-C], When Applicable
This is in case the property of the offender should not be
sufficient for the payment of all his pecuniary liabilities. Hence,
if the offender has sufficient or no property, there is no use for
Article 38.
This time the government decides to be generous. They are
giving priority to civil liability rather than pecuniary liabilities.
Article 39. Subsidiary Penalty. – If the convict has no
property with which to meet the fine mentioned in
paragraph three of the next preceding article, he shall be
subject to a subsidiary personal liability at the rate of
one day for each amount equivalent to the highest
minimum wage rate prevailing in the Philippines at the
time of the rendition of the judgment of conviction by
the trial court, subject to the following rules:
1. If the principal penalty imposed be prision
correccional or arrest and fine, he shall remain under
confinement until his fine referred in the preceding
paragraph is satisfied, but his subsidiary
imprisonment shall not exceed one-third of the term
of the sentence, and in no case shall it continue for
more than one year, and no fraction or part of a day
shall be counted against the prisoner.
2. When the principal penalty imposed be only a fine,
the subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed six
months, if the culprit shall have been prosecuted for
a grave or less grave felony, and shall not exceed
fifteen days, if for a light felony.
3. When the principal penalty imposed is higher than
prision correctional, no subsidiary imprisonment
shall be imposed upon the culprit.
s
 4. If the principal penalty is not to be executed by Subsidiary Penalty Under Special Laws
confinement in a penal institution, but such penalty Act 1732 also provides for a subsidiary penalty, but needs to
is of fixed duration, the convict, during the period of be amended the conditions are similar to Rule 1, but it pegs
time established in the preceding rules shall the amount a P2.50/day
continue to suffer the same deprivations as those of
which the principal penalty consists. Section Three. – Penalties in which Other
5. The subsidiary personal liability which the convict Accessory Penalties are Inherent
may have suffered by reason of his insolvency shall Article 40. When not executed by reason of
not relieve him for the fine in case his financial Death commutation of pardon:
circumstances should improve. (a) Perpetual absolute
disqualification
Subsidiary Personal Liability (b) Civil Interdiction for thirty
This only applies to inability to pay the fine. This is not an years following the
accessory penalty and as such it must be imposed in the sentence
decision. It must in the judgment of conviction. In the decisions Article 41. (a) Perpetual absolute
worded as ‘with subsidiary liability in case of insolvency.’ Reclusion Perpetua disqualification
Reclusion Temporal (b) Civil interdiction for life
Summary of the Rules under Article 39. (RP) or during sentence
1. Prision correccional or arresto mayor or arresto menor (RT)
and fine – subsidiary imprisonment shall: Article 42. (a) Temporary absolute
o Not exceed 1/3 of the sentence Prision Mayor disqualification
o Not continue for more than one year (b) Perpetual special
o Not count the fraction of the day disqualification of from
the right of suffrage
2. Fine only – subsidiary imprisonment shall: Article 43. (a) Suspension from public
o If grave or less grave felony – not exceed six Prision correccional office, profession or
months calling
o If light felony – not exceed fifteen days (b) Perpetual special
disqualification from
3. When higher than prision correccional (6m1d – 6y) – no suffrage if imprisonment
subsidiary imprisonment. exceeds 18 months.
Article 44. (a) Suspension of right to
4. Penalty is not confinement, but of fixed duration Arresto Mayor hold office and the right
o Same deprivations as those of principal Arresto Menor to suffrage on sentence.
subject to rules 1, 2 and 3.
Accessory Penalties are Deemed Imposed
5. In case financial circumstances of the convict should The accessory penalties need not be expressly imposed, they
improve, he shall pay the fine notwithstanding the are deemed imposed. They are understood to be always
subsidiary imprisonment. imposed by fact law fixes a certain penalty for a given crime.

Habitual Delinquent on Article 39 Reclusion Perpetua Life Imprisonment

Q. Suppose that the principal penalty is only a punishable by Imposable to felonies under Imposable for violation of
prision correccional, but the offender is the habitual the Revised Penal Code special laws
delinquent allowing an additional penalty of reclusion Fixed duration of 20y1d – No fixed duration
temporal, is he subject to subsidiary liability? 40y
Has accessory penalties No accessory penalties
A. No. You consider the total penalty, including the penalty
for habitual delinquency. If added to the principal penalty, Article 45. Confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds or
the extraordinary aggravating circumstance of habitual instrument of the crime. – Every penalty imposed for the
delinquency increases the penalty more than prision commission of a felony shall carry with it the forfeiture
correctional. of the proceeds of the crime and the instruments and
tools with which it was committed.
The Principal Penalty Imposed
This is the rule for subsidiary imprisonment, it should be Such proceeds and instruments or tools shall be
reckoned from the penalty actually imposed after all the confiscated and forfeited in favor of the Government,
circumstances have been considered. unless they be the property of a third person not liable
for the offense, but those articles which are not subject
NOTE: Article 39 does not apply to public censure. of lawful commerce be destroyed.

From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes s
Summary of Article 45
(1) Every penalty imposed carries with it the forfeiture of
the proceeds of the crime and the instrument or tools
used in the commission of the crime.
(2) The proceeds and instruments or tools of the crime
are confiscated in favor of the Government.
(3) Property of third person not liable for the offense is
not subject to confiscation and forfeiture
Article 45 is an Additional Penalty
Confiscation and forfeiture are in the nature of additional
penalties. Hence, they should be included in the decision. They
are not accessory penalties. If the accused appeal in cases where
not included. The court can, but it opens the whole case for
review and may add or increase penalty.
CHAPTER FOUR
APPLICATION OF PENALTIES
Section One. – Rules for the application of penalties
to the persons criminally liable and for
the graduation of the same.
Article 46. Penalty to be imposed upon principals in
general. – The penalty prescribed by law for the
commission of a felony shall be imposed upon the
principals in the commission of such felony.
Whenever the law prescribes a penalty for a felony in
general terms, it shall be understood as applicable to the
consummated felony.
Penalty Prescribed in General Terms – General Rule
The penalty prescribed by law in general terms is imposed:
1. Upon the principals
2. For consummated felony.
Exception: when the law fixes the penalty for frustrated or
attempted felony.
Article 50-57. See table below.
Stages Consummated Frustrated Attempted
Principal 0 46 150 251
Accomplice 152 254 356
Accessories 253 355 457
Degrees and Periods
A degree is a whole penalty, while a period may be considered
a degree. When it is the penalty provided for by the RPC. If the
penalty is prision correccional minimum, that is the penalty
provided by law. Such that, what is the penalty next lower, it
shall be arresto mayor maximum.
Article 47. In what cases the death penalty shall not be
imposed. – The death penalty shall be imposed in all
cases in which it must be imposed under existing laws,
except in the following cases:
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
1. When the guilty person be more than seventy years
of age.
2. When upon appeal or revision of the case by the
Supreme Court, all the members thereof are not
unanimous in their voting as to the propriety of the
imposition of the death penalty. For the imposition
of said penalty or for the confirmation of a judgment
of the inferior court imposing the death sentence,
the Supreme Court shall render its decision per
curiam, which shall be signed by all justices of said
court, unless some member or members thereof
shall have been disqualified from taking part in the
consideration of the case, in which even the
unanimous vote and signature of only the remaining
justices shall be required.
Death Penalty is not Imposed in the Following Instances:
(1) When the guilty person is below 18 years of age at the
time of the commission of the crime
(2) When the guilty person is more than 70 years of age
(3) When the upon appeal or automatic review of the case
by the Supreme Court, the vote of eight members is
not obtained for the imposition of the death penalty.
NOTE: Constitution assigns the SC to have automatic review of
death penalty cases, nowhere does it proscribe an intermediate
review, thus it is done through an intermediate review in the
Court of Appeals. Death penalty is not cruel and unusual.
- ARTICLE 48 DISCUSSED ON LATTER PART -
Article 49. Penalty to be imposed upon the principals
when the crime committed is different from that
intended. – In cases in which the felony committed is
different from that which the offender intended to
commit, the following rules shall be observed:
(1) If the penalty prescribed for the felony
committed be higher than that corresponding
to the offense which the accused intended to
commit, the penalty corresponding to the latter
shall be imposed in its maximum period.
(2) If the penalty prescribed for the felony
committed be lower than that corresponding to
the one which the accused intended to commit,
the penalty for the former shall be imposed in
its maximum period.
(3) The rule established by the next preceding
paragraph shall not be applicable if the acts
committed by the guilty person shall also
constitute an attempt or frustration of another
crime, if the law prescribes a higher penalty for
either of the latter offenses, in which case the
penalty provided for the attempted or the
frustrated crime shall be imposed in its
maximum period.
Article 4 on Criminal Liability
By any person committing a felony although the wrongful act
done be different from that which he intended.
s
There are three instances under Article 4 to examine:
(1) Aberratio ictus
(2) Error in personae
(3) Praeter intentionem
FIRST RULE SECOND RULE
Intended is lower Intended is higher
Committed is higher Committed is lower
Penalty of intended is applied Penalty of committed is
on its maximum applied on its maximum.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 49 TO ARTICLE 4
Aberratio Ictus, Not Applicable
Instance. A fired his gun at his father, with intent to kill him, but
he missed and hit another man C, killing the latter. If you
analyze the situation, there is only one act resulting to two
grave or less grave felonies. Article 49 does not apply here,
for what applies is Article 48, it is a complex crime.
• For a complex crime, the penalty to be imposed is the
penalty for the most serious offense to be imposed in
its maximum period.
Answer: A committed homicide and attempted homicide, these
are two felonies which one is grave and another is less grave,
thus the penalty arising from the single act.
Praeter Intentionem, Not Applicable
Instance. You intended to cause less serious physical injuries but
the felony became homicide. This instance, Article 49 is not
applicable, apply the doctrine of proximate cause, that the
offender is liable for the natural, direct and logical
consequences of the act.
Error in Personae, Applicable
Instance. A wanted to kill his father, however upon shooting,
the dead person turned out to be B, a total stranger. This is one
situation where Article 49 is applicable.
• The crime intended to be committed was parricide
(RP-Death), but what was committed was homicide
(RT). Reclusion temporal shall be applied in its
maximum.
- ARTICLES 50-57 DISCUSSED ON PREVIOUS PAGES -
Article 58. Additional penalty to be imposed upon certain
accessories. – Those accessories falling within the terms
of paragraph 3 of Article 19 of this code who should act
with abuse of their public functions, shall suffer the
addition penalty of absolute perpetual disqualification if
the principal offender shall be guilty of a grave felony,
and that of absolute temporary disqualification if he
shall be guilty of a less grave felony.
Only Applies to Public Officers that Abuse Authority
(1) Absolute perpetual disqualification – grave felony
(2) Absolute temporary disqualification – less grave
There are no accessories for a light felony (Article 19).
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
Article 59. Penalty to be imposed in case of failure to
commit the crime because the means employed or the
aims sought are impossible. — When the person
intending to commit an offense has already performed
the acts for the execution of the same but nevertheless
the crime was not produced by reason of the fact that
the act intended was by its nature one of impossible
accomplishment or because the means employed by
such person are essentially inadequate to produce the
result desired by him, the court, having in mind the
social danger and the degree of criminality shown by the
offender, shall impose upon him the penalty of arresto
mayor or a fine from 200 to 500 pesos.
Penalty for Impossible Crime
Arresto mayor or a fine ranging from 200 to 500 pesos. This is
because of (1) social danger and (2) degree of criminality shown
by the offender.
Article 60. – Exception to the rules established in Articles
50 to 57. – The provisions contained in Articles 50 to 57,
inclusive of this Code shall not be applicable to cases in
which the law expressly prescribes the penalty provided
for a frustrated or attempted felony, or to be imposed
upon accomplices or accessories.
Exceptions to the 46, 50-57 Diagram
• 297, a special complex crime of robbery with
attempted or frustrated homicide. When the law
expressly provides the penalty.
• 346, ascendants, teachers, and etc., who abuse
authority shall cooperate as accomplices in the crimes
against chastity treated as principal.
• 121, flight to enemny country, even the mere attempt
is both punished similarly.
• RA 9372, human security act where accomplice and
the accessory are punished the same way.
PLURALITY OF CRIMES
It happens when a person performed a series or criminal acts
performed by one by another. Two or more crimes.
Two Types of Plurality of Crimes
(1) Real or material plurality
It means that the person performs 2 or more criminal acts after
the other and he is liable for every criminal act that he
commits because every crime is motivated by a separate
criminal intent from the other.
(2) Formal or ideal plurality
It means that a person commits 2 or more criminal acts, there
will be 2 or more victims or offended parties, but in the eyes
of the law one crime is committed. This is in the forms of:
(a) Complex crimes; (1) compound crime or delito
compuesto and (2) complex crime proper or delito
complejo
(b) Special complex crimes or composite crimes
(c) Continued crimes or delito continuado
s
 Article 48. Penalty for complex crimes. – When a single
act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies,
or when an offense is a necessary means for committing
the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be
imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period.
A. COMPLEX CRIMES
There are two kinds of complex crimes under Articles 48:
(a) Compound crimes or delito compuesto
(b) Complex crime proper or delito complejo
1. Compound Crime or Delito Complejo
‘Single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies.”
REQUISITES:
(1) That there is only a single act performed by the
offender
(2) That the single act produces two or more grave or less
grave felonies.
People v. Guillen, discussed that the single act of throwing a
hand grenade producing murder and multiple attempted
murders. This is one of the very clear example of a compound
crime which murder is the most serious one.
Aberratio Ictus. Due to poor aim you killed another, which
makes you liable to both attempted homicide and homicide,
thus compound crimes apply.
Issue on light felonies. One of the possibilities when there are
grave, less grave and a light felony is that it might be absorbed.
It is also possible that you can have as many light felonies as
the victims.
People v. Buan
There were grave, less grave and light felonies happened
due to a vehicular accident, however, the lower courts
already acquitted the imprudence on the serious physical
injuries. On a second petition, they seek to file for the slight
physical injuries. The issue is that, can they file for the slight
injuries (light felonies) even though there was already a
deicison of the serious physical (grave felonies)?
No, it would be tantamount to double jeopardy. Reason
and precedent would inform that once a specific act of
reckless imprudence has been acquitted or convicted,
the accused may not be prosecuted again for the same
act. The law penalizes the act not the result thereof. Thus,
as the careless act was single, whether the injurious result
should affect one person or several persons the offense
remains one and the same.
Light Felonies, Absorbed in Compound Crimes
(1) Several light felonies from single crime does not
constitute a complex crime.
(2) When the crime committed by force or violence, slight
physical injuries is absorbed
NOTE: The offense of slight physical injury is absorbed in rape,
but not homicide. Rape with homicide is a composite crime.
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
Compound Crimes and Conspiracy
It must be shown that the crimes were committed due to a
single criminal impulse. If not, then the doctrine stands that
when various victims expire from separate shots, such acts
constitute separate and distinct crimes (People v. Gaffud, Jr.). It
must be shown that there was a single criminal impulse.
NOTE: No complex crime for arson with homicide under Article
48. As well as theft of firearm and illegal possession of firearms.
2. Complex Crime Proper or Delito Complejo
“An offense is a necessary means for committing the other.”
REQUISITES:
(1) That at least two offenses are committed
(2) That one or some of the offenses must be necessary
to commit the other
(3) That both or all the offenses must be punished under
the same statute.
There are two acts, it is not a single act, you commit felonies
one after the other. But the first felony is not the ultimate object.
It is only a stepping stone to commit another. One is the means
to commit another.
Illustrations of Complex Crime Proper
• Estafa through Falsification of Commercial
Documents
The offender falsifies the check by counterfeiting the signature
of the drawer and encash the check. The falsification was the
crime necessary to defraud the back.
• Forcible Abduction with Rape
When the offender, with lewd design abducted a woman and
drove her somewhere and through force and intimidation had
carnal knowledge with her. The forcible abduction preceded the
rape. The SC said that the crime is forcible abduction with rape.
NOTE: Subsequent acts of intercourse, after forcible abduction
with rape are now separate acts of rape.
• Kidnapping with Murder
Offender kidnaps somebody and demanded for ransom, but
when there is no ransom paid, hostage is killed. The crime
committed is that of Kidnapping with Murder. The kidnapping
was used as means to affect the killing.
• Simple Seduction by Means of Usurpation of
Official Functions
US v. Hernandez, Bautista performed an act properly
pertaining to a person in authority by assuming the official
character of a minister to make the girl believe that she was
legally married to accused Hernandez.
Necessary Means Not Indispensable
The phrase necessary means is not indispensable because if it
did, then it becomes an indispensable element of the latter and
would be an ingredient. Like the usage of poison in murder, it
qualifies murder and no longer a complex crime.
s
Single Purpose in Complex Crimes
Even if the offender executes various acts, he must have a single
purpose. In People v. Gallardo, the accused received 17 money
orders with a letter, all in one envelope addressed to the
offended party. The accused presented them for cashing after
falsifying each of the 17-money order. It was not 17 counts of
falsification but Estafa through Falsification.
• But if a person falsified vouchers not to commit estafa,
the various acts of falsification were not executed for
the attainment of a single purpose.
Trespass to Dwelling as a Direct Means, Aggravating
When trespass to dwelling is a direct means to commit a graver
offense, like rape, homicide or murder, there is no complex
crime of trespass to dwelling with rape. It is considered as an
aggravating circumstance of unlawful or forcible entry.
Malversation through Falsification of Public Document
Best example is the PDAF issue wherein, they created fake
projects and dummy beneficiaries, created ideas and presented
as a proposal to have money released. Falsification here is
necessary for them to get the money. The real intent was to get
the money, not to malversed it. Falsification here is a mere
stepping stone, it is not the crime they want to commit, it is
malversation, this is an example of delito complejo.
NOTE: When the public officer uses the money for his own
benefit and falsified the document to make it appear that the
money was used for a certain purpose.
When the offender had in his possession the funds which he
misappropriated, the falsification of official document involving
said funds is a separate offense.
No Complex Crime When Offense is Committed to Conceal
When the offenses were committed for concealing the
commission of the other, there is no complex crime. For
example, arson and homicide neither of them are necessary to
commit one another, so when fire is used to conceal the body
of the crime it is not a necessary means.
• So as illegal possession of firearms and homicide.
NOTE: When one of the crimes is punished under a Special
Law then it is not a complex crime proper, the third element
requires that they should be punished under the same
statute.
Hernandez Doctrine or the Absorption Doctrine
There is no complex crime of rebellion with murder, arson,
robbery or other common crimes, for they are deemed
indispensable to rebellion and thus absorbed. They lose their
character as separate crimes.
Article 48 if favorable to the Accused
The offender is deemed to be less perverse for the offender
only committed a single act which is less perverse compared to
committed material plurality. The reason for the benevolent
spirit of the imposition of a single penalty is readily discernible.
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
Civil Liabilities
There may be only one criminal penalty, but there can be many
civil liabilities. People v. Pacson, when the homicide, physical
injuries, and the burning of the house are the result of one
single act of negligence, there is only one penalty, but there are
three difference civil liabilities.
Doctrine of Common Element
In proving that there is a complex crime proper, one needs to
prove that there are no common elements or else it cannot be
complexed. The element of one cannot be reused.
Thus, there can be no Estafa through Falsification of Private
Documents because one of the elements that are present in
both is damage. Unlike Estafa through Falsification of Public
Documents, there is no need for damage as an element.
• It will either be falsification or estafa
Falsification without Estafa. Falsification is the first crime
committed, as a necessary crime for estafa, it should have been
complex, but they have a common element.
Estafa without Falsification. If estafa can be committed
without falsifying anything, like an agent already holding the
money, the falsification is used as concealment no longer as a
necessary.
NOTE: Article 48 only applies if there is no specific article
governing the complexing of the crime.
3. Special Complex Crime or Composite Crimes
The law combines such cries. They are those to which the law
provides for its own penalty. Even if they two different crimes
and even not necessary to each other, the law looks at them as
one. The law provides a single penalty.
Article 294, Robbery with Homicide
It is penalized by reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason
of or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall
have been committed. These are two crimes but are penalized
by a single penalty, thus, Article 48 cannot apply.
Article 267, Serious Illegal Detention with Homicide
Prior to RA 7659, if purpose was to kill then it is complex, for it
becomes necessary. But if it was for profit, then it would have
been treated separately. However, it does not matter when RA
7659 came into effect, it is now understood as a special
complex crime or composite crime (People v. Ramos).
4. Continued Crimes or Delito Continuado
A continued crime is a single crime, consisting of a series of acts
bull arising from one criminal resolution. It consists of a series
of acts but all arising from one criminal resolution. It is a
series of acts set on foot by a single impulse and operated by
an unintermittent force, however long a time it may occupy.
• Although there is a series of acts, there is only one
crime committed. Hence only one penalty shall be
imposed.
s
People v. De Leon, the suspect stole two roosters from two
different owners. but there is only one crime of theft. One crime
of theft only because there is a single intent to steal. He does
not divide his mind into stealing from the different owners.
People v. Mallare, in this case Mallare offered to mortgage to
Remedio Capaoan for a sum of P3000, but Capaoan only has
P1,500 so the latter referred Mallare to Remedio’s mother who
also paid P,1500. So there re now to contracts. It turned out that
the person who signed the contract was not the real owner.
There is only one crime for it only arose from the single
criminal resolution.
Garchitorena v. Santiago, continued crimes are applicable to
special laws. Secretary Santiago only signed one document
regarding the legalization of the state of 32 aliens.
Continued Crime is not a Complex Crime
A continued crime is not a complex crime, because the offender
in does not perform a single act but a series of crimes.
RULES FOR GRADUATING PENALTIES
Article 61. – Rules for graduating penalties. For the
purpose of graduating penalties which according to the
provisions of 50 to 57, inclusive, of this Code are to be
imposed upon persons guilty as principals of any
frustrated or attempted felony, or as accomplices or
accessories the following rules shall be observed:
Penalties are divisible and indivisible. Rules are affected when
the penalty is already indivisible.
• Single penalty composed of a single unit
• Compound penalty if two components
• Complex penalty has three components
• Penalty in period is a degree (PCmin)
RULE 1
1. When the penalty prescribed for the felony is single
and indivisible, the penalty next lower in degree shall be
that immediately following that indivisible penalty in the
respective graduate scale prescribed in Article 71 of this
Code.
This applies to reclusion temporal (RP), which is an indivisible
penalty, the penalty next following is reclusion temporal (RT).
RULE 2
2. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is
composed of two indivisible penalties, or of one or more
divisible penalties to be imposed to their full extent, the
penalty next lower in degree shall be that immediately
following the lesser of the penalties prescribed in
respective graduated scale.
Two indivisibles The next lower of lesser indivisible
[RP-D] = RT
Two divisible The next lower of lesser divisible
[PC-PM]
One divisible The next lower of the penalty
[PC-PM] = AM
RULE 3
3. When the penalty prescribed by for the crime is
composed of one or two indivisible penalties and the
maximum period of another divisible penalty, the
penalty next lower in degree shall be composed of the
medium and minimum periods of the proper divisible
penalty and the maximum period of that immediately
following in said respective graduated scale.
One or Two Indivisibles and a Divisible in Maximum Period
Article 248. Murder [RTmax – Death]
The penalty of murder consists of two indivisibles, death and
reclusion perpetua and a divisible in maximum period which is
reclusion temporal maximum.
Death
Reclusion Perpetua
Reclusion Temporal Maximum
Medium
Minimum
Prision Mayor Maximum
Medium
Minimum
Applying the rules, then the next penalty lower is PMmax –
RTmed. If it would be lower for another degree, then it would
be PCmax – PMmed. NOTE: Death as a penalty is no longer
imposable.
RULE 4
4. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is
composed of several periods, corresponding to different
divisible penalties, the penalty next lower in degree shall
be composed of the period immediately following the
minimum and of the two next following; which shall be
taken from the penalty prescribed if possible; otherwise
from the penalty immediately following in the
abovementioned respective graduated scale.
This contemplates a situation when the penalty is composed of
at least three periods which must correspondent to
different divisible penalties.
An example of this penalty is PMmed to RTmin. You have to
look at this penalty to have its respective maximum, medium
and minimum periods. Its maximum is RTmin, its medium is
PMmax and its minimum is PMmed. The law says the period
following the minimum (PMmin) and the two periods next
following (PCmax and PCmed).
Reclusion Temporal Maximum
Medium
Minimum
Prision Mayor Maximum
Medium
Minimum
Prison Correccional Maximum
Medium

From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes s
 Minimum
RULE 5
5. When the law prescribes a penalty for a crime in some
manner not specially provided for in the four preceding
rules, the courts, proceeding by analogy, shall impose
the corresponding penalties upon those guilty as
principals of the frustrated felony, or of attempt to
commit the same, and upon accomplices and
accessories.
Simplified Rules:
(1) When the penalty prescribed by the Code consists in
two periods, the penalty next lower in degree is the
penalty consisting in two periods down the scale.
[PCmin-PCmed] = AMmed - AMmax
(2) If the penalty prescribed by the code consists in only
one period, then the penalty next lower in degree is
the next period down in the scale.
[PCmed] = PCmin
Section Two – Rules for the Application of Penalties with
Regard to the Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstances
and Habitual Delinquency
Article 62. Effects of the attendance of mitigating or
aggravating circumstances and of habitual delinquency.
– Mitigating or aggravating circumstances and habitual
delinquency shall be taken into account for the purpose
of diminishing or increasing the penalty in conformity of
the following rules:
1. Aggravating circumstances which in themselves
constitute a crime specially punishable by law or
which are included by the law in defining a crime
and prescribing the penalty therefor shall not be
taken into account for the purpose of increasing
the penalty.
1.a. When in the commission of the crime,
advantage was taken by the offender of his public
position, the penalty to be imposed shall be in its
maximum regardless of mitigating circumstances.
The maximum penalty shall be imposed if the
offense was committed by any person who
belongs to an organized/syndicated crime group.
An organized/syndicated crime group means a
group of two or more persons, collaborating,
confederating or mutually helping one another for
purposes of gain in the commission of any crime.
2. The same rule shall apply with respect to any
aggravating circumstances inherent in the crime
to such a degree that it must of necessity
accompany the commission thereof.
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
3. Aggravating or mitigating circumstances which
arise from the moral attributes of the offender, or
from his private relations with the offended part,
or from any other personal cause, shall only serve
to aggravate or mitigate the liability of the
principals, accomplices, and accessories as to
whom such circumstances are attendant.
4. The circumstances which consists in the material
execution of the act, or in the means employed to
accomplish it, shall serve to aggravate or mitigate
the liability of those persons only who had
knowledge of them at the time of the execution of
the act or their cooperation therein.
5. Habitual delinquency shall have the following
effects:
a. Upon a third conviction, the culprit shall be
sentenced to the penalty provided by law
for the last crime which he be found guilty
and to the additional penalty of prision
correccional in its medium and maximum
periods.
b. Upon a fourth conviction, the culprit shall
be sentenced to the penalty provided for
the last crime of which he be found guilty
and to the additional penalty pf prision
mayor in its minimum and medium periods.
c. Upon a fifth or additional conviction, the
culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty
provided for the last crime of which he be
found guilty and to the additional penalty
of prision mayor in its maximum period to
reclusion temporal in its minimum period.
Notwithstanding the provisions of this article, the total
of the two penalties to be imposed upon the offender, in
conformity therewith, shall in no case exceed 30 years.
For the purposes of this article, a person shall be deemed
to be habitual delinquent, if within a period of ten years
from the date of his release or last conviction of the
crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robo,
hurto, estafa, or falsification, he is found guilty of any of
said crimes a third time or oftener.
PARAGRAPH 1
Aggravating circumstances which are not considered:
• In themselves constitute a crime
• Are included in the law defining a crime
When Maximum of the Penalty is Imposed
The following are considered to be as special aggravating
circumstances can’t be offset by mitigating circumstances:
• When in the commission of the crime advantage was
taken by the offender in his public position.
• If the offense was committed by any person who
belongs to an organized/syndicated crime group.
s
 PARAGRAPH 2 Computation of the Ten-Year Period
The same rule applies with respect to the identified aggravating The law expressly mentions defendant’s last conviction or last
circumstances which are considered to be inherent in the release as the starting point which the 10 years should be
crime. Like evident premeditation in robbery and theft. counted. Regardless if the crimes were attempted or
frustrated (People v. Abuyen).
PARAGRAPH 3
Aggravating or mitigating circumstances which arise from serve Additional Penalty
to whom such circumstances were attendant: Third Time PCmed – PCmax
Fourth Time PMmin – PMmed
(1) Moral attributes of the offender Fifth Time or More PMmax – RTmin
The circumstances of evident premeditation and passion and
obfuscation arise from the moral attributes of the offenders. The penalty for the two must not exceed 30 years.
Their statement of minds is different. (1) Penalty for the last crime of which he is found guilty
(2) The additional penalty for being a habitual delinquent
(2) Private relations with the offended party This makes 62(5) extraordinary aggravating circumstance.
Parricide and murder committed by a wife and a paramour
towards the former’s husband. This arise from private relations Recidivism and Habitual Delinquency
thus the qualifying circumstance of relationship shall only apply A person can be a habitual delinquent and at the same a
to the wife. recidivist when the crimes committed fall in the same title.
Recidivism under 14(9) shall work as aggravating circumstance
(3) From any other personal cause to the principal crime.
Recidivism, habituality or minority and seniority are obviously
personal in nature. Recidivism Habitual Delinquent
Sufficient that the accused Crimes are specified:
PARAGRAPH 4 on the date of his trial shall (a) Serious or less
The following circumstances shall serve to aggravate or have been previously serious physical
mitigate criminal liability of those persons only who had convicted by final judgment injuries
knowledge of them at the time of the execution of the act: of another crime embraced (b) Robbery
in the same title of this (c) Theft
(1) Material execution of the act Code. (d) Estafa
Aggravating circumstances of treachery shall be taken only to (e) Falsification
the principal in direct participation wherein the principal by No period of time between If found guilty of any of the
inducement had no knowledge of the treachery. former conviction and the crimes specified within 10
last conviction. years form his last release or
(2) Means to accomplish the crime last conviction.
The use of poison, when not known by one of the offenders, Second conviction is Third time or oftener on any
shall not apply to aggravate his crime. sufficient of the crimes specified.
Aggravating circumstance Extraordinary aggravating
PARAGRAPH 5: HABITUAL DELINQUENT
circumstance
A person is a habitual delinquent if within a period of ten years
from the date of his last release or last conviction, the crimes
Article 63. Rules for the application of indivisible
(1) serious or less serious physical injuries, (2) robo, (3) hurto,
penalties.
(4) estafa or (5) falsification, and found guilty of any of the said
crimes for the third time.
Outline of the Rules
(1) When the penalty is single and indivisible, it shall be
REQUISITES
applied regardless of any mitigating or aggravating.
1. The offender had been convicted of any of the crimes (2) When the penalty is composed of two indivisible
of serious or less serious physical injuries, robbery, penalties, the following rules shall be observed:
theft, estafa or falsification. a. Only one aggravating, greater penalty
2. After that conviction or after serving the sentence, he b. No circumstances, lesser penalty
again committed and within ten years from his release c. Mitigating, lesser penalty
or first conviction, he was again convicted of any of d. Offset based on moral value.
the said crimes for the second time.
3. After that conviction or after serving the sentence, he General rule: When the penalty is composed of two indivisible
again committed and within ten years from his release penalties, the penalty cannot be lowered by one degree.
or first conviction, he was again convicted of any of
the said crimes for the third time. Exception: When a privileged mitigating circumstance on
Article 68 (minority) and Article 69 (incomplete 11 or 12).

From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes s
 Article 64. Rules for the Application of Penalties Which
Contain Three Periods. – In cases in which the penalties
prescribed by law contain three periods, whether it be a
single divisible penalty or composed of three different
penalties, each one of which forms a period in
accordance with the provisions of Article 76 and 77, the
courts shall observe for the application of the penalty
the following rules, according to whether there are or
are no mitigating or aggravating circumstances.
1. When there are neither aggravating nor
mitigating circumstances, they shall impose the
penalty prescribed by law in its medium period.
2. When only a mitigating circumstance is present in
the commission of the act, they shall impose the
penalty in its minimum period.
3. When only an aggravating circumstance is present
in the commission of the act, they shall impose the
penalty in its maximum period.
4. When both mitigating and aggravating
circumstances are present, the court shall
reasonably offset those of one class against the
other according to their relative weight.
5. When there are two or more mitigating
circumstances and no aggravating circumstance
are present, the court shall impose the penalty
next lower to the prescribed by law, in the period
that it may deem applicable, according to the
number and nature of such circumstances.
6. Whatever may be the number and nature of the
aggravating circumstances, the courts shall not
impose a greater penalty than that prescribed by
law, in its maximum period.
7. Within the limits of each period, the courts shall
determine the extent of the penalty according to
the number and nature of the aggravating and
mitigating circumstances and the greater or lesser
extent of the evil produced by the crime.
Outline of the Rules
(1) No aggravating or mitigating – medium
(2) Mitigating – minimum
(3) Aggravating – maximum
(4) When there are mitigating and aggravating, the court
shall offset according to their relative weight
(5) Two or more mitigating and no aggravating, penalty
next lower
(6) No penalty greater than the maximum period of the
penalty prescribed by law shall be imposed, no matter
how many aggravating circumstances are present.
(7) The court can determine the extent of the penalty
within the limits of each period according to the
number and nature of the circumstances.
Mitigating and Aggravating are Not Considered in;
(1) Single and indivisible penalty (except 68 and 69)
(2) In felonies through negligence
(3) Moro and non-Christian inhabitants
(4) Penalty is only a fine imposed by ordinance
(5) Penalties are special laws.
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
Q. If the circumstance of minority, voluntary confession and
surrender are present and the penalty to be prescribed is RP.
• RP is lowered by one degree due to Article 68 thus, it
shall become RT, but due to the existing two
mitigating and no aggravating, he shall be entitled to
a privileged mitigating circumstance of Article 64(5)
which will lower from RT to PM.
Article 65. Rules in cases in which the penalty is not
composed of three periods. – In cases in which the
penalty prescribed by law is not composed of three
periods, the courts shall apply the rules contained in the
foregoing articles, dividing in to three equal portions the
time included in the penalty prescribed, and forming one
period of each of the three portions.
Application of Article 65
(1) Compute and determine first the three periods of the
entire penalty.
(2) The time included in the penalty prescribed should be
divided into three equal portions, after subtracting the
minimum (eliminate 1 day) from the maximum of the
penalty.
(3) The minimum of the minimum period should be the
minimum of the given penalty.
(4) The quotient should be added to the minimum
prescribed (eliminate 1 day) and the total will
represent the maximum of the minimum period. Add
one day and it will make the medium period and take
the maximum of the medium period add 1 day to
make it the maximum of the medium period and add
the quotient to get the maximum of the maximum
period.
Article 76. Computation for Three Period Penalties
Advance discussion: Prision correccional is a treble division
penalty. Article 76 applies the following in computing such:
PC: 6m1d – 6y
• 6y-6m (omit 1d) = 5y6m
• 5y6m divide by 3 (66m/3 = 22m) = 1y10m
• 1y10m shall be the quotient for PC
To get the minimum range
• 6m + 1y10m = (6m + 22m = 28m) = 2y4m
• 6m1d – 2y4m
• 6m1d is the minimum of the minimum period
• 2y4m is the maximum of the minimum period
To get the medium range
• Get the maximum of the minimum period and add
one day to have the minimum of the medium which is
now 2y4m1d
• To get the maximum of the medium, you just have to
add the determined quotient to the minimum of the
omitting 1 day 2y4m (28m) + 1y10m (22m) = 4y2m
(50m)
• 2y4m1d – 4y2m medium period for PC.
s
To get the maximum range
• Add 1 day to the maximum of the medium making the Article 67. Penalty to be imposed when not all the
base of the minimum for the maximum period. requisites of exemption of the fourth circumstance of
• 4y2m1d and add the quotient 1y10m Article 12 are present. – When all the conditions required
• 50m (omit 1d) + 22m = 72m (6y) in circumstance number 4 of Articles 12 of this code to
• 4y2m1d minimum of the maximum of PC exempt from criminal liability are not present, the
• 6m maximum of the maximum of PC penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to
prision correctional in its minimum period shall be
Prision Correccional [6m1d – 6y] imposed upon the culprit, if he shall have been guilty of
Maximum 4y2m1d 6y a grave felony, and arresto mayor in its minimum and
Medium 2y4m1d 4y2m medium periods, if of a less grave felony.
Minimum 6m1d 2y4m
Incomplete Article 12 (4)
Performing a lawful act with due care causing injury by mere
ILLUSTRATION OF ARTICLE 65 accident without fault or intention causing it.
Article 255 provides penalty of PCmed and PCmax as penalty • If grave offense, AMmax – PCmin
for infanticide committed by mother to conceal dishonor. • If less grave offense, AMmin – AMmed

2y4m1d – 6y Article 68. Penaty to be imposed upon a person under

eighteen years of age. – AMENDED BY RA 9344 & 10630
• 72m – 28m = 44m/3 =14m20d
• 1y2m20d is the quotient to be added Child under 15 years of age
Exempt from criminal liability. The child shall be immediately
To get minimum: released to the custody of parent or guardian and be subject to
• 2y4m(1d) + 1y2m20d = 3y6m20d a community based intervention program to be supervised
• 2y4m1d minimum of the minimum PCmed-max by the LSWDO unless the best interest of the child requires
• 3y6m20d max of the minimum PCmed-max referral to a child care facility.
• 2y4m1d – 3y6m20d
Child under 15 but above 12 of Serious Crime
To get medium Parricide, murder, infanticide, kidnapping and serious illegal
• 3y6m20d + 1 day for the minimum detention the child shall be deemed neglected. He shall be
• 3y6m20d + 1y2m20d = 4y9m10d mandatorily placed in a special facility.
• 3y6m21d minimum of medium PCmed-max • Same shall apply to a child who committed another
• 4y9m10d maximum of medium PCmed-max crime after community intervention.
• 3y6m21d – 4y9m10d
Child above 15 but under 18
To get maximum Exempt from criminal liability and be subject to an intervention
• 4y9m10d + 1 day for the minimum program. If acted with discernment, then diversion proceedings.
• 4y9m10d + 1y2m20d = 6y • If the CICL fails to comply with the conditions of
• 4y9m11d minimum of max PCmed-max disposition or rehabilitation the child shall be brought
• 6y maximum of maximum PCmed-max for the execution of judgment.
• 4y9m11d – 6y • This is the time the privileged mitigating circumstance
of Article 68(2) shall be imposed.
Prision Correccional Medium and Maximum
Maximum 4y9m11d 6y Article 69. Penalty to be imposed when the crime
Medium 3y6m21d 4y9m10d committed is not wholly excusable. – A penaly lower by
Minimum 2y4m1d 3y6m20d one or two degrees than that prescribed by shall be
imposed if the deed is not wholly excusable by reason of
Article 66. Imposition of fines. – In imposing fines the the lack of some of the conditions required to justify the
courts may fix any amount within the limits established same or to exempt form criminal liability in the seveal
by law; in fixing the amount in each case attention shall cases mentioned in Article 11 and 12, provided that the
be given, not only to the mitigating and aggravating majority of such conditions be present. The courts shall
circumstances but more particularly to the wealth and impose the penalty in the period which may be deemed
means of the culprit. proper, in view of the number and nature of the
conditions of exemption present or lacking.
NOTE: In terms of gambling, position and standing of the
accused is considered. The privileged mitigating circumstances contemplated in
Article 12 include the incomplete 11 and 12 provided that the

From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes s
majority of the conditions of present. Article 69 and 64(5)
would lower penalty by three degrees.
Article 70. Successive service of sentences. – When the
culprit has to serve two or more penalties, he shall serve
them simulteaneousy if the nature of the penalties will
so permit; otherwise, the following rules shall be
observed:
In the imposition of the penalties, the order of their
respective severity shall be followed so that they may be
executed successively or as nearly as may be possible,
should a pardon have been granted as to the penalty or
penalties first, or should they have been served out.
For the purpose of applying the provisions of the next
preceding paragraph the respective severity of the
penalties shall be determinet with the following scale:
(1) Death
(2) Reclusion perpetua
(3) Reclusion temporal
(4) Prision mayor
(5) Prision correccional
(6) Arresto mayor
(7) Arresto menor
(8) Destierro
(9) Perpetual absolute disqualification
(10) Temporary absolute disqualification
(11) Suspension from public office, the right to vote
and be voted for, the right to follow profession
or calling
(12) Public censure
Nothwithsanding the provisions of the rule next
preceding, the maximum duration of the convict’s
sentence shall not be more than three-fold the length of
time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties
imposed upon him. No other penalty to which he may be
liable shall be inflicted after the sum of those imposed
equals the said maximum period.
Such maximum period shall in no case exceed forty
years.
In applying the rpovisons of this rule the duration of
perpetual penalties (pena perpetua) shall be computed
at thirty years.
Penalties which can be simultaneously be served
(1) Perpetual absolute disqualification
(2) Perpetual special disqualification
(3) Temporary absolute disqualification
(4) Temporary special disqualification
(5) Suspension
(6) Destierro
(7) Public Censure
(8) Fine and bond to keep the peace
(9) Civil interdiction
(10) Confiscation and payment of costs
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
Destierro cannot be served simultaneously with imprisonment,
so as other penalties consisting in deprivation of liberty.
In Case of Multiple Death Penalties
People v. Peralta, the sentencing of an accused to several
capital penalties is a badge of his extreme criminal perversity.
Thus, all death sentences are deemed to be simultaneously
serve. Deterrent in granting clemency.
Three-Fold Rule
The maximum duration of the convict’s sentence shall not be
more than three-fold the length of time corresponding to the
most severe of the penalties imposed upon him.
• The sum of successive sentences should not exceed
three times the length of the most severe.
• If the sum total of all the penalties does not exceed
the most severe, this rule shall not apply.
• Shall only apply when the convict has the serve at
least four sentences.
On ISL: If the sentence is indeterminate the maximum is to be
considered. You reckon from the maximum of the ISL.
On Subsidiary Imprisonment: if the principal penalty imposed
be PC and fine, he shall remain under confinement until his fine
is satisfied and that his subsidiary imprisonment shall not
exceed 1/3 of the term of the sentence.
40 Year Limitation Rule
Such maximum period shall in no case exceed forty years. This
is the longest stay in prison. This is also a condition under the
three-fold rule.
DIFFERENT SYSTEMS OF PENALTY
Material Accumulation System
Article 70 is also known as material accumulation theory where
successive service of sentence is considered. It usually reaches
more than beyond the natural span of human life.
Juridical Accumulation System
This is where the three-fold rule applies, the service of the
several penalties imposed one and the same culprit is limited
to not more than three-fold the length of time corresponding
to the most severe and in no case to exceed forty years.
• Mejorada v. Sandiganbayan, the court must impose
all the penalties for all the crimes of which the accused
is found guilty, but in the service of the same, they
shall not exceed 40 years.
Absorption System
The absorption system is observed in the imposition of the
penalty in complex crimes, continuing crimes and composite
crimes. Where the greater penalty absorbs the lesser penalty.
s
In the Philippines, we follow all the three different systems of
penalty, paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) of the Article 70 refers to the
material and (4) to (6) for juridical.
Article 71. Graduated scales. – In the cases in which the
law prescribes a penalty lower or higher by one or more
degrees than another given penalty, the rules prescribed
in Article 61 shall be observed in graduating such
penalty.
The lower or higher enalty shall be taken from the
graduated scale in which is comprised the given penalty.
The courts, in applying such lower or higher penalty,
shall observe the following graduated scales:
SCALE NO. 1
(1) Death
(2) Reclusion perpetua
(3) Reclusion temporal
(4) Prision mayor
(5) Prison correccional
(6) Arresto Mayor
(7) Destierro
(8) Arresto Menor
(9) Public Censure
(10) Fine.
SCALE NO. 2
(1) Perpetual absolute disqualification
(2) Temporary absolute disqualification
(3) Suepnesion from pbulci office, the right to vote
and be voted for, and the right to follow a
profession or calling
(4) Public censure
(5) Fine
Death shall no longer form part of the Graduation
RA 9346, do not consider death in the graduation except when
using the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority.
People v. Bon, as to sentences handed down with finality,
death under Article 71 shall no longer form part of the equation
in the graduation of penalties. In this case, the penalty for
attempted rape shall be reckoned not from two degrees lower
than death, but to two degrees lower than reclusion perpetua.
People v. Jacinto, However, for purposes of determining the
proper penalty because of the privileged circumstance of
minority, the penalty of death is still the penalty to be reckoned.
• SECTION 51. RA 9344, if the child has reached the
age of 21 for intervention programs he or she shall not
be imprisoned but instead serve in agricultural camps.
Destierro is higher in Graduation but Less in Severity
If the issue in the problem is the sentence, Article 71 should be
referred to. But if the issue is about which sentence to serve
first, then Article 70 shall be followed, which puts arresto menor
first than destierro.
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
Destierro in the Graduated Scale
Destierro may be imposed when it is the penalty next lower to
arresto mayor.
Article 72. Preference in the payment of the civil liabilies.
– The civil liabilities of a person found guilty of two or
more offenses shall be satisfied by following the
chronological order of the dates of the judgments
rendered against him, beginning with the first in order
of time.
Section Three – Provision common to the last two
preceding sections
Article 73. Presumption in regard to the imposition of
accessory penalties. – Whenever the court shall impose a
penalty which by provision of law, carries with it other
penalties, according to the provisions of Articles 40, 41,
42, 43, 44 and 45 of this Code, it must be understood
that the accessory penalties are also imposed upon the
convict.
NOTE: Subsidiary penalty or imprisonment is not an accessory
penalty and should be in the decision.
Article 74. Penalty higher than reclusion perpetua in
certain cases. – In cases in which the law prescribes a
penalty higher than another given penalty, without
specifically designating the name of the former, if such
higher penalty should be that of death, the same penalty
and the accessory penalties of Article 40, shall be
considered as the next higher penalty.
NOTE: Death cannot be the next penalty higher in degree when
not provided by law.
Article 75. Increasing or reducing the penalty of fine by
one or more degrees. - Whenever it may be necessary to
increase or reduce the penalty of fine by one or more
degrees, it shall be increased or reduced respectively for
each degree, by one fourth of the maximum amount by
law, without however, changing the minimum.
The same rules shall be observed with regard to fines
that do not consist of a fixed amount, but are made
proportional.
Fines are Graduated into Degrees for the Accomplices and
Accessories and for the Principals.
The reduction or increase is one-fourth by degree. But the
minimum should not be changed. When the minimum is not
determined then the court shall determine.
Article 76. Legal period of duration of divisible penalties.
– The legal period of duration of divisible penalties shall
be considered as divided into three parts, forming three
periods, the minimum, medium and the maximum in the
manner shown in the following thable.
s
 (1) Expiration of appeal
Arresto Mayor, Exception (2) Sentence had been served partially or totally
Minimum is 1m1d-2m; 2m1d – 4m, and 4m1d – 6m. (3) Waive the right to appeal
(4) Application for probation.
Duration of Divisible Penalties and Time Included Article 79. Suespnsion of the execution and service of the
Penalties Entirety Minimum Medium Maximum penalties in case of insanity. – When a convict shall
RT 12y1d – 12y1d – 14y8m1d 17y4m1d become insane or an imbecile after final sentence has
20y 14y8m – 17y4m – 20y been pronounced, the execution of the said sentence
PM/AD/ 6y1d – 6y1d – 8y 8y1d – 10y1d – shall be suspended only with the regard to the personal
SD 12y 10y 12y penalty, the provisions of the second paragraph of
PC, S, D 6m1d – 6m1d – 2y4m1d 4y2m1d – circumstance no. 1 of Article 12 being observed in the
6y 2y4m – 4y2m 6y corresponding cases.
AM 1m1d – 1m1d – 2m1d – 4m1d –
6m 2m 4m 6m If at any time the convict shall recover his reason, his
Am 1d – 30d 1d – 10d 11d – 21d – 30d sentence shall be executed, unless the penalty shall have
20d prescribed in accordance with the provisions of this
Code.

Article 77. when the penalty is a complex one composed
of three distinct penalties. In cases in which the law
prescribes a penalty composed of three distinct
penalties, each one shall form a period; the lightest of
them shall be the minimum, the next the medium, and
the most severe the maximum period.
The respective provisions of this Section shall be
observed if the insanity or imbecility occurs while the
convict is serving sentence.
NOTE: Insane or imbecility at any point in the proceedings
would affect the judgment or service of the sentence.

Whenever the penalty prescribed does not have one of Article 80. REPEALED BY PD 603 and RA 9344
the forms specially provided for in this Code, the periods
shall be distributed applying by analogy the prescribed Exemption from Criminal Liability
rules. A child 15 year of age or under at the time of the commission
of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability. The child
CHAPTER FIVE shall be immediately released to the custody of his/her parents
EXECUTION AND SERVICE OF PENALTIES or guardian, immediately released to a community-based
intervention program unless the best interest of the child
requires him to be in a child care facility.
Section One. – General Provisions

Intervention Program for 15 years and below

Article 78. When and how a penalty is to be executed. –
If it has been determined that the child has been taken into
No penalty shall be executed except by virtue of a fina
custody is 15 below, the authority has the duty to immediately
judgment.
release the child to parent, guardian or nearest relative.
A penalty shall not be executed in any other form than
Automatic Suspension of Sentence under RA 9344
that prescribed by law, nor with any other circumstances
Once the child who is under 18 years of age at the commission
or incidents than those expressly authorized thereby.
of the crime, the child shall be subjected to a community based
intervention.
In addition to the provisions of the law, the special
regulations prescribed for the government of the
Diversion Program for Children Over 15 and under 18 who
institutions in which the penalties are to be suffered shall
Acted with Discernment
be observed with regard to the character of the work ot
(1) Where the imposable penalty is not more than six
be performed, the time of its performance, and other
years the LEO shall conduct mediation.
incidents connected therwith, the relations of the
(2) Victimless crimes of not more than six years, the
convicts among themselves and other person,s, the relief
LSWDO shall meet with child and parents for
which they may receive, and their diet.
development.
(3) Where the imposable penalty exceeds more than six
The regulations shall make provision for the separation
years imprisonment, diversion by court.
of the sexes in different institutions, or at least into
different departments, and also for the correction and
Suspension of Sentence Lasts Only Until 21 Years of Age
reform of the convicts.
People v. Jacinto, 25-year-old appellant, still, the offender is
still entitled to the right to restoration, rehabilitation, and
Penalty Can Only be Executed Upon Final Judgment
reintegration in accordance with the Act in order that he/she is

From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes s
given the chance to live a normal life. Confined to an
agricultural camp or any training facility under Section 51. The
court may also put under probation the child over 21. (People
v. Sarcia).
Section Two. – Execution of principal penalties.
- ARTICLES 81 to 85 repealed by RA 9346 –
Article 86. Reclusion perpetua, reclusion temporal,
prision mayor, prision correccional and arresto mayor. -
The penalties of reclusion perpetua, reclusion temporal,
prision mayor, prision correccional and arresto mayor,
shall be executed and served in the places and penal
establishments provided by the Administrative Code in
force or which may be provided by law in the future.
Article 87. Destierro. - Any person sentenced to destierro
shall not be permitted to enter the place or places
designated in the sentence, nor within the radius therein
specified, which shall not more than 250 and be not less
than 25 kilometers from the place designated.
People v. Abilong, Abilong Doctrine
Abilong went within the radius set by law, and destierro is a
deprivation of liberty, because you are not allowed to enter the
radius. Therefore, if you enter that radius, there is evasion of
service of sentence for it removes the deprivation of liberty.
• Mere banishment (People v. Abarca).
Penalty for:
(1) Concubine in concubinage
(2) Additional penalty for failure to give bond to keep the
peace
(3) When the imposable graduated penalty is destierro
(4) Death under exceptional circumstances
Article 88. Arresto Menor. – The penalty for arresto
menor shall be served in the municipal jail, or in the
house of the defendant himself under the surveillance of
an officer of the law, when the court so provides in its
decision, taking into consideration the health of the
offender and other reasons which may seem satisfactory
to it.
PROBATION LAW OF 1976
PD 968, As Amended
Probation
It is simply the law on suspended sentence for adult offenders.
This is the counterpart under RA 9344 where there is automatic
suspension of the sentence of minors. The difference is that, the
convict should apply for probation.
• The adult shall be referred to the Probation
Administration.
SECTION 4. Grant of Probation. – Subject to the provisions
of this Decree, the trial court may, after it shall have
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
convicted and sentenced a defendant and upon application
by said defendant within the period of perfecting an appeal,
suspend the execution of the sentence and place the
defendant on probation for such period and upon such
terms and conditions as it may deem best. No application
for probation shall be entertained or granted if the
defendant has perfect the appeal from the judgment of
conviction: Provided, that when a judgment of conviction
imposing a non-probationable penalty is appealed or
reviewed, and such judgment is modified through the
imposition of a probationable penalty, the defendant shall
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 shall be filed
in the trial court where the judgment of conviction imposing
a non-probationable penalty was rendered, or in the trial
court where such case has since been re-raffled. In a case
involving several defendants where some have taken further
appeal, the other defendants may apply for probation by
submitting a written application and attaching thereto a
certified true copy of the judgment conviction.
The trial court shall, upon receipt of the application filed,
suspend the execution of the sentence imposed upon in the
judgment.
This notwithstanding, the accused shall lose the benefit of
probation should he seek a review of the modified decision
which already imposes a probationable penalty.
Probation may be granted whether the sentence imposes a
term of imprisonment or a fine only. The filing of the
application shall be deemed a waiver of the right to appeal.
An order granting or denying probation shall not be
appealable. (As amended by RA 10707, November 26, 2015).
Nature of Probation
A person is found guilty and sentenced to a crime you are made
to go home, under supervision of the probation officer. You are
supposed to report to probation officer. The court may
suspend the execution upon such terms and conditions as it
may deem best.
You are not forced to go under probation, it is your own choice.
So, the law uses the word may. After conviction of sentence, the
defendant can file an application of probation.
• You must apply it is not automatic.
• You must apply within the period for perfecting an
appeal it is usually 15 days from conviction.
You either file for probation or file for an appeal
Under application for admission you admit your guilt, it is an
either-or proposition. If you are granted probation, the
sentence shall be suspended.
Rationale for probation: Palo v. Militante, this is to encourage
offenders who are willing to be reformed and rehabilitated and
s
to avail probation at the first opportunity. This is not intended
to suspend appeal period, the filing for probation operates as
a waiver of a right to appeal. [Positivist Theory]
Characteristics of Probation
• The order granting or denying probation is
unappealable it basically rest to the court.
• The legal effect is to suspend execution a sentence.
• This is not a sentence, merely a suspension of the
imposition of the sentence.
• This is an interlocutory order, there is something
that the court has to do, unlike a final judgment, the
judge has nothing else to do.
Even if you are granted probation, it does not remove the
conviction, the court has to order a final discharge. It depends
on the report of the Probation officer.
• You will be ordered by the court to serve the sentence.
Accessory Penalties, Effects of Probation
These are deemed suspended also when the probation decree
has been granted to the probationer.
Fine Only, Can File for Probation
Subsidiary imprisonment, if you cannot pay the fine and an
express stipulation of the court that there shall be subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency. Then you can avail for
probation, this is applicable even if the penalty is fine only.
Final Discharge
That final discharge operates to restore all the suspended civil
and political rights as a result of the conviction. The discharge
shall include the fine. No bearing on civil liability.
GROUNDS FOR DENIAL OF PROBATION (SECTION 8)
Petition for probation can be denied if the court finds that:
(a) The offender is in need of correctional treatment that
can be provided most effectively by his commitment
to an institution; or
(b) There is an undue risk during the period of probation,
the offender will commit another crime.
(c) Probation will depreciate the seriousness of the
offense committed. [NUD]
MANDATORY CONDITIONS FOR PROBATION
If you are granted probation, there are mandatory conditions
to be followed under the law.
(1) Shall report to the assigned probation officer within
72 hours upon receipt of the probation order.
(2) You have to report periodically to the probation
officer once a month or as the latter may decide.
Other Conditions under Section 10 are Discretionary
Baclayon v. Mutia the conditions under Section 10 are not
exclusive, the courts are allowed to put any conditions limited
that it does not jeopardize the constitutional rights of the
accused. As long as it is not unconstitutional.
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
Soriano v. CA, the court may require the offender to submit a
payment schedule of the civil liability to the offenders as a way
to show the court the conditions.
DISQUALIFICATIONS FOR THE GRANT OF PROBATION [9]
The benefits of probation shall not be extended to:
1. Those sentenced to serve a maximum term of
imprisonment of more than six years. [Less grave]
2. Those convicted of any crime against national security
3. Those who were previously convicted by final judgment of
an offense punished of more than six months and one
day or a fine more than P1000.
4. Those who have been under probation once.
5. Already serving sentence
6. Perfected an appeal, mutually exclusive [SNSOSA]
Bernardo v. Balago. Probation is a mere privilege and its
grants rests upon the discretion of the court even if the
convicted is not belong to the disqualified, it is not automatic.
• Still not a guarantee that you will be granted
probation. Other grants of probation Section 8.
Deprecitate the offense. Santos v. CA (1999), accused issued 54
bouncing checks, to allow petitioner to be placed on probation
will depreciate the crime.
DURATION OF PROBATION [SECTION 14]
(a) The period of probation of a defendant sentenced to
a term of imprisonment of not more than one year
shall not exceed two years, and in all other cases, said
period shall not exceed six years.
(b) If fine through subsidiary imprisonment, the period of
probation shall not be less than not be more than
twice the total number of days of subsidiary
imprisonment under Article 39.
FRANCISCO v. COURT OF APPEALS
The accused appealed his conviction for grave oral defamation,
the appealed affirmed, the CA appreciated the mitigating
circumstance of passion and obfuscation.
• There being a mitigating circumstance, the court of
appeals lowered the penalty, accused filed for a
probation but was denied.
• He filed an appeal thus, the probation was denied.
• Probationable already
HELD: Probation should be availed of at the first opportunity
for the convict who wanted to be reformed. An appeal should
not bar him if the probationable penalty was not there at the
first instance. It was only available only upon appeal.
• It is simply contrary to Section 4.
Colinares Case: Ordinarily he would no longer be entitled to
apply, he appealed the case. But, the court finds him upon
appeal liable only for a lesser penalty which is now
probationable in the case. Can petition to the trial court upon
remand to the case. [frustrated homicide to physical injury].
• Lower court: non-probationable
s
 • Upon appeal: now probationable
Even if he wanted to him cannot apply for probation. This is to
prevent speculation.
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW
Act No. 4103
SECTION 1. Hereafter, in imposing a prison sentence
for an offense punished by the Revised Penal Code, or
its amendments, the court shall sentence the accused
to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of
which shall be that which, in view of the attending
circumstances, could be properly imposed under the
rules of said Code, and the minimum of which shall be
within the range of the penalty next lower to that
prescribed by the code for the offense; and if the
offense is punished by another law, the court shall
sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence,
the maximum term of which shall not exceed the
maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not
be less than the minimum term prescribed by the
same. (As amended by Act No. 4225)
The court shall determine two penalties in the ISL, the maximum
and the minimum. You must find first the maximum period
first. The law should be applied in imposing a prison sentence
for either RPC or special law. You can forget about the medium.
Mandatory
In case which it shall be applied, it shall be applied.
When the Crime is Punished by Special Law
The court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate panty,
the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum
fixed by law and the minimum term shall not be less than the
minimum prescribed by the same.
When Punished under the RPC
Maximum term – which shall be that which, in view of the
attending circumstances could be properly imposed under the
rules of the RPC. In other words, all that things we have learned
about, all of those will be applied in determining the maximum.
• In coming up with that maximum term under the ISL.
Minimum term – within the range of the penalty next lower
to that prescribed by the code for the offense.
The court cannot put the minimum penalty in the same period
and the same degree as the maximum penalty, the penalty next
lower must be based on the Code for the offense, without
considering the modifying circumstances.
• In fixing the minimum term, it is left entirely within the
discretion of the court to fix it anywhere within the
range of the penalty next lower in degree to that
prescribed by the law.
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
Instance. A accused of Homicide is RT, there is a mitigating
circumstance. Determine the proper penalty under the ISL.
Looking for the maximum, proper penalty, RTmin. Meaning to
say this will be your maximum term under the ISL.
Minimum, it shall within the range of the penalty lower next
degree prescribed by the Code of the offense, the
prescribed is RT, the penalty next lower is PM. PM is now
the minimum term.
• The judge must set a fixed maximum and minimum
term within the ranges that has been found out.
Instance. Instead of a mitigating circumstance, there is an
aggravating under the ISL, the maximum term is RTmax the
minimum is still PM, the whole prision mayor, for it is the next
penalty lower in degree in the next offense.
• If no aggravating or mitigating RTmed
Privileged Mitigating Circumstance
We must look for the maximum first, it can be lowered. The
penalty becomes PMmed, this is now your maximum, the
penalty next lower, the law says within the range of the whole
penalty next lower in degree so PC not PCmed.
• We apply that in searching for maximum.
• Once you find the right maximum, the minimum shall
follow.
Instance. A committed the crime of direct assault with
homicide, is a complex crime, there are no modifying
circumstances.
• Most serious offense in its maximum period
• Homicide in RT, as complex it becomes RTmax.
• Do not stop there, it shall be the medium of the
RTmax, for there are no modifying circumstances.
Minimum is again, the whole range of prision mayor.
Additional Illustrations
1. When there are no modifying circumstances.
A was prosecuted for, and was found guilty of homicide
punishable by reclusion temporal. There being no mitigating
or aggravating circumstance, the maximum term of the
indeterminate penalty, is reclusion temporal medium. The
minimum term of the indeterminate penalty is anywhere
within the range of prision mayor, the penalty next lower
from reclusion temporal.
2. One ordinary mitigating circumstance
If A pleaded guilty before the presentation of the evidence
by the prosecution, there being no attending aggravating
circumstance to offset it, the maximum term of the
indeterminate penalty shall be reclusion temporal
minimum and the minimum term of the indeterminate
penalty is anywhere within the range of prision mayor.
3. One ordinary aggravating circumstance
Maximum is RTmax; the minimum term shall still be
anywhere within the range of prision mayor.
s
4. Both circumstances are attendant.
Offsetting shall be done, and that relative moral value and It is indeterminate because you are never sure when you are
weight shall be given to the remaining circumstances as to able to leave for the minimum, these are not determining, this
impose the maximum term. is indeterminate. One reaching minimum you are only eligible,
you can apply for parole.
5. Complex Crime
A was convicted of complex crime of frustrated homicide NOTE: The maximum shall be determined on the penalty
with assault. The penalty is reclusion temporal, being imposed because the ISL uses the word ‘punished’, the penalty
frustrated the penalty shall be lowered by one degree and actually imposed to the convict.
shall become prision mayor, it being a complex crime, it shall
become prision mayor maximum. The minimum term is DISQUALIFICATIONS TO AVAIL ISL (Section 2)
prision correccional range. 1. Convicted of offenses punished with death penalty or life
imprisonment (indivisible penalties).
6. Complex Crime and a Privileged Mitigating Circumstance • Except when reduced RT below (People v. Cempron)
Estafa through Falsification by Public Officer, the penalty 2. Those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to
imposed is prision mayor in its maximum, but there are commit treason.
two mitigating circumstances entitling him to a privileged 3. Convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or
mitigating circumstance under 64(5). espionage.
4. Those convicted of piracy.
When however – and this is the only exception to the rule, 5. Those who are habitual delinquents
when the number of mitigating circumstances entitling him • Recidivist can avail of ISL (People v. Jaranilla)
to the penalty next lower in degree, this now becomes the 6. Those who shall have escaped from confinement or
determination of scaling the minimum. evaded sentence.
7. Those who violated the terms of conditional pardon
Maximum period – prision correccional maximum granted.
Minimum period – range of arresto mayor 8. Maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year
• Although the penalty prescribed by the code for 9. Upon approval of the law are already under final judgment
the offense is prision mayor, it should not be the 10. Destierro or suspension.
starting point for determining the minimum • Only for those punished by imprisonment.
because there is a privileged mitigating
circumstance. An exception to the rule. NOTE: Since RA 9346, Section 3 it says that persons convicted
• PC now shall be the starting point. of offenses punished by RP or whose sentences be reduced to
RP by the fact of RA 9346 are not eligible for parole.
7. Privileged mitigating and ordinary mitigating
In getting the maximum (1) lower first the penalty prescribed Distinction of Probation from Parole
by the Code for the offense by one degree and make that as Probation Parole
the reckoning point for get the minimum. The penalty in the PD 968 Act No. 4103
proper period is the maximum of the indeterminate penalty. Sentence should not be It should be more than one
more than six years year to apply
8. Two privileged mitigating and ordinary mitigating Whether imprisonment or Imprisonment only
A below 18, killed B who was the unlawful aggressor, for he fine
did not give sufficient provocation, but the means were not Violation – entire sentence Violation – serve the
reasonable. After killing B, he surrendered to the authorities. shall be served unexpired portion
Appeal is waived Appeal has no effect to the
There are two privileged mitigating under 68 and 69. The operation
penalty for RT lowered by two degrees shall become PC on Can be availed of only once Can be availed if not
its minimum period due to the voluntary plea of guilt. disqualified
• Maximum PC minimum You must apply Mandatory
• Minimum AM range

Indeterminate Sentence Law and Parole

What’s the minimum for? This is a mode of partial extinction
of criminal liability, upon reaching the minimum you are now
eligible for parole.
• Uplift and redeem valuable human material
• Protect unnecessary deprivation of property and
economic usefulness (People v. Ducosin).
• Shawshank redemption analogy

From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes s
 CRIMINAL LAW I The death of the convict, whether before or after final
REVISED PENAL CODE judgment, extinguishes criminal liability, because one of
Articles 89-113 the juridical conditions of penalty is that it is personal.
• Where a person dies after final judgment, the
EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY pecuniary penalties are not extinguished.
• Civil liability exists only when the accused is
Chapter One convicted by final judgment.
Total Extinction of Criminal Liability
GENERAL RULE: Death of the accused pending appeal of
Article 89. How criminal liability is totally his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability and of the
extinguished. – Criminal liability is totally civil liability ex delicto.
extinguished:
1. By the death of the convict, as to the EXCEPTION: The claim for civil liability survives
personal penalties; as to pecuniary notwithstanding the death of the accused, if the same
penalties, liability therefor is extinguished may also be predicated on a source of obligation other
only when the death of the offender than the delict.
occurs before final judgment;
2. By service of the sentence; PEOPLE v. BAYOTAS 236 SCRA 239 (1994)
3. By amnesty, which completely This the landmark ruling that discuss when civil liability
extinguishes the penalty and all its effects; survives in cases of death of the accused on appeal. It
4. By absolute pardon; made certain important pronouncements:
5. By prescription of the crime; (1) Death of the accused pending of appeal
6. By prescription of the penalty; extinguishes both criminal and as well as the civil
7. By the marriage of the offended woman, liability ex delicto.
as provided in Article 344 of this Code. (2) Claim for civil liability survives even when death if
such can be predicated on a source of obligation
NOTE: Extinction of criminal liability does not necessarily other than the delict. Article 1157 provides:
mean that civil liability is also extinguished. [DSA2P2M] a. Law
b. Contracts
Causes of Arise after the commission of the c. Quasi-contracts
Extinction offense d. Quasi-delicts
Causes of Arise from the circumstance (3) When civil liability may have survived, an action for
Justification or existing either before or at the recovery thereof may be pursued but only by way
Exemption moment of the commission. of filing a separate civil action. This separate civil
action may be enforced either against the executor
Ground as a motion to quash. An instance that criminal or administrator of the estate of the accused;
liability is totally extinguished is a ground for motion to (4) There is no need for the private offended party to
quash which when granted bars another prosecution be feared of forfeiture due to prescription
from the same offense pursuant to Rule 117, Section 3(g).
Q. What if the offended party dies?
1. BY THE DEATH OF THE CONVICT Criminal liability is not extinguished, this is precisely
By death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to because the offense is committed against the State.
pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when
the death of the offender occurs before final judgment. Q. You hit a pedestrian while you are driving a vehicle.
You died before a final judgment is the civil liability
Personal Consists with Death before extinguished?
penalties imprisonment and loss or after final
of rights like judgment No, you are accused of homicide or reckless imprudence.
disqualification. If you are convicted, you must indemnify the family.
Pecuniary Involves monetary value Death before Obligation here can rise from two possible sources, a
penalties like fines final crime and a quasi-delict. Even if you die before the final
judgment judgment, you can still be made liable without the
criminal act.

From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes s
Procedure. Criminal case cannot be continued due to the Kinds of Pardon
death of the accused; however, the proper action is to file Conditional Pardon Absolute Pardon
a separate civil action. There are two ways: The total extinction of The exemption of
criminal liability of the individual within certain
Quasi-delict or Executor or the administrator of individual to whom is limits or conditions from
Law the estate (Rule 87, Section 1) granted without any the punishment which
Contract Against the estate of the accused condition. the law inflicts for the
(Rule 86, Section 5) offense he had
It restores to the committed resulting in a
2. BY SERVICE OF THE SENTENCE individual his civil and partial extinction of his
Crime is a like a debt incurred by the offender as a political rights and remits criminal liability.
consequence of his wrongful act and the penalty is but the penalty imposed for
the amount of his debt, when such is satisfied, the debt the particular offense of
is extinguished. which he was convicted.
• Civil liability still survives (Salgado v. CA)
MONSANTO v. FACTORAN 170 SCRA 190
3. BY AMNESTY FACTS: Linda Lopez was convicted by Sandiganbayan of
It is an act of the sovereign power granting oblivion or a Estate and Falsification of public documents. She was
general pardon for a past offense, and is rarely ever sentenced and ordered to pay P5,000 representing the
exercised in the favor of a single individual and is done balance of the amount defrauded. During the pendency
to a class of persons. of the appeal, she argued that the President extended to
• It does not extinguish civil liability her an absolute pardon. By reason of that pardon she
requested to the DOF to be reinstated to her former
Amnesty Pardon positions as Asst. Treasurer which was still vacant.
Covers a group of people Individual
Political crimes Common crimes HELD: The pardon does not entitle her to be reinstated to
Erases the crime Erases the penalty but her former position. She is entitled to apply again but not
conviction remains reinstated. Pardon does not erase the fact of the
It can come before Pardon comes after a commission of the crime and conviction. It may relieve
conviction, during or conviction. her from the fines but it cannot erase the civil liability.
after, anytime. Pardon cannot bring back lost virtue for honesty,
An official act of the Private act by the integrity and credibility.
executive and the President and not realm
legislative. A sovereign within judicial notice and NOTE: Pardon requires conviction by final judgment.
act judicially noticed. must be invoked. Pardon should be given after conviction or else it shall
No longer a recidivist for Does not alter the fact not be effective (People v. Bacang).
it obliterates the vestige that the accused is a
of the crime recidivist 5. PRESCRIPTION OF THE CRIME
Both do not extinguish civil liability of the offender Prescription of the crime means the State forfeits or loses
its right to prosecute the Offender by reason of the lapse
4. BY ABSOLUTE PARDON of time. So, there is a deadline for the filing of a criminal
It is an act of grace proceeding from the power entrusted case. Beyond that, the criminal liability is already
with the execution of laws which exempts the individuals extinguished. The periods for the prescription of crimes
from the punishment the law inflicts. is found in the Article 90.
• There is the requirement of acceptance
6. PRESCRIPTION OF THE PENALTY
Pardon in adultery case (People v. Infante) The State forfeits its right to enforce a given penalty also
because of the lapse of time. They are already all
Presidential Pardon only covers who is
convicted, take note. They have been convicted- final,
Pardon pardoned not both of them
there is already a sentence. There is already a penalty.
Pardon by Pardon must be both to make
Beyond a certain period of time, the penalty also will
Offended Spouse such effective
prescribe. After that, you can no longer be compelled to
serve penalty.

From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes s
 7. MARRIAGE OF THE OFFENDED WOMAN DURATION PRESCRIPTION PRESCRIPTION
Article 344 (4) of the Revised Penal Code provides that, PERIOD OF CRIME OF PENALTY
“In cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness Death
and rape, the marriage of the offender with the offended Death 20 years 20 years
party shall extinguish the criminal action or remit the
penalty already imposed upon him.” AFFLICTIVE PENALTIES
Reclusion Perpetua
Marriage Extinguishes Criminal Liability 20 years and 1 20 years 20 years
Rape however is no longer covered for it is now classified day to 40 years
under public crimes, the list only includes private crimes. Reclusion Temporal
• Applies to co-principals, accomplices and 12 years and 1 20 years 15 years
accessories. day to 20 years
Article 266-C on rape however provides that this does Perpetual or Temporary Absolute Disqualification
not include no more when rape has multiple offenders, 6 years and 1 15 years 15 years
the benefits of Article 344 cannot apply. day to 12 years
• There are many counts of rape as there are Perpetual and Temporary Special Disqualification
offenders. 6 years and 1 15 years 15 years
day to 12 years
Article 90. Prescription of crimes. – Crimes Prision Mayor
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or 6 years and 1 15 years 15 years
reclusion temporal shall prescribe in twenty years. day to 12 years

Crimes punishable by other afflictive penalties

CORRECTIONAL PENALTIES
shall prescribe in fifteen years.
Prision Correccional
6 months and 1 10 years 10 years
Those punishable by a correctional penalty shall
day to 6 years
prescribe in ten years; with the exception of those
Suspension
punishable by arresto mayor, which shall
6 months and 1 10 years 10 years
prescribe in five years.
day to 6 years
Destierro
The crime of libel or other similar offenses shall
6 months and 1 10 years 10 years
prescribe in one year.
day to 6 years
Arresto Mayor
The offenses of oral defamation and slander by
1 month and 1 5 years 5 years
deed shall prescribe in six months.
day to 6 months
Light offenses shall prescribe in two months.
LIGHT PENALTIES
Arresto Menor
When the penalty fixed by law is a compound
one, the highest penalty shall be made the basis 1 day to 2 months 1 year
of the application of the rules contained in the 30 days
first, second, and third paragraphs of this Article. Public Censure
[As amended by RA 4661] Public Censure 2 months 1 year

Compound Penalties; Prescription NOTE: This only applies to felonies

The highest penalty shall be made the basis of the
application of the rules. For example, arresto mayor to
prision correccional, you base the prescription period on
prision correccional because it is the higher penalty.
• Extinction of criminal liability by prescription
does not extinguish civil liability ex delicto.
• Applies to penalties that are not imprisonment.
Prescription of Crimes Specified under Article 92
1. Libel and Other Similar Offenses
It shall prescribe in one year.
2. Oral Defamation and Slander by Deed
It shall prescribe in six months.

From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes s
 FINES (As amended by RA 10951)
Afflictive If it exceeds P1,200,000
Correctional If it does not exceed P1,200,000 but
is not less than P40,000
Light If it be less than P40,000
When the alternative penalty (usually a fine) is higher
than the penalty which involves imprisonment, then the
basis of the prescription period is the fine.
Q. Is novation a mode of extinguishing criminal liability?
No. It is only a bar from criminal prosecution. As defined
in Diongson v. CA, novation is the substitution of a new
contract for an old one.
Example: A person committed estafa against you, but you
allowed the offender to execute a promissory note to pay
you 2 weeks from now, but he did not fulfill such. You
cannot anymore file for Estafa because it has been
converted into a simple loan.
Counting of the Prescription
Rule is to exclude the first day and include the last day.
Day is considered from dusk till dawn and that month is
understood to be 30 days.
If the last day of the prescriptive period falls on a holiday
of Sunday, it will prescribe at that date, interpretation is
against the state (Yapdiangco v. Buencamino).
Instance. A is accused of less serious physical injuries
punishable by arresto mayor which prescribes in 5
years, and was filed a year after. The court convicted A
of slight physical injuries which is a light felony that
prescribes in 2 months. The offender argues that the
crime has already prescribed.
Is the offender’s contention correct?
The accused cannot be convicted of an offense lesser
than that charged if the lesser offense had already
prescribed at the time information was filed. To do so
would circumvent the rule on prescription.
As held in Francisco v. CA 122 SCRA 545, where an
accused has been found to have committed a lesser
offense includible within the graver offense charged, he
cannot be convicted of the lesser offense it had already
prescribed. To hold otherwise, would be sanction a
circumvention on the law on prescription by the simple
expedient of accusing the defendant of the graver
offense (Damasco v. Laqui, 1988).
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
Prescription of Offenses under Special Laws
Fine or imprisonment of not more After 1 year
than 1 month or both
Imprisonment for more than 1 After 4 years
month but less than 2 years
Imprisonment for more than 2 years After 8 years
but less than 6 years
Imprisonment for 6 years or more After 12 years
Internal Revenue Law After 5 years
Municipal Ordinances 2 months
Public Service Commission 2 months
*RA 3763 amending RA 3326
Prescription Applicable on Trial or on Appeal
Defense of prescription may be raised during the trial or
during appeal. As provided in Rule 117, Section 9, the rule
that if the accused failed to move to quash before
pleading waiving all objections does not apply to the
defense of prescription, which can be invoked on appeal.
Article 91. Computation of prescription of offenses.
– The period of prescription shall commence to run
from the day on which the crime is discovered by
the offended party, the authorities, or their agents,
and shall be interrupted by the filing of the
complaint or information, and shall commence to
run again when such proceedings terminate
without the accused being convicted or acquitted,
or are unjustifiably stopped for any reason not
imputable to him.
The term of prescription shall not run when the
offender is absent from the Philippine
Archipelago.
Period of Prescription runs from the Date of the
Commission of the crime if its known at the time of
its Commission; Discovery of the Crime
If it is not known, then the date of discovery. The
discovery can be done by the offended party himself, the
authorities or their agents.
Instance. A kills B and was witnessed by C but C does not
do anything. After 31 years, C decided to tell the police
of the crime. The police arrested A, the latter contend
that it had already prescribed.
Here, the period for prescription did not begin to run
because it was not discovered by the right person. It
should be the authorities or the agents, it only came to
their attention after 31 years, it was then the counting
should have started.
s
Constructive Discovery; Constructive Notice Rule
As held in People v. Reyes, the period of prescription for
falsification of documents shall have to be reckoned from
the time the notarized deed was registered or recorded in
the Register of Deeds.
• Registration is a constructive notice to the world,
you are deemed to have notice of such
falsification in the title.
• This was based on Section 52 of the Property
Registration Act (RA 3753).
Q. What if in the case of bigamy, when the wife only knew
of the registration of the bigamous marriage in the civil
registrar after 30 years, if bigamy is punishable by prision
correccional which prescribes in 15 years. Does
constructive notice rule apply?
No. As held in the case of Sermonia v. Court of Appeals,
the constructive notice rule had its basis on a specific
provision of the law. Where we put our imprimatur to the
theory of the accused, in all likelihood we would be
playing right into the hands of philanderers, for we would
be equating the contract of marriage into an ordinary
contract or other similar document without due regard
to the stability of marriage as a social inviolable
institution the preservation of which is prime social duty.
NOTE: Temporary trips abroad are not included to
interrupt the prescriptive period (Garcia v. CA).
In case of false testimony, the period of prescription
commences from the date of the finality of the judgment
of the case in which the offender testified falsely as held
in the case of People v. Maneja.
Prescription runs on Discovery of the Crime and
Not the Discovery of the Criminal
The law says the discovery of the crime, NOT the
discovery of the criminal. Suppose the crime is
committed today and it was discovered today but
nobody knows the criminal, when do you start
computing the prescriptive period? Of course, today.
Rules on Interruption on Counting (FTA)
1. Interrupted by filing of the complaint or
information
2. Commences to run against when such
proceedings terminate without conviction or
acquittal or unjustifiably stopped by reason not
imputable to the offender
3. Shall not run when absent from the Philippines
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
Filing of the Complaint or Information to Interrupt
the Counting of the Prescription
Rule 110, Section 1 of the Rules provided that criminal
action can be instituted as follows:
1. Filing of the complaint with the proper officer for
purposes of requisite preliminary investigation
(Can be the prosecutor or the ombudsman)
2. Filing the complaint or information directly with
the MTC or MTCC.
In People v. Pangilinan, it has been clarified that the
filing of the complaint for the MTC even if it be merely
for the purpose of preliminary investigation would
interrupt the prescription.
Q. How about in barangay proceedings?
Section 410 of the Local Government Code provides such
interruption but only for 60 days, so even if the
proceedings in the barangay has not ended, the
prescription shall continue to run after the 60-day period.
SEC v. Interport Resources, Inc. 567 SCRA 324 (2008),
also provided that investigations conducted by the SEC
effectively interrupts the prescription period because it is
equivalent to the preliminary investigation conducted by
the DOJ in criminal cases.
NOTE: The interruption of the period must be the
property information or complaint corresponding to the
offense (People v. Abuy).
Q. If the accused evades arrest, will the prescription
period run?
• The prescription will not run for the termination
of the proceedings were due to the acts
imputable to the offender.
Article 92. When and how penalties prescribe. – The
penalties imposed by final sentence prescribe as
follows:
1. Death and reclusion perpetua, in twenty
years;
2. Other afflictive penalties, in fifteen years
3. Correctional penalties, in ten years, with
the exception of the penalty arresto mayor,
which prescribes in five years
4. Light penalties, in one year.
NOTE: The assumption is here is that the accused has
already been tried and convicted. The only thing left is to
enforce the penalty but somehow the convict has evaded
serving the sentence after the lapse of a certain period
the penalty will prescribe.
s

The Penalty Must be Imposed by a Final Sentence
Hence, if the convict appealed and thereafter fled to the
mountains, the penalty imposed upon him would never
prescribe, because pending the appeal, the sentence is
not final. Thus, prescription does not run.
In prescription of crimes, the penalty that law
attaches are considered. In prescription of penalties,
it is the penalty imposed that should be considered.
Instance. A committed the crime of falsification
punishable by prision mayor. Twelve years has elapsed
since the crime was discovered by the authorities. Then,
the fiscal filed an information for falsification. A was
arrested and prosecuted. During the trial, A proved two
mitigating circumstances without any aggravating
circumstance. Did the crime prescribe?
No, although the proper penalty to be imposed is prision
correccional by virtue of a special mitigating
circumstance under Article 64(5), the penalty of prision
mayor is still followed because Article 90 uses the words,
“crimes punishable by”, hence the crime did not
prescribe, because the time that elapsed is not more than
15 years.
Q. Suppose if A commenced to serve the sentence and
after a month, he escaped and remained at large for
twelve tears and was recaptured, can he be required to
serve the remaining period of his sentence?
No. The penalty for prision correccional has already
prescribed. For Article 92 uses the words “the penalties
imposed by a final sentence.”
Penalty of P40,000 exactly as a Fine
1. When the crime has been committed, then it
should prescribe in two months for Article 9
describes such as a light felony.
2. When considered as a penalty, it is correctional
and thus shall prescribe in 10 years.
Article 93. Computation of the prescription of
penalties. – The period of prescription of penalties
shall commence to run from the date when the
culprit should evade the service of his sentence,
and it shall be interrupted if the defendant should
give himself up, be captured, should go to some
foreign country with which this Government has
not extradition treaty, or should commit another
crime before the expiration of the period of
prescription.
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
ELEMENTS:
1. That the penalty is imposed by final sentence;
2. That the convict evaded the service of the
sentence by escaping during the term of his
sentence;
3. That the convict who escaped from prison has
not given himself up, or been captured, or gone
to a foreign country with which we have no
extradition treaty, or committed another crime;
4. That the penalty has prescribed, because of the
lapse of time from the date of the evasion of the
service of the sentence by the convict. [IENP]
Four Instances of Interruption
1. Should give himself up
2. Be captured
3. Should go to some foreign country where the
government has no extradition treaty
4. Should commit another crime before the
expiration of the period of prescription [GCFA]
Castillo v. Torrecampo (2002), for the prescription of
penalties to commence, there is the essential
requirement of having escaped from prison to evade the
service of the sentence. Thus, it was held in this case that
Clearly, one who has not been committed to prison
cannot be said to have escaped therefrom. In the
instant case, petitioner was never brought to prison. In
fact, even before the execution of the judgment for his
conviction, he was already in hiding.
As furthered in Pangan v. Gatbalite (2005), since
petitioner did not suffer deprivation of liberty before his
arrest he never evaded his sentence thus the prescription
period never began.
Article 157 in the Evasion of Service of Sentence as a
crime in relation to Article 93
The clause “should commit another crime before the
expiration of the period of prescription” refers to crimes
committed when the period of prescription has already
commenced to run. Hence, this evasion of the service of
sentence, as an essential requisite for the prescription,
must necessarily take place before running of the period
of prescription and cannot interrupt it.
NOTE: Acceptance of a conditional pardon also interrupts
the prescriptive period, likening such acceptance to the
case of one who flees from this jurisdiction (People v.
Puntillas, 1938). Thus, such would constitute an
interruption in the prescription of penalty under Article
93 of the Revised Penal Code.
s
 Chapter Two
Partial Extinction of Criminal Liability
Article 94. Partial extinction of criminal liability. –
Criminal liability is extinguished partially:
1. By conditional pardon
2. By commutation of the sentence
3. For good conduct allowances which the
culprit may earn while he is undergoing
preventive imprisonment or serving his
sentence.
Conditional Pardon, Defined
It is considered a contract between the sovereign power
of the executive and the convict that the former will
release the latter upon compliance with the condition.
The usual condition is that “he shall not violate any of the
penal laws of the Philippines.” Acceptance is necessary.
Commutation of the Sentence
Lowering of the penalty, or the reduction of the duration
of a prison sentence. The court and the President can
commute the penalty. Consent is not necessary.
Article 95. Obligation incurred by a person granted
conditional pardon. – Any person who has been
granted conditional pardon shall incur the
obligation of complying strictly with the
conditions imposed therein, otherwise, his
noncompliance.
Pardon is not effective unless it is accepted. It is like
donation as a contract towards the prisoner to accept the
conditions and accept the consequences as held in the
case of People v. Fontillas. It is limited to the period of
the prisoner’s sentence unless an intention to extend
beyond it is manifest. (Infante v. Warden).
Article 96. Effect of commutation of sentence. The
commutation of the original sentence for another
of a different length and nature shall have the legal
effect of substituting the latter in the place of the
former.
No need for acceptance to be operative as it is a
remission of the sentence. Reprieve apply only to capital
sentence, and is a suspension not a remission.

Specific cases of commutation Article 97. Allowance for good conduct. – The good
1. Death penalty for convict over 70 years of age is conduct of any offender qualified for credit for
reduced to reclusion perpetua preventive imprisonment pursuant to Article 29 of this
2. When eight justices fail to reach a decision for Code, or of any prisoner in any penal institution,
rehabilitation or detention center or any other local jail
the affirmance of death penalty.
shall entitle him to the following deductions from the
period of his sentence:
Good Conduct Allowances
1. During the first two years of imprisonment, he shall
Deductions from term of the sentence for good behavior.
be allowed a deduction of twenty for each month of
good behavior during detention.
NOTE: Parole can be added as fourth enumeration for it 2. During the third to the fifth year, inclusive, of his
is the conditional release of an offender from a imprisonment, he shall be allowed a reduction of
correctional institution after he has served a minimum of twenty-three days for each month of good behavior
his prison sentence. during detention.
• It consists suspension of the sentence without 3. During the following years until the tenth year,
granting a pardon under certain conditions. inclusive, of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a
deduction of twenty-five days for each month of
good behavior during detention
Conditional Pardon Parole
4. During the eleventh and successive years of his
Given any time after final May be given after imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of
judgment, given by the prisoner has served the thirty days for each month of good behavior during
President under certain minimum penalty and detention and
provisions of the granted by Board of 5. At any time during the period if imprisonment, he
Administrative Code Pardons and Parole under shall be allowed another deduction of fifteen days,
the provision of the ISL in addition to numbers one to four hereof, for each
month of study, teaching or mentoring service time
Violation can allow Violation can allow
rendered.
rearrested by the Chief rearrested but not Article
Executive and prosecuted 159 prosecution, he can
An appeal by the accused shall not deprive him of
under Article 159 be made to serve entitlement to the above allowances for good conduct.
unserved portion.

From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes s
Summary of the Rules under Article 97
1. Allowance for good conduct also granted to
petition prisoners (RA 10592)
2. Deduction periods
a. First two years – 20 days/month
b. 3rd to 5th year – 23 days/month
c. 6th to 10th year – 25 days/month
d. 11th year beyond – 30 days/month
3. Additional deduction granted 15 days per month
of study, teaching or mentoring rendered.
4. Appeal shall not deprive Article 97
NOTE: Good conduct time allowances not given to
someone on conditional pardon for it only refers to
prisoners basically those who are serving their sentence.
Article 98. Special time allowance for loyalty. – A
deduction of one-fifth of the period of his sentence
shall be granted to any prisoner who, having
evaded his preventive imprisonment or the service
of his sentence under circumstances mentioned in
Article 158 of this Code, gives himself up to the
authorities within 48 hours following the issuance
of a proclamation announcing the passing away of
the calamity or catastrophe referred to in the said
article. A deduction of 2/5 of the period of his
sentence shall be granted in case said prisoner
chose to stay in the place of his confinement
notwithstanding the existence of a calamity or
catastrophe enumerated in Article 158 of this
Code.
This Article shall apply to any prisoner whether
undergoing preventive imprisonment or service
sentence (As amended by RA 10592).
Special Time Allowance for Loyalty
It is a deduction on 1/5 of the period of his sentence
granted when within 48 hours of the passing away of a
catastrophe or calamity in Article 158, he gives himself up
to the authorities. A higher deduction of 2/5 is given to
those who chose to stay in the place of confinement.
• Deduction is based on original sentence.
Article 158 in relation to Article 98
A convict who evaded the service of his sentence by
leaving the penal institution where he had been confined
on the occasion of disorder resulting from conflagration,
earthquake or explosions or similar catastrophe or during
a munity in which he did not participate, he is liable to an
increased 1/5 of penalty left to be served. This is in
contrast to Article 98 where the deduction is from the
original sentence imposed to the prisoner.
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
Article 99. Who grants time allowance. – Whenever
lawfully justified, the Director of the Bureau of
Corrections, the Chief of the Bureau of Jail
Management and Penology and/or the Warden of
a provincial, district, municipal or city jail shall
grant allowances for good conduct. Such
allowance once granted shall not be revoked.
Good Conduct Time Allowances Granted By:
1. Bureau of Corrections under DOJ, prison terms
over three years.
2. The provincial governments, which has
supervision over provincial jails that house
provincial prisoners, 3 years and below.
3. Bureau of Jail Management and Penology under
DILG which has jurisdiction over all city,
municipal and district jails serving prison terms
of not more than six months in municipal and
not more than three years in city jails.
NOTE: It cannot be revoked once granted to prisoner.
Probation, Partial Extinction
It is a disposition under which the defendant after
conviction and sentence is released subject to conditions
imposed by the court and the supervision of the
probation officer.
It is similar to parole in that you do not serve your
sentence in prison but you serve it outside. In parole
however, you must serve the minimum first to become
eligible. Probation is granted by the court upon
application subject to terms and conditions.
• You have to apply for probation it is not
automatically granted unlike in minors.
Conditions of Probation
The filing of the application for probation operates as a
waiver of the right to appeal. The need to file it within
such period was intended to encourage offenders,
who are willing to be reformed and rehabilitated, to
avail of probation at the first opportunity. Such
provision was never intended to suspend the period for
the perfection of an appeal.
• Denial of probation is not appealable.
• Ended with a final discharge where convict is
restored to him all civil rights lost and discharged
from any fine.
• Civil liability remains.
• Proportionable penalty at most is prision
correctional availed only once.
• Alternative to imprisonment.
s
 CIVIL LIABILITY
Chapter One
Persons Civilly Liable for Felonies
Offense has two classes of injuries:
1. Social injury – produced by the disturbance and
alarm which are the outcome of the offense
2. Personal injury – caused t the victim of the crime
who may have suffered damage, either to his
person, to his property or to his honor.
Article 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of
felony. – Every person criminally liable for a felony
is also civilly liable.
Civil Liability Ex Delicto
This is the civil liability that arises together with the crime.
The interest of the State is on the criminal aspect and the
interest of the offended party is the civil aspect. As far as
the offender party is concerned, he is a witness.
Damages that can be recovered in criminal cases:
1. Moral damages
2. Exemplary damages
3. Nominal damages
4. Temperate damages
5. Actual damages
6. Liquidated damages (MENTAL)
NOTE: When the crime has not caused any damage to
another, the offender is not civilly liable even if he is
criminally liable for the felony committed.
RULE 111
Prosecution of Civil Action
Section 1. (a) When a criminal action is instituted, the
civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from
the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the
criminal action unless the offended party:
1. Waives the civil action
2. Reserves the right to institute it separately
3. Institutes civil action prior to the criminal action
The reservation must be made before the prosecution
starts presenting its evidence.
BP 22: The criminal action for violation of BP 22 shall be
deemed to include the corresponding civil action, no
reservation to file such civil action separately shall be
allowed. NOTE: The civil action may be consolidated with
the criminal action
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
Suspension of the separate civil action. The dependent
separate civil action is suspended when the criminal
action has been commenced and cannot continue until
final judgment has been entered in the criminal action
(Rule 111, Section 2).
Independent Civil Actions
These are actions that proceed independently of the
criminal action and shall require only preponderance of
evidence. In no case, however, may the offended party
recover damages twice for the same act for it would
unjust enrichment (Rule 111, Section 3).
The following must be reserved as separate to prevent
the matter from becoming res judicata:
1. Article 31 when civil action is based on an
obligation not arising from the act or omission
complained of as felony, thus can proceed
independently from the criminal proceedings.
2. Article 32 when any public officer or employee,
or any private individual, who directly or
indirectly defeats the liberties
3. Article 33 in cases of defamation, fraud and
intentional physical injuries which should be
understood in its general signification, civil
liability shall proceed independently.
4. Article 34 when a public officer fails to render
aid to one who needed it
5. Article 2176 on quasi delicts
Effects of Acquittal
Bars Civil Action Not Bar Civil
Action
1. Innocence 1. Reasonable
2. That the fact from which the civil doubt
might arise did not exist 2. Prescription
3. Not the author of the crime
4. Crime did not exist
5. Non-imputability due to
minority
6. Independent civil actions
NOTE: Separate civil action loses right to intervene
Prejudicial questions (Rule 111, Section 7)
a. The previously instituted civil action involves an
issue similar or intimately related to the issue
raised in the subsequent criminal action
b. Resolution of such issue determines if the
criminal action may proceed
These suspends criminal actions and should be filed any
time before the prosecution rests its case.
s
 Article 101. Rules regarding civil liability in certain Civil Liability on Articles 11 and 12
cases. – The exemption from criminal liability ARTICLE 11 ARTICLE 12
established in subdivisions 1,2,3,5 and 6 of Article No civil (1) (2) (3) (5) and (4) and (7)
12 and in subdivision 4 of Article 11 of this Code liability (6)
does not include exemption from civil liability, Civil Only (4) (1) (2) (3) (5) and
which shall be enforced subject to the following liability (6)
rules:
Rules regarding Civil Liability (Article 101)
First: In cases of subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 of Article Certain Case Rule on Civil Liability
12, the civil liability for acts committed by an Art. 12 (1) First Rule
imbecile or insane person, and by a person under Imbecile or (1) Devolve to persons having legal
nine years of age, or over nine but has not acted insane authority upon them if they are
with discernment, shall devolve upon those having Art. 12 (2) at fault or negligent. (Primary)
such a person under their legal authority or Under 15
control, unless it appears that there was no fault or years of age (2) If no fault or negligence or if
negligence on their part. Art. 12 (3) they are insolvent, or no person
Over 15 under having legal authority, the
Should there be no person having such insane, 18 insane, imbecile or minor shall
imbecile or minor under his authority, legal Act without respond with his or her own
guardianship, control, or if such person be discernment property not exempt from
insolvent, said insane, imbecile, or minor shall execution.
respond with their own property, excepting
property exempt from execution, in accordance Article 201 of PD 603
with civil law. The civil liability committed by a
youthful offender shall devolve on
Second: In cases falling within subdivision 4 of the father, in case of death or
Article 11, the persons for whose benefit the harm incapacity the mother or in the
has been prevented shall be civilly liable in guardian as the last.
proportion to the benefit which they may have
received. NOTE: Final discharge of CICL does
not obliterate civil liability.
The courts shall determine, in their sound Art. 11 (4) Second Rule
discretion, the proportionate amount for which State of (1) Those who benefit, in
each one shall be liable. necessity or proportion to what they have
emergency received.
When the respective shares cannot be equitably (2) Court shall determine
determined, even approximately, or when the (3) Special laws or regulation
liability also attaches to the Government, or to the Art. 12 (5) Third Rule
majority of the inhabitants of the town, in all Irresistible (1) Primarily, the persons using
events, whenever the damage has been caused force violence or causing the fears
with the consent of the authorities or their agents, Art. 12 (6) (2) Secondarily, or it there be no
indemnification shall be made in the manner Uncontrollable such persons, those doing the
prescribed by special laws or regulations. fear act shall be liable saving always
to the latter that part of their
Third: In cases falling within subdivisions 5 and 6 property exempts from
of Article 12, the persons using violence or causing execution.
the fear shall be primarily liable and secondarily,
or, if there be no such persons, those doing the act Article 221 of the Family Code
shall be liable, saving always to the latter that part In Libi v. IAC 214 SCRA 16, parents are principally and
of the property exempt from execution. primarily liable delicts and quasi-delicts of their
NOTE: This includes Articles 11 and 12 of the RPC on unemancipated children resulting in injuries. They must
justifying and exempting circumstances that affect live in their company and under the parental authority.
criminal liability.

From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes s
The Libi Doctrine
Before it was only for quasi-delict, now in this case Article
221 of the Family Code clarified that it even includes civil
liability arising from delict.
Article 102. Subsidiary civil liability of innkeepers,
tavernkeepers and proprietors of establishments. –
In default of the persons criminally liable,
innkeepers, tavernkeepers, and any other persons
or corporations shall be civilly liable for crimes
committed in their establishments, in all cases
where a violation of municipal ordinances or some
general or special police regulation shall have been
committed by them or their employees.
Innkeepers are also subsidiarily liable for the
restitution of goods taken by robbery or theft
within their houses from guests lodging therein, or
for the payment of the value thereof, provided that
such guests shall have notified in advance the
innkeeper himself, or the person representing him,
of the deposit of such goods within the inn; and
shall furthermore have followed the directions
which such innkeeper or his representative may
have given them with respect to the care of and
vigilance over such goods. No liability shall attach
in case of robbery with violence against or
intimidation of persons unless committed by the
innkeeper’s employees.
Subsidiary Civil Liability, Elements
1. That the innkeeper, tavernkeeper or proprietor
of establishment or his employee committed a
violation of municipal ordinance or some general
or special police regulation,
2. That a crime is committed in such inn, tavern or
establishment.
3. That the person criminally liable is insolvent.
Subsidiary Civil Liability of Innkeepers, Elements
1. The guests notified in advance the innkeeper or
the person representing him of the deposit of
their goods within the inn or house.
2. The guests followed the directions of the
innkeeper or his representative with respect to
the care of and vigilance over such goods.
3. Such goods of the guests lodging therein were
taken by robbery with force upon things or theft
committed within the inn our house.
NOTE: No liability shall attach in case it was robbery with
violence against or intimidation of persons, unless
committed by the employees.
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
Article 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other
persons. – The subsidiary liability established in the
next preceding article shall also apply to
employers, teachers, persons and corporations
engaged in any kind of industry for felonies
committed by their servants, pupils, workmen,
apprentices, or employees in the discharge of their
duties.
Subsidiary Liability of Employees, Elements
1. The employer, teacher, person or corporation is
engaged in any kind of industry.
2. Any of their servants, pupils, workmen,
apprentices or employees commits a felony
while in the discharge of their duties.
3. The said employee is insolvent and has not
satisfied his civil liability.
Industry, Definition
An enterprise not conducted as a means of livelihood or
for profit does not come within the meaning of the term
industry. A hospital is not engaged in industry hence not
subsidiarily liable including private persons.
NOTE: Subsidiarily civil liability is enforced only upon a
subsidiary writ of execution against the employer in case
the employee is insolvent. The provisions of the RPC
under 102 and 103 are deemed written into the
judgments to which they are applicable. The
requirement to discuss the civil liability of the employer
is mandatory (Yonaha v. CA)
PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES v. HEIRS OF
MANGAWANG 458 SCRA 684 (2005)
FACTS: Ancheta, an employee was convicted with
reckless imprudence resulting to homicide. PRBLI filed an
appeal contending it was not served copy of judgment.
Q. Should the appeal be entertained?
No. The petitioner, as the employer cannot, for it was not
a party in the said case, while Article 102 and 103 may
hold the petitioner a party in substance it is not entitled
to be furnished a copy of the RTC and CA decisions.
It is the concern of the employer, as well as employee
to see to it that his interest be protected in a criminal
case by taking virtual participation in the defense of
his employee. He cannot leave him to his own fate
because his failure is also his. And if because of his
indifference or inaction the employee is convicted and
damages are awarded against him, he cannot later be
heard to complain, if brought to court for the
enforcement of his subsidiary liability.
s
Employer has the Right to Take Part Chapter Two
in the Defense of his Employees What Civil Liability Includes
It is true that an employer is not a party in a criminal case
instituted against his employee, but he has subsidiary Article 104. What is included in civil liability. – The
liability imposed by law. It is his concern to see to it that civil liability established in Articles 100, 101, 102
the interest be protected in the criminal case by taking and 103 of this Code includes:
virtual participation in the defense of his employee. He 1. Restitution
cannot leave him to his own fate because his failure is 2. Reparation of the damage caused
also his (Miranda v. Malate Garage & Taxicab, Inc.). 3. Indemnification for consequential
damages
Judgment of conviction of servant or employee binds
persons subsidiarily liable, thus the plaintiff can rely Civil Liability in Criminal Cases
solely on the judgment. The first remedy granted by law is restitution of the thing
taken away by the offender (Article 105), if it cannot be
Employer is Subsidiarily Liable for Full Amount made by the offender or by his heirs (Article 108), the
Instance. R was the driver of the bus and B was the driver laws allows the offended party reparation (Article 106). In
of the jeepney, the two vehicles collided through the either case, indemnity for consequential damages may
reckless imprudence of both drivers, causing serious be requires (Article 107).
physical injuries to G. Now, R and B were convicted of the • There are crimes with no civil liability
charged and were sentenced solidarily to pay an • There are crimes with two or more liabilities
indemnity of P3,670 to G. However, R and B could not
pay the indemnity by reason of insolvency. Civil Liability Pecuniary Liabilites
Three forms of civil Order of payment under
Resolution: G can sue the owner of the bus, in the case liabilities under Art. 104 Article 38
of Gonzales v. Halili, Halili was liable for the full amount (a) Reparation of the damage
and not merely ½ thereof but without prejudice to the (b) Indemnification for consequential damages
right of action against B for contribution. Includes restitution Does not includes
restitution because it
NOTE: Defense of diligence of good father not applicable refers to liabilities to be
to Article 102 and 103 of the Revised Penal Code. paid out of the property
of the offender.
While in the discharge of his duties, Meaning Damages to be Fines
This subsidiary liability does not arise from any and all indemnified and property Costs of proceedings
offenses that the employee may commit, but limited to to be restored or
those which he shall be found guilty of in the discharge repaired
of his duties.
Article 105. Restitution. – How made. – The
It could not be contemplated that an employer will be restitution of the thing itself must be made
held responsible for any misdeed his employee could whenever possible, with allowance for any
have done while performing an assigned task deterioration or diminution of value as determined
by the court.
ARTICLE 102 ARTICLE 103
Under Article 102, the Theft by employees fall The thing itself shall be restored, even though it be
hotel management is not under this consideration. found in the possession of a third person who has
liable for acts committed This provides that even if acquired it by lawful means, saving to the latter his
for robbery with violence a hotel guest did not action against the proper person who may be liable
and intimidation. It follow the requirements to him.
requires a violation of a provided by the
certain municipal innkeeper, the insolvency This provision is not applicable in cases in which
ordinance or general or of the employee due to the thing has been acquired by the third person in
special police regulation. the crime committed will the manner and under the requirements which, by
Theft of employees do still hold the innkeeper law, bar an action for its recovery.
not fall under this. liable for such acts.

From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes s
RULE: The convict cannot, by way of restitution, give the
offended party a similar thing of the same amount, kind
or species and quantity. The sentence should be for the
return of the very thing taken. The purpose of the law is
to place the offended party as much as possible in the
same condition as it was before the offense was
committed against him (People v. Mostasesa).
On deterioration. The court will assess the amount of
the deterioration and in addition to the return of the
property, the culprit will be ordered to pay such amount
representing the deterioration.
Recovery from Third Persons
GENERAL RULE: The owner of the property illegally taken
by the offender can recover it from whomsoever is in
possession thereof. Even if it was acquired by legal means.
• If the property stolen was acquired without
knowledge that it is stolen, such property shall
be returned.
• If with knowledge, accessory for the crime and
principal under the Anti-Fencing Law.
• Restitution must be made after a final judgment.
EXCEPTIONS: The law provides three cases when there
can be no restitution:
1. Article 559 of the Civil Code when it is
purchased in good faith at a public sale.
It is equivalent to a title. The owner cannot obtain its
return without reimbursing the third person for the price
paid for on the subject property in question. There are
two requirements under Article 559 of the CC:
(1) At public sale
(2) In good faith
Pawnshops. When stolen property is pawned, the owner
of the pawnshop may be obliged to make restitution of
the jewels by the court without reimbursement of the
amount for it was not sold at a public sale. The
pawnshop owner however may seek remedy from the
person who pawned the jewels.
RULE: When a stolen object is bought in good faith but
not in a public sale, the courts can order such restitution
without reimbursement but the purchaser may sue the
thief for the recovery of what he had paid.
A person who is not a party in the case cannot recover
in the criminal action any indemnity from the
accused. In selling the object, the accused pretended to
be owner thereof, thereby committing estafa which is
another offense thus a different and distinct crime.
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
2. PD 1529 where a land covered by Torrens title
is purchase in good faith
An innocent purchaser for value of property covered by
a Torrens Title, cannot be required to return the same to
its owner who has been unlawfully deprived of it, because
Section 39 of Act No. 496 specially protects the title of an
innocent purchaser.
3. Article 1502 of the Civil Code on property
purchased in stores or public markets
On Contract. The court cannot order its return in a
criminal case. If such sum of money was received by the
accused from the complainant as a loan, the court cannot
order the accused to pay the amount to the complainant.
Restitution even if Acquitted. As a rule, if the accused
is acquitted, the court should not order restitution. But if
it is shown that the property belonged to, and was in the
possession of somebody else and it was stolen from, but
the identity of the thief was not established, and it was
pawned from where it was recovered. The court should
order its return to the owner. The offense is proved but
not the offender (People v. Alejano).
Effect of Desistance. When one desists from
prosecuting, the case ends there. The dismissal of the
criminal charges carried the dismissal of the civil aspect
accompanying the filing of the criminal information of
the criminal cases. Without any judgment of conviction,
restitution cannot be ordered anymore.
• REMEDY: Complainant has still the right to
recover the properties by filing an entirely new
civil action.
Article 106. Reparation. – How made. – The court
shall determine the amount of damage, taking into
consideration the price of the thing, whenever
possible, and its special sentimental value to the
injured party, and reparation shall be made
accordingly.
What Reparation Includes
The repair of the material damage caused by the robbers
in breaking doors, wardrobes, in addition to the value of
the thing being may be assessed and included as part of
the reparation to be paid by the robbers.
Us v. Yambao. In this rape case, the accused was ordered
to pay the value of the woman’s torn garments. This is
reparation which is distinct from the indemnity for it
involved the reparation of a value that cannot be restored
back.
s
Civil Damages are Limited to those Caused by and
Flowing from the Crime
Some claims can be recovered under separate civil
actions, and that unpaid hire of the bicycle includes as
such but it no longer becomes an effect arising from the
crime itself.
On Insurance Payments. Payment of insurance
company does not relieve the offender of his obligation
to repair the damage of the caused by the offender. The
payment of the insurance company was not made on
behalf of the accused but was made pursuant to its
contract with the owner.
Article 107. Indemnification. – What is included. –
Indemnification of consequential damages shall
include not only those caused by the injured party,
but also those suffered by his family or by a third
person by reason of the crime.
Indemnification
Damages like physical injuries, loss of earnings, medical
attendance and those actual and compensatory. This
includes those suffered by the victim, his family or third
persons. Offense is still heinous to penalty.
Third Person. – A good example of third person is if you
are supported by the deceased but not related. For
example, when that person has been sending a person to
school. He or she can claim for loss of support.
Civil Indemnity Ex Delicto
Does not require further proof, fact of commission of the
felony suffices, the examples are the following:
1. Death of victim – P50,000
2. Death (death penalty) – P75,000
3. Rape – P50,000
4. Rape with homicide – P125,000
Copiaco v. Luzon Brokerage, the chauffeur of the
defendant, through reckless imprudence, bumped a
carretela, resulting in the death of four passengers,
wherein two of which belong to same family. Defendant
contends that each family shall only receive P500. The
court held that parents or heirs of the two deceased have
suffered double damages because of the death of their
two children, with the consequence that P500 per each
person is just to indemnify such loss.
Contributory Negligence
Contributory negligence on the part of the offended
party reduces the civil liability of the offender.
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
Actual Damages
Includes funeral, burial and medical expenses, and
includes loss of income. Note that absence of proof, living
expenses is estimated to 50% of the gross annual income.
To solve for the loss of income the formula is prescribed:
Life Expectancy
Rate of
= 2 x (80 + age of death) x Net Earnings
Loss
3
Compensation is loss for earning capacity, so it is not
required that the victim should have been employed at
the time of death. The viewpoint is he could have
earned. So even if the one who died is still a student,
there can still be award of loss of earning capacity.
• It is important to note however that there is a
need of documentary evidence to substantiate a
claim for loss of earning capacity of the injured
party in the criminal offense.
Carlaga v. Laguna Tayabas Bus Company, the
Supreme Court awarded to the heirs of the victim a sum
representing loss of his earning capacity although he was
still a medical student at the time of the injury. However,
the award was not without basis for the victim was then
a fourth-year medical student at a reputable school; his
scholastic record, which was presented at the trial,
justified an assumption that he would have been able to
finish his course and pass the board in due time.
Temperate Damages
This is awarded when some pecuniary loss is suffered but
its amount cannot be proved with certainty (Article 2224
of the Civil Code). It can even be awarded if income of
victim is not sufficiently proven. This usually happens
when there is no sufficient evidence of the income of the
injured party or the deceased.
• Where actual damages proved amount to less
than P25,000, temperate damages of P25,000
shall be awarded in lieu of the actual as held in
the case of People v. Werba.
Moral Damages
For physical sufferings, mental anguish, fright, serious
anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral
shock, social humiliation and similar injury.
Rape – Moral damages ma additionally be awarded to
the victim without need for pleading or proof of the basis
thereof. In rape cases it is recognized that the victim’s
injury is concomitant with and necessarily results from
the crime of rape to warrant per se the award of moral
damages.
s
Exemplary Damages
Also known as corrective damages. It is by way of example
or correction for the public good, in addition to moral,
temperate or liquidated damages (Article 2229, NCC).
Article 2230. Exemplary damages as a part of the civil
liability may be imposed when the crime was committed
with one or more aggravating circumstance. Such
damages are distinct from fines and shall be paid to the
offended party in appropriate cases.
• Aggravating circumstance must be alleged in the
information and proved during trial.
• Currently valued at P30,000
Proof. There is no need, but just to show that he is
entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages
before the court may consider such award of exemplary
damages in favor the offended party.
NOTE: It is not a matter of right, the court will decide if
they should be adjudicated.
DEATH: Recoverable Damages
As held in the case of Heirs of Castro v. Bustos:
1. Civil indemnity ex delicto
2. Indemnity for loss of earning capacity of the
deceased;
3. Actual damages – must be proved;
4. Moral damages for mental anguish;
5. Exemplary damages when the crime is attended
by 1 or more aggravating circumstances;
6. Attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation;
7. Interests in the proper cases.
Articles 105, 106, and 107 of RPC are Actual Damages
The award authorized by criminal law as civil indemnity
ex delicto in the form of restitution, reparation and
indemnification all corresponds to actual or
compensatory damages under the civil code, since other
damages provided therein are different concepts and
fundamentals. This can include attorney’s fees.
Article 108. Obligation to make restoration,
reparation for damages, or indemnification for
consequential damages and action to demand the
same. – Upon whom it devolves. – The obligation to
make restoration or reparation for damages and
indemnification for consequential damages
devolves upon the heirs of the person liable.
The action to demand restoration, reparation and
indemnification likewise descends to the heirs of
the person injured.
From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes
Rules to follow under Article 108
Civil liability only possible when the offender dies after
final judgment. When such happens, the heirs can be
held liable except in cases:
• When restoration is impossible and deceased
left no property thus they are not liable for
reparation
• Indemnification without property left to the heirs
of the deceased.
Article 109. Share of each person civilly liable. – If
there are two or more persons civilly liable for a
felony, the court shall determine the amount for
which each must respond.
Apportionment of Civil Liability
The entire amount of civil indemnity, together with the
moral and actual damages, should be apportioned
among the persons who cooperated in the commission
of the crime according to the degree of their liability and
participation in the criminal act.
Article 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
Severally Liable
The principals, accomplice and accessories each within
their respective class, shall be liable severally for their civil
liability as may be deemed by the court.
Subsidiarily Liable
the principal, accomplices and accessories each of their
respective class, shall be subsidiarily liable for quotas of
the other person liable.
The person whose payment has been made shall have
the right of action against the other for their respective
shares.
s
 Article 111. Obligation to make restitution in Article 113. Obligation to satisfy civil liability. –
certain cases. – Any person who has participated Except in case of extinction of his civil liability as
gratuitously in the proceeds of a felony shall be provided in the next preceding article the offender
bound to make restitution in an amount equivalent shall continue to be obliged to satisfy the civil
to the extent of such participation. liability resulting from the crime committed by
him, notwithstanding the fact that he has served
Conditions for Article 111 his sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty or
(a) An innocent person not accessory other rights, or has not been required to serve the
(b) Gratuitous acquisition from offender same by reason of amnesty, pardon, commutation
(c) Fortune of the innocent must have been of sentence or any other reason.
augmented by such gratuitous participation
NOTE: The grounds for extinction of criminal liability are
If these concur, one can be made liable to make different from the grounds of extinction of civil liability.
restitution of the property on the extent of the Pardon or amnesty may extinguish the criminal liability,
participation. (Food not included). but it does not wipe out civil liability.
• Criminal is in the interest of the state
Article 105 Article 111 • Civil is in the interest of the private party.
The third person who Bound to make
acquired the property restitution in his
must return it to owner gratuitous share - END OF CRIMINAL LAW 1 –
Acquires stolen property Acquires stolen property
by lawful means by gratuitous means
Good Effort!
Chapter Three
Extinction and Survival of Civil Liability

Article 112. Extinction of civil liability. – Civil

liability established in Articles 100, 101, 102, and
103 of this Code shall be extinguished in the same
manner as other obligations, in accordance with
provisions of the Civil Law.

Extinction of Civil Liability

1. Payment or performance
2. By loss of the thing due
3. By condonation or remission of debt
4. By the confusion or merger of the rights of the
creditor and debtor
5. By compensation
6. By novation

Others not under Article 1231 of the Civil Code.

(a) Annulment
(b) Rescission
(c) Fulfillment of a resolutory conditions
(d) Prescription

NOTE: Loss of thing due is not included in a sense that a

person has been deprived of the possession of his
property, the malefactor is still responsible to the owner
either for its restitution or payment for what is lost as
such not extinguished. Still liable even if lost due to force
majeure.

From the Discussions of Atty. Marco Anacleto Buena and Criminal Law I Annotated (2017) by Luis B. Reyes s