Sie sind auf Seite 1von 496

CRIMINAL LAW

(Revised Penal Code, Book 1)


Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra
RPC, Book 1
Chart Title
RPC, Book 1

Justifying Circumstances
(32 Questions)
RPC, Book 1

Persons Criminally Liable (30 Questions)


RPC, Book 1

Aggravating
Circumstances
(27 Questions)
RPC, Book 1

Proximate Cause
(20 Questions)
RPC, Book 1

Ordinary Mitigating
Circumstances
(19 Questions)
RPC, Book 1

Indeterminate
Sentence Law
(17 Questions)
RPC, Book 1

Exempting
Circumstances
(16 Questions)
RPC, Book 1

Complex Crimes
(15 Questions)
Chart Title
Others RPC, Book 1
Chart Title
Others RPC, Book 1
TOPIC # of
Questions
Impossible Crime 10
Stages of Commission 9
Conspiracy 9
Privileged Mitigating Circumstances 9

Extinguishment of Criminal Liability 9

Exemption from Criminal Liability 7

Civil Liability 6
Territoriality 5
Accessories Exempt from Criminal 5
Liability
Penalty, Complex Crimes 5
Reclusion Perpetua vs. Life 5
Imprisonment
Light Felonies 4
Preventive Imprisonment 4
Prescription of Offense 4
Penalty, Habitual Delinquency 4

Compound vs. Complex Crimes 4


Chart Title
Others RPC, Book 1

TOPIC # of
Questions
Intent vs. Motive 4
Entrapment vs. Instigation 4
Effect of Pardon 4
nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege 3

Definition of Felony 3

Alternative Circumstances 3

Classes of Penalty 3
Extinguishment of Civil Liability upon 3
acquittal
Pardon and Disqualification 3

Pecuniary Liabilities 3
Application of Penalty in Relation to 3
ISL
Subsidiary Liability of Employers 3
Motive 3
Cardinal Principles of Criminal Law 2
Chart Title
Others RPC, Book 1

TOPIC # of
Questions
Limits on Power of Congress 2
Diplomatic Immunity from Criminal 2
Prosecution
Mitigating Circumstances / Voluntary 2
Surrender

Qualifying Circumstances 2
Successive Service of Sentence 2
Computation of prescription of 2
offenses
Prescription of penalty 2
Application of Indivisible Penalties 2
Subsidiary penalty 2
Corpus Delicti and Elements 2
Delito Continuado vs. Complex Crimes 2
Mala in se vs. Mala Prohibita 2
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
(RPC, Art. 11)

32 Questions
RPC, Book 1

Justifying
Circumstances
(32 Questions)
Justifying Circumstances (Art. 11)

1. Self Defense: Anyone who acts in defense of


his person or rights, provided that the following
circumstances concur (Art. 11, par .1):

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.
Justifying Circumstances (Art. 11)
For self-defense to be successfully invoked, it must
be proven by clear and convincing evidence that
excludes any vestige of criminal aggression on the
part of the person invoking it. (People v. Bosito,
G.R. No. 209346, 12 January 2015)

For the element of unlawful aggression to be


present, there must be an actual physical assault,
or at least a threat to inflict real imminent injury
upon a person. It presupposes actual, sudden,
unexpected, or imminent dangernot merely
threatening and intimidating action. It is present
only when the one attacked faces real and
immediate threat to ones life (Sombol v. People,
G.R. No. 194564, 10 April 2013).
Justifying Circumstances (Art. 11)
Relating to the second element constituting
self-defense, the means employed by a
person claiming self-defense must be
commensurate to the nature and extent of
the attack sought to be averted. It must also
be rationally necessary to prevent or repel an
unlawful aggression (Flores v. People, G.R.
No. 181354, 27 February 2013).

The number, nature, and gravity of the


wounds sustained by the aggressor will
reveal the validity of the accuseds claim of
self-defense. (People v. Bosito, G.R. No.
209346, 12 January 2015)
Justifying Circumstances (Art. 11)
Rustia vs. People
(G.R. No. 208351, 5 October 2016, J. Bersamin)
Unlawful aggression is of two kinds: (a) actual or material unlawful
aggression; and (b) imminent unlawful aggression. Actual or
material unlawful aggression means an attack with physical force
or with a weapon, an offensive act that positively determines the
intent of the aggressor to cause the injury. Imminent unlawful
aggression means an attack that is impending or at the point of
happening; it must not consist in a mere threatening attitude, nor
must it be merely imaginary, but must be offensive and positively
strong (like aiming a revolver at another with intent to shoot or
opening a knife and making a motion as if to attack). Imminent
unlawful aggression must not be a mere threatening attitude of the
victim, such as pressing his right hand to his hip where a revolver
was holstered, accompanied by an angry countenance, or like
aiming to throw a pot.
Justifying Circumstances (Art. 11)
People v. Mediado
(G.R. No. 169871, 2 February 2011, J. Bersamin)

Facts: The accused confessed killing the victim but claimed that he
did so only to defend himself and his father. During trial, it was
shown by the post-mortem examination that the victim had
sustained a total of seven wounds: two incised wounds and five
hack wounds. Three of the hack wounds were inflicted on victims
neck, one of which fatally extended to and cut the trachea,
esophagus, and the carotid and jugular vessels that supplied blood
to the heart and brain of the victim. The medico-legal expert,
opined at the trial that the injuries were possibly sustained by the
victim from the assailant who was behind him and while he was
already down. Both RTC and CA rejected the claim of self-defense.
Justifying Circumstances (Art. 11)
People v. Mediado
(G.R. No. 169871, 2 February 2011, J. Bersamin)
Held: The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the CA. The
nature, number, and gravity of the victims wounds spoke not
of defense on the part accused but of a criminal intent to kill
the victim. Furthermore, accused did not support his claim that
the victim had committed aggression by punching the formers
father and by throwing stones at him and his father. He and his
father were not able to identify any weapon used by the victim
aside from the stone that he supposedly picked up from the
ground. He did not establish with clear and convincing proof that
the victim had assaulted him or his father as to pose to either of
them an imminent threat of great harm before he mounted his
own attack on the victim.
Justifying Circumstances (Art. 11)
People v. Mediado
(G.R. No. 169871, 2 February 2011, J. Bersamin)
Held:
An accused who asserts self-defense admits his infliction
of the fatal blows and bears the burden of satisfactorily
establishing all the elements of self-defense. Otherwise, his
conviction for the felony of murder or homicide will be
affirmed.
Justifying Circumstances (Art. 11)
People v. Nestor Roxas (G.R. No. 218396, 10 February 2016)
Held: After taking into account the location and the number of stab
wounds sustained by the victim, the accused-appellant's claim of self-
defense further crumbles. To reiterate, the first stab blow hit Severino's
back jibing with Vicente's assertion that the former was stabbed from
behind. Then, when the victim was totally caught by surprise with the
initial attack, the second and third stab blows were delivered.
Additionally, the number of wounds suffered by Severino invalidates the
accused-appellant's allegation that he was only defending himself for the
number of wounds inflicted are rather demonstrative of deliberate and
criminal intent to end the life of the victim. Likewise weakening accused
appellant's contention that he acted in self-defense was his behavior
immediately after the incident. In the case at bar, the accused-appellant
himself admitted that upon seeing the victim lying on the ground, he
boarded a jeep to go to his sister's place in San Pascual, Batangas before
moving to Bicol where he hid from the authorities for several years. The
accused-appellant's flight negates his plea of self-defense and indicates
his guilt.
Justifying Circumstances (Art. 11)
Toledo v. People (439 SCRA 94 [2004])
Held: The Court ruled that it is an aberration for Toledo to invoke
that his bolo accidentally hit the stomach of the victim and that
he was able to prove all the essential elements of self defense
because the said defenses are intrinsically antithetical. There is no
such defense as accidental self-defense in the realm of criminal
law.

The court further ruled that Toledo was not justified in stabbing
Ricky. There was no imminent threat to his life necessitating his
assault. Records reveal that there is no unlawful agression, a
condition sine qua non for the justifying circumstance of self
defense, on the part of Ricky. Ricky arrived at Toledos house
unarmed. With no weapon to attack Toledo or defend himself, no
sign of hostility may be deduced from him.
Justifying Circumstances (Art. 11)
2. Defense of Relatives: Any one who acts in
defense of the person or rights of his spouse,
ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural
or adopted brothers or sisters, or his relatives x
x x (Art. 11, par. 2).

RELATIVES THAT 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.
Justifying Circumstances (Art. 11)
REQUISITES OF DEFENSE OF RELATIVES:

1. Unlawful aggression;

2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to


prevent or repel it; and

3. In case the provocation was given by the person


attacked, the one making a defense had no part
therein.
Justifying Circumstances (Art. 11)
3. Defense of Stranger: Anyone who acts in
defense of the person or rights of a stranger (Art.
11, par. 3).

REQUISITES:
1. Unlawful aggression;
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it;
3. The person defending be not induced by revenge,
resentment or other evil motive.
Justifying Circumstances (Art. 11)
4. Avoidance of a Greater Evil: Any person
who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does not
act which causes damage to another (Art. 11, par.
4).

REQUISITES:
1. That the evil sought to be avoided actually
exists;
2. That the injury feared be greater than that done
to avoid it;
3. That there be no other practical and less
harmful means of preventing it.
Justifying Circumstances (Art. 11)
People v. Ricohermoso (56 SCRA 431 [1974])
Facts: The land Ricohermoso cultivated belonged to Geminiano.
When the latter went to the house of the former, as if by
prearrangement, Ricohermoso unsheathed his bolo and
approached Geminiano from the left while Severo (Ricos father-
in-law) got an axe and approached from the right. Rico stabbed
Geminiano first and while in a helpless position, the latter was
hacked on the back by Severo. At that same place and time while
the killing of Geminiano was taking place, Juan (son of Severo)
suddenly embraced Marianito (son of Geminiano), who had a
gun slung on his shoulder, from behind. They grappled and rolled
downhill towards the camote patch. Marianito passed out and
when he regained consciousness, his rifle was gone. He walked
uphill and saw his father. Geminiano died later. Juan invoked the
justifying circumstance of greater necessity in explaining his act
of preventing Marianito from shooting Rico and Severo.
Justifying Circumstances (Art. 11)

People v. Ricohermoso (56 SCRA 431 [1974])

Held: The act of Juan was designed to insure the killing of


Geminiano without any risk to his assailants. Juan was not
avoiding any evil but his malicious intention was to forestall
any interference in the felonious assault. He acted in
conspiracy with Rico and Severo.
Justifying Circumstances (Art. 11)
Ty v. People (439 SCRA 220 [2004])
Held: The evil sought to be avoided is merely expected or
anticipated. If the evil sought to be avoided is merely expected or
anticipated or may happen in the future, the defense of an
uncontrollable fear of a greater injury is not applicable. Ty could
have taken advantage of an available option to avoid committing a
crime. By her own admission, she had the choice to give jewelry or
other forms of security instead of postdated checks to secure her
obligation.
Moreover, for the defense of state of necessity to be availing,
the greater injury feared should not have been brought about by
the negligence or imprudence, more so, the willful inaction of the
actor. In this case, the issuance of the bounced checks was brought
about by Ty's own failure to pay her mother's hospital bills.
Justifying Circumstances (Art. 11)
5. Fulfillment of a Duty or Lawful Exercise Of
Right or Office: Any person who acts in the
fulfilment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a
right or office (Art. 11, par. 5).

REQUISITES:
1. That the accused acted in the performance of a
duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office;
2. That the injury caused or the offense committed
be the necessary consequence of the due
performance of duty or the lawful exercise of such
right or office.
Justifying Circumstances (Art. 11)
People v. Ulep (340 SCRA 688 [2000])
Accused-appellant and the other police officers involved originally
set out to perform a legal duty: to render police assistance, and restore
peace and order at Mundog Subdivision where the victim was then
running amuck. There were two (2) stages of the incident at Mundog
Subdivision. During the first stage, the victim threatened the safety of
the police officers by menacingly advancing towards them,
notwithstanding accused-appellant's previous warning shot and verbal
admonition to the victim to lay down his weapon or he would be shot.
As a police officer, it is to be expected that accused-appellant would
stand his ground. Up to that point, his decision to respond with a
barrage of gunfire to halt the victim's further advance was justified
under the circumstances. After all, a police officer is not required to
afford the victim the opportunity to fight back. Neither is he expected
when hard pressed and in the heat of such an encounter at close
quarters to pause for a long moment and reflect coolly at his peril, or
to wait after each blow to determine the effects thereof.
Justifying Circumstances (Art. 11)

People v. Ulep (340 SCRA 688 [2000])


However, he cannot be exonerated from overdoing his duty during the
second stage of the incident when he fatally shot the victim in the
head, even after the latter slumped to the ground due to multiple
gunshot wounds sustained while charging at the police officers. Sound
discretion and restraint dictated that accused-appellant, a veteran
policeman, should have ceased firing at the victim the moment he saw
the latter fall to the ground. The victim at that point no longer posed a
threat and was already incapable of mounting an aggression against the
police officers. Shooting him in the head was obviously unnecessary.
The law does not clothe police officers with authority to arbitrarily
judge the necessity to kill- it must be stressed that their judgment and
discretion as police officers in the performance of their duties must be
excercised neither capriciously nor oppressively, but within reasonable
limits.
Justifying Circumstances (Art. 11)
Pomoy v. People (439 SCRA 439 [2004])

Facts: Police sergeant Pomoy, went near the door of the jail
where Balboa was detained for robbery and directed the latter
to come out, purportedly for tactical interrogation at the
investigation room. At that time, petitioner had a gun, a .45
caliber pistol, tucked in a holster which was hanging by the side
of his belt. The gun was fully embedded in its holster, with only
the handle of the gun protruding from the holster. Balboa tried
to remove Pomoys gun and the two grappled for possession of
the gun. Thereafter, 2 gunshots were heard. When the source of
the shots was verified, petitioner was seen still holding a .45
caliber pistol, facing Balboa, who was lying in a pool of blood.
Pomoy invoked the defense of accident for his defense.
Justifying Circumstances (Art. 11)
Pomoy v. People (439 SCRA 439 [2004])
Held: Pomoy is acquitted. At the time of the incident, petitioner was a
member specifically, one of the investigators of the Philippine
National Police (PNP) stationed at the Iloilo Provincial Mobile Force
Company. Thus, he was in the lawful performance of his duties as
investigating officer that, under the instructions of his superior, he
fetched the victim from the latter's cell for a routine interrogation.
The participation of petitioner, if any, in the victim's death was
limited only to acts committed in the course of the lawful
performance of his duties as an enforcer of the law. The removal of
the gun from its holster, the release of the safety lock, and the firing of
the two successive shots all of which led to the death of the victim
were sufficiently demonstrated to have been consequences of
circumstances beyond the control of petitioner. At the very least,
these factual circumstances create serious doubt on Pomoys
culpability.
Justifying Circumstances (Art. 11)
6. Obedience to an Order Issued for Some
Lawful Purpose: Any person who acts in
obedience to an order issued by a superior for
some lawful purpose (Art. 11, par. 6).

REQUISITES:
1. That 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.
Justifying Circumstances (Art. 11)

People v. Margen (G.R. No. L-2681, 30 March 1950)

Held: The SC upheld the conviction of Andres. Obedience to


an order of a superior gives rise to exemption from criminal
liability only when the order is for some lawful purpose. Sgt.
Margens order to have the deceased tortured was not of that
kind. The deceased may have given offense, but that did not give
the Sergeant the right to take the law in his own hands and have
the offender subjected to inhuman punishment.
Moreover, it does not appear that in taking part in the
maltreatment of the deceased, Andres was prompted solely by
his sense of duty toward his superior. What appears is that he
and his common companions had a common grievance against
the deceased.
Justifying Circumstances (Art. 11)

People v. Beronilla (96 Phil 566 [1955])

Held: There is no proof that Beronilla was able to receive the


radiogram message. The records are ample to sustain the claim
of the accused that the arrest, prosecution and trial were done
pursuant to express orders of the 15th Infantry HQ. Where the
accused acted upon orders of superior officers that the military
subordinates, could not question, and obeyed in good faith,
without being aware of their illegality, without any fault or
negligence on their part, the act is not accompanied by criminal
intent. A crime is not committed if the mind of the person
performing the act be innocent.
Justifying Circumstances (Art. 11)

Tabuena v. Sandiganbayan (268 SCRA 332 [1997])

Held:
The accused are acquitted. The accused is entitled to the justifying
circumstance of obedience to an order issued by a superior for
some lawful purpose. Sandiganbayan claimed that Marcos memo
was unlawful because it orders disbursement of P55M when the
Ongpin memo reveals that the liability is only 34.5M. Granting this
to be true, it will not affect Tabuenas good faith as to make him
criminally liable. Thus, even if the order is illegal, if it is patently
legal and the subordinate is not aware of its illegality, the
subordinate is not liable, for then there would only be a mistake
of fact committed in good faith.
Justifying Circumstances (Art. 11)
Tabuena v. Sandiganbayan (268 SCRA 332 [1997])
Held:
This is not a sheer case of blind and misguided obedience,
but obedience in good faith of a duly executed order. Indeed,
compliance to a patently lawful order is rectitude far better than
contumacious disobedience. In the case at bench, the order
emanated from the Office of the President and bears the
signature of the President himself, the highest official of the
land. It carries with it the presumption that it was regularly
issued. And on its face, the memorandum is patently lawful for
no law makes the payment of an obligation illegal. This fact,
coupled with the urgent tenor for its execution constrains one to
act swiftly without question. Obedientia est legis essentia.
Justifying Circumstances
Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children
Act of 2004 (R.A. No. 9262)

Battered Woman Syndrome as a Defense.


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

30 Questions
RPC, Book 1

Persons
Criminally Liable
(30 Questions)
Persons Criminally Liable

The following are criminally liable for grave and less


grave felonies (Art. 16):
1. Principals.
2. Accomplices.
3. Accessories.

The following are criminally liable for light felonies


(Art. 16):
1. Principals
2. Accomplices.
Persons Criminally Liable

The following are considered principals


(Article 17):

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;
Persons Criminally Liable
The conviction of a person as a principal by
inducement requires (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 by the material executor.
(Ambagan, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 204481-
82, 14 October 2015)
Persons Criminally Liable
PRINCIPAL BY PROPOSAL TO COMMIT
INDUCEMENT THE FELONY
There is an inducement to commit a crime.
The principal by inducement The mere proposal to
becomes liable only when commit a felony is
the crime is committed by punishable in treason and
the principal by direct rebellion. The person to
participation. whom the proposal is made
should not commit the crime;
otherwise, the proponent
becomes a principal by
inducement.
The inducement involves The proposal to be
any crime punishable must involve only
treason or rebellion.
Persons Criminally Liable

The following are considered principals


(Article 17):

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.
Persons Criminally Liable

Accomplices are those persons who, not


being included in Article 17, cooperate in
the execution of the offense by previous or
simultaneous acts (Art. 18).
Persons Criminally Liable
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.
Persons Criminally Liable
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:

3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the


escape of the principal of the crime, provided
the accessory acts with 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 guilty of some other
crime.
Persons Criminally Liable
The penalties prescribed 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, with the single exception of accessories
falling within the provisions of paragraph 1 Article 19
(Art. 20).
Persons Criminally Liable

Under P.D. No. 1829 (Decree Penalizing


Obstruction of, Apprehension, and Prosecution of
Criminal Offenders), penalty shall be imposed upon
any person who knowingly or wilfully obstructs,
impedes, frustrates or delays the apprehension of
suspects and the investigation and prosecution of
criminal cases.
Aggravating Circumstances
(Art. 14)
27 Questions
RPC, Book 1

Aggravating
Circumstances
(27 Questions)
Aggravating Circumstances (Art. 14)
The following are aggravating circumstances:

1. That advantage be taken by the offender of


his public position.

That advantage be taken by the offender of his


public position is SPECIAL aggravating
circumstance that cannot be offset by ordinary
mitigating circumstance (Art. 62, no. 1(a), RPC as
amended by Sec. 23 of R.A. No. 7659).
Aggravating Circumstances (Art. 14)
The following are aggravating circumstances:

1. That advantage be taken by the offender of


his public position.

The mere fact that the offender is a public officer or


employee is a SPECIAL aggravating circumstance
in violation of R.A. No. 7610 (R.A. No. 7610, Sec.
31) and a QUALIFYING circumstance in violation
of R.A. No. 9208 or the Anti-Trafficking in Persons
Act of 2003 (R.A. No. 9208, Sec. 5).
Aggravating Circumstances (Art. 14)
The following are aggravating circumstances:

2. That the crime be committed in contempt of


or with insult to the public authorities.

3. That the act be committed with insult or 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.
Aggravating Circumstances (Art. 14)
The aggravating circumstances of rank, age or
sex are not appreciated in Robbery with Homicide
since said aggravating circumstances apply only to
crimes against persons or honor when in the
commission of the crime there is some insult or
disrespect shown to rank, age or sex. It is not
proper to consider these aggravating circumstances
in crimes against property. Robbery with homicide is
primarily a crime against property and not against
persons. Homicide is a mere incident of the robbery,
the latter being the main purpose and object of the
criminal (People v. Fernando Collado, et al., G.R.
No. 88631, 30 April 1991).
Aggravating Circumstances (Art. 14)
Dwelling aggravates a felony where the crime was
committed in the dwelling of the offended party if the
latter has not given provocation or if the victim was
killed inside his house (People vs. Perreras, G.R.
No. 139622, 31 July 2001, 362 SCRA 202).

Provocation in the aggravating circumstance of


dwelling must be: (a) given by the offended party, (b)
sufficient, and (c) immediate to the commission of
the crime (People vs. Rios, G.R. No. 132632, 19
June 2000, 333 SCRA 823).
Aggravating Circumstances (Art. 14)
The following are aggravating circumstances:

4. That the act be committed with abuse of


confidence or obvious ungratefulness.

For abuse of confidence to exist, it is essential to show


that the confidence between the parties must be
immediate and personal such as would give the accused
some advantage or make it easier for him to commit the
criminal act. The confidence must be a means of
facilitating the commission of the crime, the culprit taking
advantage of the offended partys belief that the former
would not abuse said confidence (People vs. Arrojado,
G.R. No. 130492, 31 January 2001, 350 SCRA 679).
Aggravating Circumstances (Art. 14)
The following are aggravating circumstances:

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.
Aggravating Circumstances (Art. 14)
The following are aggravating circumstances:

6. That the crime be committed in the nighttime, or


in an uninhabited place, or by a band, whenever such
circumstances may facilitate the commission of the
offense.
Whenever more than three armed malefactors shall
have acted together in the commission of an offense, it
shall be deemed to have been committed by a band.
If the aggravating circumstances of nighttime, uninhabited
place or band concur in the commission of the crime, all will
constitute one aggravating circumstance only as a general
rule although they can be considered separately if their
elements are distinctly perceived and can subsist
independently, revealing a greater degree of perversity
(People vs. Librando, G.R. No. 132251, 6 July 2000).
Aggravating Circumstances (Art. 14)
The following are aggravating circumstances:

7. That the crime be committed on the occasion


of a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic,
or other calamity or misfortune.

8. That the crime be committed with the aid of


armed men or persons who insure or afford
impunity.
Aggravating Circumstances (Art. 14)
The following are aggravating circumstances:

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 by final
judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of
the RPC.
Aggravating Circumstances (Art. 14)
The following are aggravating circumstances:

10. That the offender has been previously


punished for an offense to which the law attaches
an equal or greater penalty or for two or more
crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty.

11. That the crime be committed in


consideration of a price, reward, or promise.
Aggravating Circumstances (Art. 14)
The following are aggravating circumstances:

12. That the crime be committed by means of


inundation, fire, poison, explosion, stranding of a
vessel or intentional damage thereto, derailment
of a locomotive, or by the use of any other artifice
involving great waste and ruin.

13. That the act be committed with evident


premeditation.
Aggravating Circumstances (Art. 14)

For evident premeditation to be appreciated, the


following elements must be proved:
1.The time when the accused determined to
commit the crime;
2.An act manifestly indicating that the accused has
clung to his determination; and
3.Sufficient lapse of time between the
determination and execution to allow him to reflect
upon the consequences of his act.

The essence of evident premeditation is that the


execution of the criminal act must be preceded by cool
thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the
criminal intent during a space of time sufficient to arrive at a
calm judgment (People v. Alinao, G.R. No. 191256, 18
September 2013).
Aggravating Circumstances (Art. 14)
The following are aggravating circumstances:

14. That craft, fraud, or disguise be


employed.

Craft involves intellectual trickery and cunning on


the part of the offender. When there is a direct
inducement by insidious words or machinations,
fraud is present (People v. Labuguen, G.R. No.
127849, 9 August 2000, 337 SCRA 488).
Aggravating Circumstances (Art. 14)
The following are aggravating circumstances:

15. That advantage be taken of superior


strength, or means be employed to weaken the
defense.

There is abuse of superior strength when the


perpetrators of a crime deliberately used excessive
force, thereby rendering the victim incapable of
defending himself. The notorious inequality of forces
creates an unfair advantage for the aggressor
(People v. Credo, G.R. No. 197360, 3 July 2013).
Aggravating Circumstances (Art. 14)
Abuse of superior strength is present whenever
there is a notorious inequality of forces between the
victim and the aggressor, assuming a situation of
superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for
the aggressor selected or taken advantage of by
him in the commission of the crime. (Fantastico, et
al. v. People, G.R. No. 190912, 12 January 2015)
Aggravating Circumstances (Art. 14)

BY A BAND ABUSE OF
SUPERIOR
STRENGTH
When the offense is The gravamen of
committed by more abuse of superiority is
than 3 armed the taking advantage
malefactors regardless by the culprits of their
of the comparative collective strength to
strength of the victim. overpower their
weaker victims.
Aggravating Circumstances (Art. 14)
The following are aggravating circumstances:

16. That the act be committed with treachery


(alevosia).

There is treachery when the offender commits any


of the crimes against the person, employing means,
methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend
directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk
to himself arising from the defense which the offended
party might make.
Aggravating Circumstances (Art. 14)
A treacherous attack is one in which the victim was
not afforded any opportunity to defend himself or resist
the attack. The existence of treachery is not solely
determined by the type of weapon used. If it appears
that the weapon was deliberately chosen to insure the
execution of the crime, and to render the victim
defenseless, then treachery may be properly
appreciated against the accused (People v. Labiaga,
G.R. No. 202867, 15 July 2013).

The essence of treachery is the sudden and


unexpected attack on an unsuspecting victim, depriving
the victim of any chance to defend himself. (People v.
Bosito, G.R. No. 209346, 12 January 2015)
Aggravating Circumstances (Art. 14)
For treachery to be appreciated, that circumstances
must be present at the inception of the attack, and if
absent and the attack is continuous, treachery, even if
present at a subsequent stage is not to be considered
(People v. Loterono, G.R. No. 146100, 13 November
2002, 391 SCRA 593).

Chance encounters, impulse killing or crimes


committed at the spur of the moment, or those that were
preceded by heated altercations are generally not
attended by treachery, for lack of opportunity of the
accused deliberately to employ a treacherous mode of
attack (People v. Caratao, G.R. No. 126281, 10 June
2003, 403 SCRA 482).
Aggravating Circumstances (Art. 14)
For treachery to be considered, two elements must
concur: (1) the employment of means of execution that
gives the persons attacked no opportunity to defend
themselves or retaliate; and (2) the means of execution
were deliberately or consciously adopted. (Fantastico, et
al. v. People, G.R. No. 190912, 12 January 2015)

The mere suddenness of an attack should not be the


sole basis in finding treachery. There must be evidence
to show that the accused deliberately or consciously
adopted the means of execution to ensure its success.
(People v. Oloverio, G.R. No. 211159, 18 March 2015)
Aggravating Circumstances (Art. 14)
People v. Villarico
(G.R. No. 158362, 4 April 2011 , J. Bersamin)
There is treachery when: (a) at the time of the attack,
the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and
(b) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted
the particular means, methods, or forms of attack
employed by him. The essence of treachery lies in the
suddenness of the attack that leaves the victim unable
to defend himself, thereby ensuring the commission of
the offense. It is the suddenness of the attack coupled
with the inability of the victim to defend himself or to
retaliate that brings about treachery. Consequently,
treachery may still be appreciated even if the victim was
facing the assailant.
Aggravating Circumstances (Art. 14)
The following are aggravating circumstances:

17. That means be employed or circumstances


brought about which add ignominy to the natural
effects of the act.

IGNOMINY it is a circumstance pertaining to the


moral order, which adds disgrace and obloquy to the
material injury caused by the crime (People v. Acaya,
G.R. No. L-72998, 29 July 1988).
Aggravating Circumstances (Art. 14)
The following are aggravating circumstances:

18. That the crime be committed after an


unlawful entry.

There is an unlawful entry when an entrance is


effected by a way not intended for the purpose (Art.
18, 2nd par.).

19. That as a means to the commission of a


crime a wall, roof, floor, door, or window be
broken.
Aggravating Circumstances (Art. 14)
The following are aggravating circumstances:

20. That the crime be committed with the aid


of persons under fifteen years of age or by
means of motor vehicles, motorized watercraft,
airships, or other similar means.

21. Cruelty: That the wrong done in the


commission of the crime be deliberately
augmented by causing other wrong not
necessary for its commission.
There is cruelty when the culprit enjoys and
delights in making his victim suffer slowly and
gradually, causing him unnecessary physical pain in
the consummation of the criminal act.
Aggravating Circumstances (Art. 14)
For cruelty to exist, there must be proof showing
that the accused delighted in making their victim
suffer slowly and gradually, causing him
unnecessary physical and moral pain in the
consummation of the criminal act (People v. Catian,
G.R. No. 139693, 24 January 2002, 374 SCRA
514).

IGNOMINY CRUELTY
Involves moral suffering Refers to physical
suffering
Aggravating Circumstances
Under P.D. 1866, as amended by R.A. No. 8294:
If homicide or murder is committed with the use of an
unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm shall
be considered as an aggravating circumstance (Sec. 1).

Under Republic Act No. 10591, otherwise known as


the Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition
Regulation Act:
If the use of a loose firearm is inherent in the
commission of a crime punishable under the RPC or other
special laws the use of loose firearm is an aggravating
circumstance. Hence, the penalty for the use of a loose
firearm is not imposed (Sec. 29).
However, if the crime is committed by the person without
using the loose firearm, the violation of this law shall be
considered as a distinct and separate offense (Sec. 29).
Aggravating Circumstances
Under the Republic Act No.9165 otherwise
known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Act of 2002:

Notwithstanding the provisions of any law to the


contrary, a positive finding for the use of dangerous
drugs shall be a qualifying aggravating circumstance
in the commission of a crime by an offender, and the
application of the penalty provided for in the Revised
Penal Code shall be applicable (Sec. 25).
Proximate Cause
22 Questions
RPC, Book 1

Proximate
Cause
(20 Questions)
Proximate Cause

Proximate Cause, Defined:

the cause, which, in natural and


continuous sequence, unbroken by any
efficient intervening cause, produces the
injury, and without which the result would
not have occurred.
Proximate Cause
One who commits an intentional felony is
responsible for all the consequences which may
naturally and logically result therefrom, whether
foreseen or intended or not.

Rationale:
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
Proximate Cause

Art. 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.

... ... ...


Proximate Cause

Requisites for the application of Art.


4(1) of the RPC:

1. An intentional felony has been


committed; and

2. The wrong done to the aggrieved


party must be the direct, natural and
logical consequence of the felony
committed.
Proximate Cause

The felony committed is NOT the proximate


cause of the resulting injury when:

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; or

b. The resulting injury is due to the intentional act of


the victim.
Proximate Cause
WRONGFUL ACT DIFFERENT FROM THAT INTENDED (ART. 4,
PAR. 1)

The causes which may produce a result different from that


which the offender intended are:

1. ERROR IN PERSONAE mistake in the identity of the


victim; injuring one person mistaken for another (this is a
complex crime under Art. 48)

2. ABERRATIO ICTUS mistake in the blow, that is, when


the offender intending to do an injury to one person
actually inflicts it on another; and
Proximate Cause
WRONGFUL ACT DIFFERENT FROM THAT INTENDED (ART. 4,
PAR. 1)

The causes which may produce a result different from that


which the offender intended are:

3. PRAETER INTENTIONEM the act exceeds the intent,


that is, the injurious result is greater than that intended.

The felony committed must be the proximate cause of the


resulting injury.
Proximate Cause
People v. Sabalones
294 SCRA 751 (1988)

Facts: Two vehicles proceeded to the house of Stephen Lim


when Sabalones et. al. fired towards the vehicles killing 2 of
the passengers and seriously injuring 3 others. The lower
court convicted the accused. Appellants accuse the trial
court of engaging in conjecture in ruling that there was
aberratio ictus in this case.
Proximate Cause
People v. Sabalones
294 SCRA 751 (1988)
Held: The allegation does not advance the cause of the
appellants. It must be stressed that the trial court relied on
the concept of aberratio ictus to explain why the appellants
staged the ambush, not to prove that appellants did in fact
commit the crimes. In any event, the lower court was not
engaging in conjecture because the conclusion that the
appellants killed the wrong persons was based on the
extrajudicial statement of appellant Beronga and the
testimony of one witness. Nonetheless, the fact that they
were mistaken does not diminish their culpability. Mistake in
the identity of the victim carries the same gravity as when
the accused zeroes in on his intended victim.
Proximate Cause

Death is presumed to be the natural


consequence of physical injuries inflicted when:

1. The victim at the time the physical injuries were


inflicted was in normal health.

2. That the death may be expected from the physical


injuries inflicted.

3. That death ensued within a reasonable time.


Proximate Cause

Offense punishable under special law

Practicing medicine without license is an


offense punishable under special law but not
a felony within the meaning of Article 4 of
RPC. Hence, a quack doctor, who killed his
patient while treating him, is only liable for
reckless imprudence resulting in homicide
(People vs. Carmen, G.R. No. 137268, 26
March 2001).
Proximate Cause

Offense punishable under special law

If the victim accidentally killed is the owner, driver or occupant


of the carnapped motor vehicle, the crime committed is
qualified carnapping or carnapping in the aggravated form
under Section 3 of RA No. 10883. If the victim accidentally killed
is not the owner, driver or occupant of the carnapped motor
vehicle, the crimes committed are simple carnapping and
homicide. The concept of carnapping is the same as that of
theft and robbery (People vs. Sia, G.R. No. 137457, Nov. 21,
2001). Although not punishable under RPC, it can be treated as
a felony within the meaning of Article 4 of RPC (See: Dimat vs.
People, G.R. No. 181184, January 25, 2012). Hence, the accused
is liable for homicide, which is the direct and natural
consequence of simple carnapping.
Proximate Cause

Quinto vs. Andres (2005):


Proximate Cause is characterized by a
relationship of cause and effect, the cause
being the felonious act of the offender and the
effect is the resulting injury or death of the
victim.
The felony committed is not the proximate
cause of the injury when:
An active force intervened between the felony
committed and the resulting injury;
The injury resulted from the victims intentional act.
Proximate Cause
Garcia vs. People (2009)
Accused physically beat and mauled the victim until
he was able to free himself and run away. When the
victim reach his house, he experienced pain and had
a hard time breathing until he eventually expired.
The victim was found to have died of myocardial
infarction. The Court held that the emotional strain
from the beating aggravated victim's delicate
constitution and led to his death. The inevitable
conclusion then surfaces that the myocardial
infarction suffered by the victim was the direct,
natural and logical consequence of the felony that
petitioner had intended to commit.
Proximate Cause
Article 4 (1) of the RPC states that criminal liability
shall be incurred "by any person committing a felony
(delito) although the wrongful act done be different
from that which he intended." The essential
requisites for the application of this provision are: (a)
the intended act is felonious; (b) the resulting act is
likewise a felony; and (c) the unintended albeit graver
wrong was primarily caused by the actor's wrongful
acts. In this case, petitioner was committing a felony
when he boxed the victim and hit him with a bottle.
Hence, the fact that the victim was previously
afflicted with a heart ailment does not alter
petitioner's liability for his death.
Ordinary Mitigating Circumstances
(RPC, Article 13)

19 Questions
RPC, Book 1

Ordinary
Mitigating
Circumstances
(19 Questions)
Ordinary Mitigating Circumstances (Art. 13)

The following are mitigating circumstances:

1. Incomplete Justifying or Exempting Circumstance:


When all the requisites necessary to justify the act or to
exempt from criminal liability in the respective cases are
not attendant.

Incomplete self-defense, defense of relatives,


defense of stranger
In these 3 classes of defense, UNLAWFUL
AGGRESSION must always be present. It is an
indispensable requisite (Reyes, p. 247).
Ordinary Mitigating Circumstances (Art. 13)
The following are mitigating circumstances:

2. That the offender is under eighteen years of age or over


seventy years. x x x

In People v. Hermie Jacinto (G.R. No. 182239, 16 March 2011),


the child in conflict with the law was found guilty of qualified rape
punishable by death. Supreme Court considered the minority of
the accused as privilege mitigating circumstance. Notwithstanding
the Anti-Death Penalty Law (R.A. 9346) and the privileged
mitigating circumstance of minority, the Supreme Court sentenced
the accused to reclusion perpetua. The Supreme Court held that
for purposes of determining the proper penalty because of the
privileged mitigating circumstance of minority, the penalty of
death is still the penalty to be reckoned with.
Ordinary Mitigating Circumstances (Art. 13)

Reyes v. People
G.R. No. 177105-06, 4 August 2010, J. Bersamin

The Sandiganbayan appreciated the mitigating


circumstance of old age in favor of the petitioner by
virtue of his being already over 70 years old. The
Sandiganbayan thereby erred. The mitigating
circumstance of old age under Article 13 (2) of
the Revised Penal Code applied only when the offender
was over 70 years at the time of the commission of the
offense. The petitioner, being only 63 years old when he
committed the offenses charged, was not entitled to
such mitigating circumstance.
Ordinary Mitigating Circumstances (Art. 13)

The following are mitigating circumstances:

3. That the offender had no intention to commit so


grave a wrong as that committed.

This circumstance can be taken into account only


when the facts proven show that there is a notable
and evident disproportion between the means
employed to execute the criminal act and its
consequences (Reyes, p. 258).
Ordinary Mitigating Circumstances (Art. 13)
The following are mitigating circumstances:

4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the


offended party immediately preceded the act.

PROVOCATION
- Any unjust or improper conduct or act of the offended
party, capable of exciting, inciting, or irritating anyone (Reyes, p.
266).
REQUISITES:
1. That the provocation must be sufficient
2. That it must originate from the offended party
3. That the provocation must be immediate to the act, i.e., to the
commission of the crime by the person who is provoked.
Ordinary Mitigating Circumstances (Art. 13)

5. That the act was committed in the immediate


vindication of a grave offense to the one committing the
felony (delito) his spouse, ascendants, descendants,
legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters or
relatives by affinity within the same degrees.

Vindication of grave offense cannot co-exist with


passion or obfuscation (People v. Pedro Pangal, et al.,
G.R. No. L-32040, 25 October 1977).
Ordinary Mitigating Circumstances (Art. 13)
PROVOCATION VINDICATION
It is made directly only to the The grave offense may be
person committing the offense committed also against the
offenders relatives mentioned in
the law.
The cause that brought about the The offended party must have done
provocation need not be a grave a grave offense to the offender or
offense. his relatives mentioned in the law.
It is necessary that the The vindication of the grave offense
provocation or threat immediately may be proximate, which admits of
preceded the act. an interval of time between the
grave offense done by the offended
party and the commission of the
crime.
Ordinary Mitigating Circumstances (Art. 13)

6. That of having acted upon an impulse so


powerful as naturally to have produced passion or
obfuscation.

REQUISITES:
1. The accused acted upon an impulse.
2. The impulse must be so powerful that it naturally
produce passion or obfuscation in him.
Ordinary Mitigating Circumstances (Art. 13)

7. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered


himself to a person in authority or his agents, or that he
had voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior
to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution.

REQUISITES OF VOLUNTARY SURRENDER:


1. That the offender had not been actually arrested.
2. That the offender surrendered himself to a person in
authority or to the latters agent.
3. That the surrender was voluntary.
Ordinary Mitigating Circumstances (Art. 13)

7. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered


himself to a person in authority or his agents, or that
he had voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court
prior to the presentation of the evidence for the
prosecution.

REQUISITES OF PLEA OF GUILTY:


1. That the offender spontaneously confessed his guilt;
2. That the confession of guilty was made in open
court, that is, before the competent court that is to
try the case; and
3. That the confession of guilt was made prior to the
presentation of evidence for the prosecution.
Ordinary Mitigating Circumstances (Art. 13)
8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise
suffering some physical defect which thus restricts his means of
action, defense, or communication with his fellow beings.

The fact that the accused suffers from a physical defect, a


severed left hand, does not mean that he should
automatically be credited with the mitigating circumstance. In
order for this condition to be appreciated, it must be shown
that such physical defect limited his means to act, defend
himself or communicate with his fellow beings to such an
extent that he did not have complete freedom of action,
consequently resulting in diminution of the element of
voluntariness. In fact, despite his handicap, the accused
nevertheless managed to attack, overcome and fatally stab
his victim (People v. Rogelio Deopante, G.R. No. 102772, 30
October 1996).
Ordinary Mitigating Circumstances (Art. 13)

9. Such illness of the offender as would diminish the


exercise of the will-power of the offender without
however depriving him of consciousness of his acts.

REQUISITES:
1. That the illness of the offender must diminish the
exercise of his will-power.
2. That such illness should not deprive the offender of
consciousness of his acts.

10. And, finally, any other circumstance of a similar


nature and analogous to those above mentioned.
Ordinary Mitigating Circumstances (Art. 13)

In Emilio Cimafranca v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No.


94408, 14 February 1991), the Supreme Court held
that the return of the funds malversed is not a defense
and will not be an exempting circumstance nor a
ground for extinguishing the criminal liability of the
accused but it can be a mitigating circumstance
analogous to voluntary surrender.

In the instant case, the return of the property


malversed was not mitigating because it took the
accused several years before he returned the
government property. In fact, when the engine was
returned, it was already scrap and the revolver was
rusty and had to be reblued.
Indeterminate Sentence Law
(Republic Act No. 4103)

17 Questions
RPC, Book 1

Indeterminate
Sentence Law
(17 Questions)
Indeterminate Sentence Law

Purpose: Uplift and redeem valuable human material and


prevent excessive deprivation of personal liberty. (Pp. vs.
Ducosin, 59 PHIL 109)

Application: MANDATORY, unless the accused is expressly


disqualified by the ISLAW (Pp. vs. Yu Lian, 40 OG 4205)

Court must determine two penalties: MAXIMUM and


MINIMUM terms.

For purposes of ISLAW, use the term MINIMUM to refer to the


duration of the sentence which the accused shall serve as a minimum,
and MAXIMUM to refer to the maximum period that he may be held in
jail.
Indeterminate Sentence Law

Revised Penal Code:

MINIMUM TERM One degree lower than penalty prescribed


(Sec. 1);
Only privileged mitigating circumstances considered.

MAXIMUM TERM Penalty prescribed, taking into account


mitigating and aggravating circumstances (Art. 64, RPC).

Special Laws:

MINIMUM TERM Not less than the minimum prescribed;

MAXIMUM TERM Not more than the maximum prescribed;


No attendant circumstances considered.
Indeterminate Sentence Law
Disqualified Offenders (R.A. No. 4103, Sec. 2):

Convicted of offenses punishable with death penalty or life


imprisonment;
Convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit
treason;
Convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition,
espionage;
Convicted of piracy;
Habitual delinquents (not recidivists);
Those who escaped from confinement or evaded sentence;
Those granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive and
shall have violated the term thereof;
Those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not
exceed one year; and
Those whose sentence imposes penalties which do not
involve imprisonment, like Destierro.
Indeterminate Sentence Law

People v. Angeles (2002):

In determining the penalty next lower in degree for purposes


of the Minimum term, the same should be based on the
penalty prescribed by the RPC without considering any
modifying circumstance.

The determination of the minimum penalty is left by law to the


sound discretion of the Court and can be anywhere within the
range of the penalty next lower without any reference to the
periods into which it might be subdivided.
Indeterminate Sentence Law

People vs. Asuela (2002):

The provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISL)


are not applicable to persons convicted of offenses
punished with death or life imprisonment.

Herein, the appellants were convicted of murder,


punishable by Reclusion Perpetua to Death. As such, the
ISL is not applicable.

[Relate this case to the Anti-Death Penalty Law]


Indeterminate Sentence Law

People vs. Larraaga (2006):


Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code provides that by reason of minority,
the imposable penalty to the offender is one degree lower than the
statutory penalty. The accused was only 16 years old when the crimes
were committed. As penalty for the special complex crime of kidnapping
and serious illegal detention with homicide and rape is death, the correct
penalty to be imposed should be reclusion perpetua. On the other hand,
the penalty for simple kidnapping and serious illegal detention is reclusion
perpetua to death. One degree lower from the said penalty is reclusion
temporal. There being no aggravating and mitigating circumstance, the
penalty to be imposed on him should be reclusion temporal in its medium
period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, he should be sentenced
to suffer the penalty of twelve (12) years of prision mayor in its maximum
period, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years of reclusion temporal in its
medium period, as maximum. With regard to the rest of the appellants,
the statutory penalty as provided above should be imposed. Therefore,
trial court erred in merely imposing two (2) reclusiones perpetua]
Indeterminate Sentence Law

Atizado vs. People (G.R. No. 173822, 13 October


2010,J.Bersamin)

Atizado in this case pointed a gun at the victim, while


Monreal pointed and fired the same which caused his death.
The Court here ruled that under Art. 248, as amended by RA
7659, the penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to death.
There being no modifying circumstances, the CA correctly
imposed the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua on Atizado,
which was conformable with Article 63 (2) of the RPC. But
reclusion perpetua was not the correct penalty for Monreal
due to his being a minor over 15 but under 18 years of age.
Pursuant to Article 68 (2) of the RPC, when the offender is
over 15 and under 18 years of age, the penalty next lower
than that prescribed by law is imposed.
Indeterminate Sentence Law

Atizado vs. People (G.R. No. 173822, 13 October


2010,J.Bersamin)

Based on Article 61 (2) of the RPC, reclusion temporal is the


penalty next lower than reclusion perpetua to death.
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and Article 64 of
the RPC, therefore, the range of the penalty of
imprisonment imposable on Monreal was prision mayor in
any of its periods, as the minimum period, to reclusion
temporal in its medium period, as the maximum period.
Accordingly, his proper indeterminate penalty is from six
years and one day of prision mayor, as the minimum
period, to 14 years, eight months, and one day of reclusion
temporal, as the maximum period
Indeterminate Sentence Law

Hubilla vs. People (G.R. No. 176102, 26 November 2014, J.


Bersamin)

Petitioner imputes grave error to the CA for not correctly


imposing the penalty, and for not suspending his sentence as a
juvenile in conflict with the law pursuant to the mandate of
Republic Act No. 9344. The Court will not hesitate or halt to
impose the penalty of imprisonment whenever warranted on a
child in conflict with the law. Article 249 of the Revised Penal
Code prescribes the penalty of reclusion temporal for homicide.
Considering that the petitioner was then a minor at the time of
the commission of the crime, being 17 years, four months and
28 days old when he committed the homicide on March 30,
2000, such minority was a privileged mitigating circumstance
that lowered the penalty to prision mayor.
Indeterminate Sentence Law

Hubilla vs. People (G.R. No. 176102, 26 November


2014,J.Bersamin)

Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum of the


indeterminate sentence should be within the penalty next
lower than the imposable penalty, which, herein, was prision
correccional (i.e., six months and one day to six years). For
the maximum of the indeterminate sentence, prision mayor
in its medium period - eight years and one day to 10 years
-was proper because there were no mitigating or aggravating
circumstances present. Accordingly, the CA imposed the
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of six months and
one day of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight years
and one day of prision mayor, as maximum.
Indeterminate Sentence Law

Hubilla vs. People (G.R. No. 176102, 26 November 2014,


J.Bersamin)

The petitioner insists, however, that the maximum of his


indeterminate sentence of eight years and one day of
prison mayor should be reduced to only six years of
prision correccional to enable him to apply for probation
under Presidential Decree No. 968. The petitioner's
insistence is bereft of legal basis. Neither the Revised
Penal Code, nor Republic Act No. 9344, nor any other
relevant law or rules support or justify the further
reduction of the maximum of the indeterminate
sentence. To yield to his insistence would be to impose an
illegal penalty, and would cause the Court to deliberately
violate the law.
Exempting Circumstances
(RPC, Art. 12)

16 Questions
RPC, Book 1

Exempting
Circumstances
(16 Questions)
Exempting Circumstances (Art. 12)
1. An Imbecile or Insane Person: An imbecile or
an insane person, unless the latter has acted
during a lucid interval (Art. 12, par. 1).

IMBECILE
one who, while advanced in age, has a mental
development comparable to that of children between
2 and 7 years of age.
one who is deprived completely of reason or
discernment and freedom of the will at the time of
committing the crime.
exempt in all cases from criminal liability
Exempting Circumstances (Art. 12)
1. An Imbecile or Insane Person: An imbecile or
an insane person, unless the latter has acted
during a lucid interval (Art. 12, par. 1).

INSANE
there is a complete deprivation of intelligence in
committing the act but capable of having lucid
intervals. During a lucid interval, the insane acts with
intelligence and thus, not exempt from criminal
liability.
Exempting Circumstances (Art. 12)

People vs. Butiong (G.R. No. 168932, October 19, 2011, J.


Bersamin)
Mental retardation includes (a) idiot, whose mental age is two-
year old; (b) imbecile, whose mental age is seven-year old; (c)
moron or feebleminded, whose mental age is twelve-year old
and (d) borderline intelligence.

In exempting circumstance, there is a difference between actual


age and mental age. In exempting circumstance of imbecility,
what is important is the mental age of the accused. An idiot,
whose mental age is 2 years, and imbecile, whose mental age is
7 years old are exempt from criminal liablity.
Exempting Circumstances (Art. 12)
PROCEDURE WHEN AN IMBECILE OR INSANE
COMMITTED A FELONY

The court shall order his confinement in one of the


hospitals or asylums established for persons afflicted,
which he shall not be permitted to leave without first
obtaining the permission of the court. The court must
obtain the opinion of the Director of Health before
permitting his release.

When the person is sane at the time of the commission of


the crime but he becomes insane at the time of the trial, he
is liable criminally. The trial, however, shall be suspended
until mental capacity of the accused be restored to afford
him a fair trial.
Exempting Circumstances (Art. 12)
2. Minority: 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
(R.A. No. 9344).

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.
Exempting Circumstances
Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006
(R.A.9344); also refer to Child and Youth Welfare
Code (P.D. 603, as amended)

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.
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 appropriate proceedings.
The exemption from criminal liability does not include
exemption from civil liability.
Exempting Circumstances
Amendments to Juvenile Justice And Welfare Act Of
2006
(R.A. No. 10630, amending R.A. No. 9344)

A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of


the commission of the offense shall be exempt from
criminal liability. A child is deemed to be fifteen (15)
years of age on the day of the fifteenth anniversary
of his/her birthdate (R.A. No. 10630, amending
Section 6 o R.A. No. 9344).
Amendments to Juvenile Justice And Welfare Act Of
2006

Serious Crimes Committed by Children Who Are Exempt


From Criminal Responsibility (R.A. No. 10630, amending
Section 20 of R.A. No. 9344)
A child who is above twelve (12) years of age up to fifteen
(15) years of age and who commits parricide, murder, infanticide,
kidnapping and serious illegal detention where the victim is killed
or raped, robbery, with homicide or rape, destructive arson, rape,
or carnapping where the driver or occupant is killed or raped or
offenses under Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) punishable by more than twelve
(12) years of imprisonment, shall be deemed a neglected child
under P.D. No. 603 (The Child and Youth Welfare Code), as
amended, and shall be mandatorily placed in a special facility
within the youth care faculty or Bahay Pag-asa called the
Intensive Juvenile Intervention and Support Center (IJISC) (Sec.
20-A of R.A. No. 9344, as amended).
AMENDMENTS TO JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE
ACT OF 2006

Repetition of Offenses (R.A. No. 10630, amending Section


20 of R.A. No. 9344)
A child who is above twelve (12) years of age up to fifteen
(15) years of age and who commits an offense for the second
time or oftener shall be deemed a neglected child under P.D.
No. 603, as amended, and shall undergo an intensive
intervention program supervised by the local social welfare and
development officer, provided that:

1. the child was previously subjected to a community-based


intervention program;

2. if the best interest of the child requires that he/she be placed


in a youth care facility or Bahay Pag-asa, the childs parents
or guardians shall execute a written authorization for the
voluntary commitment of the child; and
Amendments to Juvenile Justice And Welfare Act Of
2006

Repetition of Offenses (R.A. No. 10630, amending Section


20 of R.A. No. 9344)
A child who is above twelve (12) years of age up to fifteen
(15) years of age and who commits an offense for the second
time or oftener shall be deemed a neglected child under P.D.
No. 603, as amended, and shall undergo an intensive
intervention program supervised by the local social welfare and
development officer, provided that:

3. if the child has no parents or guardians or if they refuse or fail


to execute the written authorization for voluntary
commitment, the proper petition for involuntary commitment
shall be immediately filed by the DSWD or the LSWDO
pursuant to P.D. No. 603, as amended (Sec. 20-B of R.A. No.
9344, as amended).
Exempting Circumstances (Art. 12)

DISCERNMENT INTENT
Moral significance that a Desired act of the person
person ascribes to the said
act

DISCERNMENT means the mental capacity of a


minor between 15 and 18 years of age to fully
appreciate the consequences of his lawful act.
Exempting Circumstances (Art. 12)
3. Any person who, while performing a lawful act
with due care, causes an injury by mere accident
without fault or intention of causing it (Art. 12, par. 4).

ELEMENTS:
1.A person performing a lawful act;
2.With due care;
3.He causes an injury to another by mere accident; and
4.Without fault or intention of causing it.

Striking another with a gun in self-defense, even if it


fired and seriously injured the assailant is a lawful act.
Exempting Circumstances (Art. 12)
ACCIDENT something that happen outside the sway
of our will and although it comes about through some
act of our will, lies beyond the bounds of humanly
foreseeable consequences.
- If the consequences are plainly foreseeable, it will
be a case of negligence (Reyes, p. 223).

People v. Latosa (G.R. No. 186128, 23 June 2010)


The pointing of the gun towards the victims head
and pulling the trigger cannot be considered as
performing a lawful act with due care. Furthermore, the
location of the wound sustained by the victim shows
that the shooting was not merely accidental.
Exempting Circumstances (Art. 12)
4. Under The Compulsion of an Irresistible
Force: Any person who acts under the compulsion
of irresistible force (Art. 12, par. 5).

ELEMENTS:
1. That the compulsion is by means of physical force;
2. That the physical force must be irresistible; and
3. That the physical force must come from a third
person.

Before force can be considered to be an irresistible


one, it must produce such an effect upon the individual
that, in spite of all resistance, it reduces him to a mere
instrument and, as such, incapable of committing a
crime.
Exempting Circumstances (Art. 12)

5. Under The Impulse of an Uncontrollable Fear


of an Equal or Greater Injury: Any person who acts
under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an
equal or greater injury (Art. 12, par. 6).

ELEMENTS:
1. That the threat which causes 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.
Exempting Circumstances (Art. 12)
6. Lawful or Insuperable Cause: Any person who
fails to perform an act required by law, when
prevented by some lawful or insuperable cause (Art.
12, par. 7).

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.
Complex Crimes
15 Questions
RPC, Book 1

Complex
Crimes
(15 Questions)
Complex Crimes and Special Complex Crimes

Art. 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.

TWO KINDS OF COMPLEX CRIMES


1. COMPOUND CRIME - When a single act
constitutes two or more grave or less
grave felonies
2. COMPLEX CRIME PROPER - When an
offense is a necessary means for
committing the other.
Complex Crimes and Special Complex Crimes

COMPLEX CRIME PROPER

REQUISITES (Reyes, p. 659) :


1. That at least two offenses are committed;
2. That one or some of the offenses must be
necessary to commit the other; and
3. That both or all the offenses must be punished
under the same statute.

The phrase necessary means does not mean


indispensable means
In complex crimes, when the offender executes
various acts, he must have a single purpose.
Complex Crimes and Special Complex Crimes

Special complex crimes are those which are


treated as single indivisible offenses, although
comprising more than one specific crime and with
specific penalty.

Examples:
1. Robbery with Homicide (Art. 294 (1))
2. Robbery with Rape (Art. 294 (2))
3. Kidnapping with serious physical injuries (Art.
267 (3))
4. Rape with Homicide (Art. 335)
Complex Crimes and Special Complex Crimes

People vs. Esugon


(G.R. No. 195244, 22 June 2015, J. Bersamin)
In a composite crime, the composition of the offenses is fixed by
law, but in a complex or compound crime, the combination of
the offenses is not specified but generalized, that is, grave
and/or less grave, or one offense being the necessary means to
commit the other. In a composite crime, the penalty for the
specified combination of crimes is specific, but in a complex or
compound crime the penalty is that corresponding to the most
serious offense, to be imposed in the maximum period. A light
felony that accompanies the commission of a complex or
compound crime may be made the subject of a separate
information, but a light felony that accompanies a composite
crime is absorbed.
Complex Crimes and Special Complex Crimes

Fransdilla vs. People


(GR No. 197562, 20 April 2015, J. Bersamin)
In Sebastian case, when the elements of both robbery by means of
violence and intimidation and robbery by using force upon thing are
present, the accused shall be held liable of the former since the
controlling qualification is the violence and intimidation. However, the
penalty for robbery in inhabited house if the robber is armed is graver
than simple robbery. Hence, by hurting the victim, the offender shall
be penalized with a lighter penalty. Since Sebastian principle defies
logic and reason, People vs. Napolis, G.R. No. L-28865, February 28,
1972 abandoned it. Under the present rule, when the elements
of both robbery by means of violence and intimidation and robbery by
using force upon thing are present, the crime is a complex one under
Article 48 of said Code. Hence, the penalty for robbery in inhabited
house shall be imposed in its maximum period.
Complex Crimes and Special Complex Crimes

De Castro vs. People


(G.R. No. 171672, 2 February 2015, J. Bersamin)
The bank teller took advantage of the bank depositors who trusted her
enough to leave their passbooks with her upon her instruction. Without
their knowledge, however, she filled out withdrawal slips that she
signed, and misrepresented to her fellow bank employees that the
signatures had been verified in due course. Her misrepresentation to
her co-employees enabled her to receive the amounts stated in the
withdrawal slips. She thereby committed two crimes, namely: estafa, by
defrauding the bank, her employer, in the various sums withdrawn
from the bank accounts of depositors; and falsification of a commercial
document, by forging the signatures of depositor in the withdrawal
slips to make it appear that the depositor concerned had signed the
respective slips in order to enable her to withdraw the amounts. Such
offenses were complex crimes, because the estafa would not have been
consummated without the falsification of the withdrawal slips.
Impossible Crime

10 Questions
Chart Title
Others RPC, Book 1
TOPIC # of
Questions
Impossible Crime 10
Stages of Commission 9
Conspiracy 9
Privileged Mitigating Circumstances 9

Extinguishment of Criminal Liability 9

Exemption from Criminal Liability 7

Civil Liability 6
Territoriality 5
Accessories Exempt from Criminal 5
Liability
Penalty, Complex Crimes 5
Reclusion Perpetua vs. Life 5
Imprisonment
Light Felonies 4
Preventive Imprisonment 4
Prescription of Offense 4
Penalty, Habitual Delinquency 4

Compound vs. Complex Crimes 4


Impossible Crime

Criminal liability shall be incurred 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 (Art. 4, par. 2).
Impossible Crime
REQUISITES (Reyes, p. 81):

1. That the act performed would be an offense against


persons or property.

FELONIES AGAINST PERSONS: Parricide, Murder,


Homicide, Infanticide, Abortion, Duel, Physical Injuries,
Rape

FELONIES AGAINST PROPERTY: Robbery, Brigandage,


Theft, Usurpation, Culpable Insolvency, Swindling and
other deceits, Chattel Mortgage, Arson and other
crimes involving destruction, Malicious Mischief
Impossible Crime
REQUISITES:

2. That the act was done with evil intent.


The offender must have intent to do injury to another.

3. That its accomplishment is inherently impossible, or


that the means employed is either inadequate or
ineffectual.
Impossible Crime
That its accomplishment is inherently impossible, or that
the means employed is either inadequate or ineffectual.

a. the commission of the offense is inherently impossible


of accomplishment
The act intended by the offender is by its nature one of
impossible accomplishment.
There must either 1) LEGAL IMPOSSIBILITY, or 2)
PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY
examples:
1) when one tries to kill another by putting in his
drink a substance which he believes to be arsenic when
in fact it is common salt;
2) when one tries to murder a corpse.
Impossible Crime
That its accomplishment is inherently impossible, or that
the means employed is either inadequate or ineffectual.

b. the means employed is either inadequate or ineffectual

example: when one tries to poison another but the


quantity of arsenic added in his substance was not
sufficient to kill a person

However: where the means employed is adequate and


the result expected is not produced, it is not an
impossible crime, but a frustrated felony.
Impossible Crime
ATTEMPTED OR IMPOSSIBLE CRIME
FRUSTRATED
The evil intent of the offender is not accomplished
The evil intent of the offender The evil intent of the
is possible of offender cannot be
accomplishment accomplished
The evil intent cannot be The evil intent of the
accomplished because of the offender cannot be
intervention of certain cause accomplished because it is
or accident in which the inherently impossible of
offender had no part accomplishment or
because the means
employed by the offender
is inadequate or ineffectual
Impossible Crime
Intod v. CA (G.R. No. 103119, 21 October 1992)

Facts: Intod et al. went to Palangpangans house, all


armed with firearms. They went to the bedroom and began
firing their weapons. However, Palangpangan was in
another city and her home was occupied by her son-in-law
and his family. No one was in the room when the accused
fired their weapons. RTC convicted the accused of
attempted murder.

Held: The accused is guilty of an impossible crime. The


factual situation in the case presents a physical
impossibility which rendered the intended crime
impossible of performance.
Impossible Crime
Jacinto v. People (G.R. No. 162540, 13 July 2009)

Facts: Baby Aquino handed a postdated check to Mega Foams


collector Gemma Jacinto in payment of merchandise. The check was
deposited in the Land Bank account of Jacintos brother-in-law. Land Bank
called Mega Foam looking for the brother-in-law informing that the check
bounced. Company records showed that Jacinto never remitted the
subject check to Mega Foam. The customer paid cash to Mega Foam in
replacement of the bounced check. With the help of the NBI, entrapment
operations were conducted against Jacinto and her group. Aquino gave
marked money to Jacinto in replacement of the check that bounced and
the latter was apprehended. The NBI filed a criminal case for qualified
theft against Jacinto and her group of which they were convicted by the
trial court. On appeal, only Jacinto was found guilty by the Court of
Appeals.
Impossible Crime
Jacinto v. People (G.R. No. 162540, 13 July 2009)

Held: Jacinto is not liable for the crime of qualified theft for taking a
check without value, as it was subsequently dishonored. Jacinto is found
liable for committing an impossible crime.

In Intod, the Court went on to give an example of an offense that


involved factual impossibility, i.e., a man puts his hand in the coat pocket
of another with the intention to steal the latters wallet, but gets nothing
since the pocket is empty.

Jacintos case is closely akin to the example of factual impossibility


given in Intod. In this case, Jacinto performed all the acts to consummate
the crime of qualified theft, which is a crime against property. Jacintos
evil intent cannot be denied, as the mere act of unlawfully taking the
check meant for Mega Foam showed her intent to gain or be unjustly
enriched.
Impossible Crime
Jacinto v. People (G.R. No. 162540, 13 July 2009)

Held: Were it not for the fact that the check bounced, she would have
received the face value thereof, which was not rightfully hers. Therefore, it
was only due to the extraneous circumstance of the check being
unfunded, a fact unknown to petitioner at the time, that prevented the
crime from being produced. The thing unlawfully taken by petitioner
turned out to be absolutely worthless, because the check was eventually
dishonored, and Mega Foam had received the cash to replace the value of
said dishonored check.
Impossible Crime

Why is an impossible crime punishable?

It is punishable in order to suppress criminal


tendencies. Objectively, the offender has not committed a
felony, but subjectively, he is a criminal (Reyes, p. 85).
Impossible Crime
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 (Article
59).
Stages of Commission / Execution
(RPC, Art. 6)

9 Questions
Chart Title
Others RPC, Book 1
TOPIC # of
Questions
Impossible Crime 10
Stages of Commission 9
Conspiracy 9
Privileged Mitigating Circumstances 9

Extinguishment of Criminal Liability 9

Exemption from Criminal Liability 7

Civil Liability 6
Territoriality 5
Accessories Exempt from Criminal 5
Liability
Penalty, Complex Crimes 5
Reclusion Perpetua vs. Life 5
Imprisonment
Light Felonies 4
Preventive Imprisonment 4
Prescription of Offense 4
Penalty, Habitual Delinquency 4

Compound vs. Complex Crimes 4


Stages of Execution
Article 6, RPC:
x x x 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 or over acts, and does not
perform all the acts of execution which should produce the
felony by reason of some cause or accident other than this
own spontaneous desistance.
Stages of Execution
OVERT ACT INDETERMINATE OFFENSE
- some physical activity or deed, It is one where the purpose of the
indicating the intention to commit a offender in performing an act is not
particular crime, more than a mere certain. Its nature in relation to its
planning or preparation, which if objective is ambiguous (Reyes, p.
carried to its complete termination 97).
following its natural course, without
being frustrated by external
obstacles nor by voluntary
desistance of the perpetrator, will
logically and necessarily ripen into
a concrete offense (Reyes, p. 94).
Stages of Execution

Cruz vs. People (G.R. No. 166441,


8 October 2014, J. Bersamin)
Climbing on top of the naked victim, touching her genitalia
and mashing her breasts are susceptible of double
interpretation (People v. Lamahang). His intention is either to
rape or seduce her. Hence, the accused cannot be held liable
for attempted rape because intent to have sex is not clear. He
is only liable for acts of lasciviousness.
Stages of Execution

SUBJECTIVE AND OBJECTIVE PHASES OF FELONY

SUBJECTIVE PHASE (Reyes, p. 101) OBJECTIVE PHASE

- That portion of the execution of - the result of the acts of


the crime starting from the point execution, that is, the
where the offender still has accomplishment of the crime.
control over his acts. - If the subjective and objective
- If the offender reaches the point phases are present, there is
where he has no more control consummated felony.
over is acts, the subjective phase
is passed.
- If it is already passed but the
felony is not produced, it is
frustrated.
Stages of Execution

ATTEMPTED FELONY

Elements:
1. The offender commences the commission of the felony
directly by overt acts;
2. He does not perform all the acts of execution which
should produce the felony;
3. The offenders act is not stopped by his own spontaneous
desistance; and
4. The non-performance of all acts of execution was due to
cause or accident other than his own spontaneous
desistance.
Stages of Execution
FRUSTRATED FELONY

Elements:
1. The offender performs all the acts of execution;
2. All the acts performed would produce the felony as a
consequence;
3. But the felony is not produced;
4. By reason of causes independent of the will of the
perpetrator.

In frustrated felony, the offender must perform all the acts


of execution. Nothing more is left to be done by the
offender, because he has performed the last act necessary
to produce the crime.
Stages of Execution
FRUSTRATED FELONY v. ATTEMPTED FELONY

In both, the offender has not accomplished his criminal


purpose.

In frustrated felony, the offender has performed all the


acts of execution which would produce the felony as a
consequence. In attempted felony, the offender merely
commences the commission of a felony directly by overt
acts and does not perform all the acts of execution (Reyes,
p. 108).
Stages of Execution
CONSUMMATED FELONY

Requisites:
1. All the acts of execution are present; and
2. The result is achieved.

Every crime has its own elements which must all be


present to constitute a culpable violation of a precept of
law.
Stages of Execution
DETERMINING WHETHER THE FELONY IS ATTEMPTED,
FRUSTRATED OR CONSUMMATED (Reyes, pp. 110-118)

1. the nature of the offense


Example: In arson, it is not necessary that the property is
totally destroyed by fire. The crime of arson is therefore
consummated even if only a portion of the wall or any other
part of the house is burned.

2. the elements constituting the felony


Example: In theft, the mere removal of the personal property
belonging to another with intent to gain is sufficient to
consummate the offense.
In estafa, the offended party must actually be prejudiced or
damaged.
Stages of Execution
DETERMINING WHETHER THE FELONY IS ATTEMPTED,
FRUSTRATED OR CONSUMMATED

3. the manner of committing the crime

formal crimes those which are consummated by a


single act (ex. Slander, adultery)
There can be no ATTEMPT in a formal crime.

crimes consummated by mere attempt


(ex. Attempt to flee to an enemy country, treason)
There is no ATTEMPTED crime because the overt act
in itself consummates the crime.
Stages of Execution
DETERMINING WHETHER THE FELONY IS ATTEMPTED,
FRUSTRATED OR CONSUMMATED
felonies by omission crimes committed material crimes
by mere agreement

There can be no The offer made by There are three


attempted stage one of the parties to stages of
because the the other consummation:
offender does not constitutes attempted,
execute acts. He attempted felony, if frustrated and
omits to perform an the offer is rejected. consummated.
act which the law
requires him to do.
Stages of Execution

Rape is either attempted or consummated. There can be


no frustrated rape. (People v. Aca-ac, G.R. No. 142500, 20
April 2001).

Rape is consummated by the slightest penetration of the


female organ, i.e., touching of either labia of the
pudendum by the penis (People v. Campuhan, 329 SCRA
270, 282 [2000]).
Stages of Execution
There is no crime of frustrated theft. Theft is already
produced upon the taking of personal property of
another without the latters consent. There was no need
for permanency in the taking or in its intent, as the mere
temporary possession by the offender or disturbance of the
proprietary rights of the owner already constituted
apoderamiento (Valenzuela v. People, G. R. No. 160188, 21
June 2007).

The settled rule is that where the wound inflicted on the


victim is not sufficient to cause his death, the crime is only
attempted murder, since the accused did not perform all
the acts of execution that would have brought about
death (People v. Valledor, G.R. No. 129291, 3 July 2002).
Stages of Execution
Accused is guilty of attempted robbery with homicide
only when he commenced the commission of robbery
directly by overt acts and did not perform all the acts of
execution which would produce robbery by reason of
some causes or accident other than his own
spontaneous desistance (People v. Barra, G.R. No.
198020, 10 July 2013).

If the evidence failed to convince the court that the


wound sustained would have caused the victims death
without timely medical attention, accused should be
convicted of attempted murder and not frustrated
murder (People v. Labiaga, G.R. No. 202867, 15 July
2013).
Conspiracy
9 Questions
Chart Title
Others RPC, Book 1
TOPIC # of
Questions
Impossible Crime 10
Stages of Commission 9
Conspiracy 9
Privileged Mitigating Circumstances 9

Extinguishment of Criminal Liability 9

Exemption from Criminal Liability 7

Civil Liability 6
Territoriality 5
Accessories Exempt from Criminal 5
Liability
Penalty, Complex Crimes 5
Reclusion Perpetua vs. Life 5
Imprisonment
Light Felonies 4
Preventive Imprisonment 4
Prescription of Offense 4
Penalty, Habitual Delinquency 4

Compound vs. Complex Crimes 4


Conspiracy

A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to


an agreement concerning the commission of a felony
and decide to commit it. (Art. 8, RPC) The essence of
conspiracy is the unity of action and purpose. (Quidet
v. People, G.R. No. 170289, 8 April 2010)
Conspiracy
How conspiracy is determined

In determining whether conspiracy exists, it is not


sufficient that the attack be joint and simultaneous for
simultaneousness does not of itself demonstrate the
concurrence of will or unity of action and purpose
which are the bases of the responsibility of the
assailants. What is determinative is proof establishing
that the accused were animated by one and the same
purpose.
Conspiracy
Effect of conspiracy

Once proved, the act of one becomes the act of all. All
the conspirators are answerable as co-principals
regardless of the extent or degree of their
participation. (Aquino v. Paste, G.R. No. 147782, June
25, 2008)
Conspiracy
How proven

To be held guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy, the


accused must be shown to have performed an overt act in
pursuance or furtherance of the complicity. Mere presence when
the transaction was made does not necessarily lead to an
inference of concurrence with the criminal design to commit the
crime of estafa. Even knowledge, acquiescence, or agreement to
cooperate is not enough to constitute one as a party to a
conspiracy because the rule is that neither joint nor simultaneous
action is per se sufficient proof of conspiracy.
Conspiracy
Proposal

There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a


felony proposes its execution to some other person or persons.
(Art. 8, RPC)

NOTE: Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are punishable


only in the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty
therefor.
Conspiracy
Proposal

There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a


felony proposes its execution to some other person or persons.
(Art. 8, RPC)

NOTE: Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are punishable


only in the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty
therefor.
Conspiracy
Conspiracy of private persons with public officers
Private persons, when acting in conspiracy with public officers,
may be indicted and, if found guilty, held liable for the pertinent
offenses under Section 3 of R.A. 3019, in consonance with the
avowed policy of the anti-graft law to repress certain acts of
public officers and private persons alike constituting graft or
corrupt practices act or which may lead thereto. The requirement
before a private person may be indicted for violation of Section
3(g) of R.A. 3019, among others, is that such private person must
be alleged to have acted in conspiracy with a public officer. The
law, however, does not require that such person must, in all
instances, be indicted together with the public officer. If
circumstances exist where the public officer may no longer be
charged in court, as in the present case where the public officer
has already died, the private person may be indicted alone.
(People v. Go, G.R. No. 168549, 25 March 2014)
Conspiracy
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo v. People
(G. R. No. 220598, 19 July 2016, J. Bersamin)

The Prosecution did not properly allege and prove the existence of
conspiracy among accused. A perusal of the information suggests that
what the Prosecution sought to show was an implied conspiracy to
commit plunder among all of the accused on the basis of their collective
actions prior to, during and after the implied agreement. It is notable that
the Prosecution did not allege that the conspiracy among all of the
accused was by express agreement, or was a wheel conspiracy (when
there is a single person or group [the hub] dealing individually with two or
more other persons or groups) or a chain conspiracy (when there is
successive communication and cooperation in much the same way as with
legitimate business operations between manufacturer and wholesaler,
then wholesaler and retailer, and then retailer and consumer).
Conspiracy
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo v. People
(G.R. No. 220598, 19 July 2016, J. Bersamin)

Section 2 of Republic Act No. 7080 (Plunder Law) requires that in the criminal
charge for plunder against several individuals, there must be a main plunderer
and her co-conspirators, who may be members of her family, relatives by
affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons.
In other words, the allegation of the wheel conspiracy or express conspiracy in
the information was appropriate because the main plunderer would then be
identified in either manner. Such identification of the main plunderer was not
only necessary because the law required such identification, but also because
it was essential in safeguarding the rights of all of the accused to be properly
informed of the charges they were being made answerable for. In fine, the
Prosecutions failure to properly allege the main plunderer should be fatal to
the cause against the petitioners for violating the rights of each accused to be
informed of the charges against each of them.
Privileged Mitigating Circumstances

9 Questions
Chart Title
Others RPC, Book 1
TOPIC # of
Questions
Impossible Crime 10
Stages of Commission 9
Conspiracy 9
Privileged Mitigating Circumstances 9

Extinguishment of Criminal Liability 9

Exemption from Criminal Liability 7

Civil Liability 6
Territoriality 5
Accessories Exempt from Criminal 5
Liability
Penalty, Complex Crimes 5
Reclusion Perpetua vs. Life 5
Imprisonment
Light Felonies 4
Preventive Imprisonment 4
Prescription of Offense 4
Penalty, Habitual Delinquency 4

Compound vs. Complex Crimes 4


Privileged Mitigating Circumstances

Art. 68. Penalty to be imposed upon a person under eighteen


(18) years of age. When the offender is a minor under eighteen
years and his case is one coming under the provisions of the
paragraphs next to the last of Article 80 of this Code, the following
rules shall be observed:

1. Upon a person under fifteen but over nine years of age, who is
not exempted from liability by reason of the court having declared
that he acted with discernment, a discretionary penalty shall be
imposed, but always lower by two degrees at least than that
prescribed by law for the crime which he committed.

2. Upon a person over fifteen and under eighteen years of age


the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be imposed,
but always in the proper period.
Privileged Mitigating Circumstances

Art. 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 the 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.
Privileged Mitigating Circumstances

Art. 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 x x x, the court shall observe for the
application of the penalty the following rules, according to whether
there are or are not mitigating or aggravating circumstances:

... ... ...

5. When there are two or more mitigating circumstances and


no aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall impose
the penalty next lower to that prescribed by law, in the period that it
may deem applicable, according to the number and nature of such
circumstances.
ORDINARY MITIGATING PRIVILEGED MITIGATING
Susceptible of being offset Cannot be offset by
by any aggravating aggravating circumstance
circumstance
If not offset by aggravating The effect of imposing upon
circumstance, produces the the offender the penalty
effect of applying the lower by one or two degrees
penalty provided by law for than that provided by law
the crime in its minimum for the crime.
period in case of divisible
penalty
Extinguishment of Criminal Liability

9 Questions
Chart Title
Others RPC, Book 1
TOPIC # of
Questions
Impossible Crime 10
Stages of Commission 9
Conspiracy 9
Privileged Mitigating Circumstances 9

Extinguishment of Criminal Liability 9

Exemption from Criminal Liability 7

Civil Liability 6
Territoriality 5
Accessories Exempt from Criminal 5
Liability
Penalty, Complex Crimes 5
Reclusion Perpetua vs. Life 5
Imprisonment
Light Felonies 4
Preventive Imprisonment 4
Prescription of Offense 4
Penalty, Habitual Delinquency 4

Compound vs. Complex Crimes 4


Modification and extinction of criminal liability

Art. 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished.


Criminal liability is totally extinguished:

1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties and


as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only
when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment.
2. By service of the sentence;
3. By amnesty, which completely extinguishes
the penalty and all its effects;
4. By absolute pardon;
5. By prescription of the crime;
6. By prescription of the penalty;
7. By the marriage of the offended woman, as
provided in Article 344 of the RPC.
Modification and extinction of criminal liability

DEATH OF THE CONVICT

The death of the convict whether before or after final


judgment extinguishes criminal liability (People v.
Bayotas, G.R. No. 102007, 2 September 1994).

Civil liability is extinguished only when death occurs


before final judgment (People v. Bayotas).
Modification and extinction of criminal liability

DEATH OF THE CONVICT

Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction


extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil
liability based solely on the offense committed (People v.
Bayotas)
The claim for civil liability survives if the same
may also be predicated on a source of obligation
other than delict such as law, contracts, quasi-
contracts and quasi-delicts.

Death of the offended party does not extinguish the


criminal liability of the offender (People v. Bundalian,
G.R. No. L-29985, 23 October 1982).
Modification and extinction of criminal liability
People v. Bunay
(G.R. No. 171268, 14 September 2010, J. Bersamin)

Facts: Accused was found guilty by the RTC of the


crime of qualified rape. The CA then affirmed the
RTCs decision. Upon accuseds appeal to the Court,
a letter was received from the Bureau of
Corrections Assistant Director who advised that the
accused had died at the New Bilibid Prison Hospital
in Muntinlupa in which the immediate cause was
cardio-respiratory arrest with pneumonia
Modification and extinction of criminal liability
People v. Bunay
(G.R. No. 171268, 14 September 2010, J. Bersamin)

Held: The Court ruled that the death of the accused


during the pendency of his appeal totally
extinguished his criminal liability. This is based on
Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code which provides
that Criminal liability is totally extinguished: (1) by
the death of the convict, as to the personal
penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability
therefor is extinguished only when the death of the
offender occurs before final judgment.
Modification and extinction of criminal liability
People v. Bunay
(G.R. No. 171268, 14 September 2010, J. Bersamin)

Held: The death of the accused likewise


extinguished the civil liability that was based
exclusively on the crime for which the accused was
convicted because no final judgment of conviction
was yet rendered by the time of his death. This case
was then considered closed and terminated.
Modification and extinction of criminal liability

SERVICE OF SENTENCE

Crime is a debt incurred by the offender as a


consequence of his wrongful act and the penalty is but
the amount of his debt. When payment is made, the
debt is extinguished. Service of sentence does not
extinguish civil liability (Salgado v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 89606, 30 August 1990).
Modification and extinction of criminal liability

AMNESTY

The President shall have the power to grant


amnesty with the concurrence of a majority of all
the Members of the Congress (Constitution, Art.
VII, Sec.19).

Amnesty is an act of the sovereign power granting


oblivion or a general pardon for a past offense, and
is rarely, if ever, exercised in favor of a single
individual, and is usually exerted in behalf of certain
classes of persons, who are subject to trial but
have not yet been convicted.
Modification and extinction of criminal liability

PARDON BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise


provided in the Constitution, the President may grant
reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and remit
fines and forfeitures, after conviction by final
judgment (Constitution, Art. VII, Sec. 19).

Any person who has been granted conditional


pardon shall incur the obligation of complying strictly
with the conditions imposed therein; otherwise, his
non-compliance with any of the conditions specified
shall result in the revocation of the pardon.
Modification and extinction of criminal liability

PARDON BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Pardon Amnesty
Includes any crime Generally political offenses
Given after conviction Given before conviction or
institution of the action
Looks forward and forgives Looks backwards and
the punishment abolished the offense itself
Must be proved as a Being a result of a
defense proclamation, the court may
take judicial notice of the
same
Do not extinguish civil liability
Modification and extinction of criminal liability

PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES (ART. 90)


PERIOD OF
CRIME OR PENALTY
PRESCRIPTION
Crimes punishable by Death,
Reclusion Perpetua or Reclusion 20 years
Temporal
Other afflictive penalties 15 years
Correctional penalties 10 years
Arresto mayor 5 years
Libel and similar offenses 1 year
Oral Defamation or Slander by
6 months
Deed
Light Offenses 2 months
Modification and extinction of criminal liability

PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTIES (ART. 92 )

PERIOD OF
PENALTY IMPOSED
PRESCRIPTION
Death and Reclusion
20 years
Perpetua
Other afflictive
15 years
penalties
Correctional penalties 10 years
Arresto mayor 5 years
Light Penalties 1 year
Modification and extinction of criminal liability

Blameless Ignorance Doctrine


The State and private complainant should not be blamed for failure
to institute the case immediately after the commission of the crime if
they are ignorant or has no reasonable means of knowing the existence
of a crime. Under blameless ignorance doctrine (Section 2 of Act 3326
and Article 91 of RPC), the prescription runs only upon discovery of the
crime by offended party or State through a person in authority or his
agent. Considering that during the Marcos regime, no person would
have dared to assail the legality of the transactions involving cronies
such as behest loan, it would be unreasonable to expect that the
discovery of the unlawful transactions was possible prior to 1986 (Disini
vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 169823-24 and 174764-65, September 11,
2013). Hence, the prescriptive period for violation of RA No. 3019
commenced from the date of its discovery in 1992 after the Committee
made exhaustive investigation (Presidential Ad hoc fact-finding
committee vs. Hon. Desierto, G.R. No. 135715, April 13, 2011).
Modification and extinction of criminal liability

Discovery by a witness
Prescription runs only upon discovery of the crime by offended
party or person in authority or his agent. For purposes of prescription of
crime, the offended party includes the person to whom the offender is
civilly liable. Thus, the widow of the murdered victim is an offended
party (Garcia vs. CA, G.R. No. 119063, January 27, 1997). Discovery of
crime by a mere witness, who is not an offended party, will not
commence the running of the prescription.
Modification and extinction of criminal liability

Constructive Notice Rule


The 10-year prescriptive period for a falsification of document shall
commence to run on the date of recording of the falsified deed of sale in
the Registry of Deeds because of the constructive notice rule under the
Torrens System (People vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 74226, July 27, 1989). The 15-
year prescriptive period for bigamy shall commence to run on the date
of actual discovery of the bigamous marriage and not from the
registration of bigamous marriage in the Office of the Civil Registrar. The
law on Civil Registry and the Family Code, which governed the
registration of marriage, do not provide a rule on constructive notice
(Sermonia vs. Court of Appeals, G.R No. 109454, June 14, 1994).
Modification and extinction of criminal liability

MARRIAGE OF THE OFFENDED WOMAN

Under Article 344, in cases of seduction, abduction,


acts of lasciviousness, and rape, the marriage of
the offended party shall extinguish the criminal
action.
Modification and extinction of criminal liability

Art. 344: x x x The offenses of seduction, abduction,


rape or acts of lasciviousness, shall not be prosecuted
except upon a complaint filed by the offended party or
her parents, grandparents, or guardian, nor, in any case,
if the offender has been expressly pardoned by the
above named persons, as the case may be.

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.
Modification and extinction of criminal liability

Effect of Pardon in Rape cases (Article 266-C, as


amended by R.A. No. 8353)

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.
Partial extinction of criminal liability

Art. 94. Partial Extinction of criminal liability.

Criminal liability is extinguished partially:

1. By conditional pardon;

2. By commutation of the sentence; and

3. For good conduct allowances which the culprit may


earn while he is undergoing preventive imprisonment or
serving his sentence (as amended by R.A. No. 10592).
Partial extinction of criminal liability

CONDITIONAL PARDON
It is considered a contract between the
sovereign power and the convict that the
former will release the latter upon compliance
with the condition (Reyes, p. 868).

In case of violation of the conditions:


Offender will be rearrested and re-
incarcerated
There shall be prosecution under Art. 159
of the Revised Penal Code for evasion of
service of sentence (Art. 95).
The legislative intent is clear, therefore, to preserve the
power of the President to authorize the arrest and
reincarceration of any person who violates the condition or
conditions of his pardon notwithstanding the enactment of
article 159 of the Revised Penal Code. In this connection, we
observe that section 64 (i) of the Administrative Code and
article 159 of the Revised Penal Code are but a reiteration of
Acts Nos. 1524 and 1561, under which a violator of a
conditional pardon was liable to suffer and to serve the
unexpired portion of the original sentence.
Article 159 of Revised Penal Code, which penalizes
violation of a conditional pardon as an offense, and the power
vested in the President by Section 64 (i) of the Revised
Administrative Code to authorize the recommitment to prison
of a violator of a conditional pardon to serve the unexpired
portion of his original sentence, can stand together and that
the proceeding under one provision does not necessarily
preclude action under the other. (Sales v. Director of Prisons,
G.R. No. L-3972, 13 October 1950)
When a conditional pardon is violated, the prisoner is
placed in the same date state in which he was at the
time the pardon was granted. He may be rearrested
and recommitted to prison. (See U. S. vs. Ignacio
[1916], 33 Phil., 202, 204; U. S. vs. Villalon [1917], 37
Phil., 322.) And the rule is well-settled that, in
requiring the convict to undergo so much of the
punishment imposed by his original sentence as he
had to suffered at the time of his release, the court
should not consider the time during which the convict
was at large by virtue of the pardon as time served on
the original sentence. (People v. Tapel, G.R. No. L-
45391, 17 February 1937.)
Partial extinction of criminal liability

COMMUTATION OF SENTENCE
a) Reduction of degree of penalty
b) Decrease in the length of imprisonment
c) Reduction of the amount of fine

Art. 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.
Partial extinction of criminal liability

GOOD CONDUCT ALLOWANCES DURING CONFINEMENT

ART. 97 (as amended by R.A. 10592). Allowance for good


conduct. The good conduct of any offender qualified for
credit for preventive imprisonment pursuant to Article 29 of
this Code, or of any convicted prisoner in any penal
institution, rehabilitation or detention center or any other local
jail shall entitle him to the following deductions from the
period of his sentence:
1. During the first two years of imprisonment, he shall be
allowed a deduction of twenty days for each month of good
behavior during detention;
2. During the third to the fifth year, inclusive, of his
imprisonment, he shall be allowed a reduction of twenty-three
days for each month of good behavior during detention;
Partial extinction of criminal liability
GOOD CONDUCT ALLOWANCES DURING CONFINEMENT

ART. 97 (as amended by R.A. 10592). Allowance for good


conduct.
3. During the following years until the tenth year, inclusive, of
his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of twenty-
five days for each month of good behavior during detention;
4. During the eleventh and successive years of his
imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of thirty days
for each month of good behavior during detention; and
5. At any time during the period of imprisonment, he shall be
allowed another deduction of fifteen days, in addition to
numbers one to four hereof, for each month of study,
teaching or mentoring service time rendered.
An appeal by the accused shall not deprive him of
entitlement to the above allowances for good conduct.
Partial extinction of criminal liability
GOOD CONDUCT ALLOWANCES DURING CONFINEMENT

Art. 98 (as amended by R.A. 10592). 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
the 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 said article. A
deduction of two-fifths 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 serving sentence.
Partial extinction of criminal liability

PAROLE

This may be granted to a prisoner after serving the


minimum penalty under the indeterminate
sentence law.

This is a suspension of the sentence of a convict


after serving the minimum term of the
indeterminate penalty, without granting a pardon
prescribing the terms upon which the sentence
shall be punished (Reyes, p. 869).
Partial extinction of criminal liability

PAROLE

Art. 95. Obligation incurred by 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 non-compliance with any of the
conditions specified shall result in the revocation of
the pardon and the provisions of Article 159 (Other
cases of evasion of service of sentence) shall be
applied to him.
Partial extinction of criminal liability
PAROLE
CONDITIONAL PARDON PAROLE
May be given any time May be given after the
before final judgment prisoner has served the
minimum penalty
granted by the Chief granted by the Board of
Executive Parole and Pardons under
the Indeterminate Sentence
Law

For violation, convict may For violation, convict can


be rearrested or prosecuted be rearrested and re-
under Art. 159 incarcerated to serve the
unexpired portion of his
original penalty
Reelection
Reelection to public office is not provided for in Article 89 of
RPC as a mode of extinguishing criminal liability incurred by
a public officer prior to his reelection (Oliveros vs. Villaluz,
G.R. No L-34636, May 30, 1974). But a re-elected public
official could not be removed for administrative offense
committed during a prior term, since his re-election to office
operates as a condonation of his misconduct to the extent of
cutting off the right to remove him therefor (Aguinaldo vs.
Santos, G.R. No. 94115 August 21, 1992). However, the
doctrine of condonation of administrative offense by reason
of reelection has been abandoned for being inconsistent to
Section1, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution on public office
is a public trust and public accountability (Morales vs. CA
and Binay, G.R. No. 217126-27, November 10, 2015)
Novation
Novation is not a mode of extinguishing criminal liability but it can
extinguish the old contract, which may be the basis of criminal liability.
In estafa through misappropriation, receiving the property in trust is
an element thereof. In sum, contract is an ingredient of this crime.
Novation may convert the contract of trust into creditor-debtor
situation, or put doubt on the true nature of the original transaction
(People vs. Nery, G.R. No. L-19567, February 5, 1964). In these
situations, the accused will be acquitted for failure to prove the element
of receipt of property in trust. Thus, novation is a defense in estafa
through misappropriation where the contract of agency is converted into
sale (Degaos vs. People, G.R. No. 162826, October 14, 2013, J.
Bersamin). However, partial payment and promise to pay the balance of
obligation under contract of agency will not convert it into sale. There is
no novation since the obligation of the accused in making a partial
payment is not incompatible to the obligation to give the proceeds of
sale of the property under the contract of agency (Degaos vs. People,
supra.)
Novation
Novation cannot be used as a defense in case where the existence of
contract is not an element. In theft case, there was no contractual
relationship or bilateral agreement which can be modified or altered by
the parties (People vs. Tanjutco, G.R. No. L-23924, April 29, 1968, En
Banc). In estafa through falsification of public documents, the liability of
the offender cannot be extinguished by mere novation (Milla vs. People,
G.R. No. 188726, January 25, 2012)
Exemption from Criminal Liability under Article 332 of
the RPC

7 Questions
Chart Title
Others
TOPIC # of
Questions
Impossible Crime 10
Stages of Commission 9
Conspiracy 9
Privileged Mitigating Circumstances 9

Extinguishment of Criminal Liability 9

Exemption from Criminal Liability 7

Civil Liability 6
Territoriality 5
Accessories Exempt from Criminal 5
Liability
Penalty, Complex Crimes 5
Reclusion Perpetua vs. Life 5
Imprisonment
Light Felonies 4
Preventive Imprisonment 4
Prescription of Offense 4
Penalty, Habitual Delinquency 4

Compound vs. Complex Crimes 4


Exemption from Criminal Liability under Article 332 of
the RPC
Art. 332. Persons exempt from criminal liability. No criminal,
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.
Civil Liability Arising From Felony
6 Questions
Chart Title
Others RPC, Book 1
TOPIC # of
Questions
Impossible Crime 10
Stages of Commission 9
Conspiracy 9
Privileged Mitigating Circumstances 9

Extinguishment of Criminal Liability 9

Exemption from Criminal Liability 7

Civil Liability 6
Territoriality 5
Accessories Exempt from Criminal 5
Liability
Penalty, Complex Crimes 5
Reclusion Perpetua vs. Life 5
Imprisonment
Light Felonies 4
Preventive Imprisonment 4
Prescription of Offense 4
Penalty, Habitual Delinquency 4

Compound vs. Complex Crimes 4


CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM FELONY
As a general rule, an offense causes two classes of
injuries:

A. SOCIAL INJURY
produced by the disturbance and alarm which are
the outcome of the offense
- this is sought to be repaired through the imposition
of the corresponding penalty.

B. PERSONAL INJURY
caused to the victim of the crime who may have
suffered damage, either to his person, to his
property, to his honor, or to her chastity.
- this is sought to be repaired through indemnity
which is civil in nature (Reyes, p. 875).
CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM FELONY
GENERAL RULE

RPC, Art. 100. Civil liability of a person guilty


of felony. Every person criminally liable for a
felony is also civilly liable.

BASIS: A crime has dual character:


a) as an offense against the state because of the
disturbance of the social order; and
b) as an offense against the private person injured by
the crime unless it involves the crime of treason,
rebellion, espionage, contempt and others wherein
no civil liability arises on the part of the offender
either because there are no damages to be
compensated or there is no private person injured by
the crime.
CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM FELONY
GENERAL RULE (Reyes. P. 876)

In crimes against persons, like the crime of physical


injuries, the injured party is entitled to be paid for
whatever he spent for the treatment of his wounds,
doctors fees etc. as well as for loss or impairment of
earning capacity.

Exemplary damages as part of the civil liability may


be imposed when the crime was committed with one
or more aggravating circumstances.

But if there is no damage caused by the commission


of the crime, the offender is not civilly liable.
CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM FELONY
GENERAL RULE

Civil liability arises from the commission of the


felony. It is determined in the criminal action except:
the offended party waives his right to file a
civil action
the offended party reserves his right to
institute it separately, or
the offended party institutes the civil action
prior to the criminal action. (Reyes. p. 876)
CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM FELONY
SPECIAL CASE

CIVIL LIABILITY OF PERSONS EXEMPT FROM


CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Exemption from criminal liability does not


include exemption from civil liability.

Exceptions:

There is no civil liability in paragraph 4 of Art. 12 which


provides for injury caused by mere accident.

There is no civil liability in par. 7 of Art. 12 which


provides for failure to perform an act required by law when
prevented by some lawful or insuperable cause.
CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM FELONY
SPECIAL CASE

CIVIL LIABILITY OF PERSONS ACTING UNDER


JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES

There is no civil liability in justifying circumstances


except in par. 4 of Art. 11 wherein the person who
was benefited by the act which causes damage to
another is the one civilly liable.
CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM FELONY
SPECIAL CASE

CIVIL LIABILITY OF INNKEEPERS AND SIMILAR


PERSONS (Article 102)

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.
CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM FELONY
SPECIAL CASE

CIVIL LIABILITY OF INNKEEPERS AND SIMILAR


PERSONS (Article 102)
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 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.
CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM FELONY
SPECIAL CASE

SUBSIDIARY LIABILITY OF OTHER PERSONS


(Article 103)
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 his duties; and
3. The said employee is insolvent and has not
satisfied his civil liability.
CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM FELONY
WHAT CIVIL LIABILITY INCLUDES

Art. 104. What is included in civil liability. The


civil liability x x x includes:

1. Restitution;

2. Reparation of the damage caused;

3. Indemnification for consequential


damages.
CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM FELONY
WHAT CIVIL LIABILITY INCLUDES

Restitution (Article 105)


The restitution of the thing itself must be made
whenever possible, with allowance for any deterioration,
or diminution of value as determined by the court.
The thing itself shall be restored, even though it be
found in the possession of a third person who has
acquired it by lawful means, saving to the latter his
action against the proper person, who may be liable to
him.
This provision is not applicable in cases in which the
thing has been acquired by the third person in the
manner and under the requirements which, by law, bar
an action for its recovery.
CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM FELONY
WHAT CIVIL LIABILITY INCLUDES

Under Article 559 of the New Civil Code, one who has
lost any movable or has been unlawfully deprived
thereof, may recover it from the person in possession
of the same. However, if the possessor of a
movable lost has acquired it in good faith at a
public sale, the owner cannot obtain its return
without reimbursing the price paid therefor.
CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM FELONY
WHAT CIVIL LIABILITY INCLUDES

Reparation
How made (Art. 106): 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.
CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM FELONY
WHAT CIVIL LIABILITY INCLUDES

Indemnification (Art. 107)


Indemnification for consequential damages shall
include not only those caused the injured party, but
also those suffered by his family or by a third person
by reason of the crime.
CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM FELONY
PERSONS CIVILLY LIABLE

Obligation to make restoration, reparation for


damages, or indemnification for consequential
damages and actions to demand the same; Upon
whom it devolves (Art. 108)

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.
CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM FELONY
PERSONS CIVILLY LIABLE

Share of each person civilly liable (Art. 109)

If there are two (2) or more persons civilly liable for a


felony, the courts shall determine the amount for
which each must respond.
CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM FELONY
PERSONS CIVILLY LIABLE

Several and subsidiary liability of principals,


accomplices and accessories of a felony; Preference
in payment (Art. 110)

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.
CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM FELONY
PERSONS CIVILLY LIABLE

Several and subsidiary liability of principals,


accomplices and accessories of a felony; Preference
in payment (Art. 110)

Whenever the liability in solidum or the subsidiary


liability has been enforced, the person by whom
payment has been made shall have a right of action
against the others for the amount of their respective
shares.
CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM FELONY
EXTINCTION OF CIVIL LIABILITY

Extinction of civil liability (Art. 112)

Civil liability shall be extinguished in the same manner


as obligations, in accordance with the provisions of
the Civil Code.
CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM FELONY
EXTINCTION OF CIVIL LIABILITY

Under the Art. 1231 of the New Civil Code, obligations


are extinguished:
(1) By payment or performance:
(2) By the loss of the thing due:
(3) By the condonation or remission of the
debt;
(4) By the confusion or merger of the rights of
creditor and debtor;
(5) By compensation;
(6) By novation; and
(7) Other causes of extinguishment of obligations, such
as annulment, rescission, fulfillment of a resolutory
condition, and prescription.
CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM FELONY
PEOPLE VS. DULIN
(G.R. No. 211027, 29 June 2015 , J. Bersamin)

FACTS:
AAA, a 13-year old Grade VI pupil was found lifeless
in a grassy lot near an uninhabited farm hut. Abag (fish
vendor) saw the appellant holding a bolo, uneasy and
restless. The RTC gave no credence to the appellants
defense of denial and alibi as there was a failure in
showing the impossibility of his presence at the scene.
CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC which found the
appellant guilty of the crime of Rape with Homicide but
added moral and exemplary damages to the civil
indemnity as awarded by the RTC. Furthermore, an
interest rate of 6% shall be applied to the award of civil
indemnity, moral and exemplary damages from the finality
of judgment until fully paid.
CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM FELONY
PEOPLE VS. DULIN
(G.R. No. 211027, 29 June 2015 , J. Bersamin)

HELD:
The SC held that the amount of damages
awarded by the CA is proper. The Court sustained
the award of P100, 000 as civil indemnity and
increase the awards of moral and exemplary
damages to P100, 000 each. In addition, P25, 000
was awarded to the victims heirs as temperate
damages in lieu of unproven actual damages. The
CA correctly added that damages assessed in this
case shall be subject to interest at six percent (6%)
per annum.
Territoriality
5 Questions
Chart Title
Others RPC, Book 1
TOPIC # of
Questions
Impossible Crime 10
Stages of Commission 9
Conspiracy 9
Privileged Mitigating Circumstances 9

Extinguishment of Criminal Liability 9

Exemption from Criminal Liability 7

Civil Liability 6
Territoriality 5
Accessories Exempt from Criminal 5
Liability
Penalty, Complex Crimes 5
Reclusion Perpetua vs. Life 5
Imprisonment
Light Felonies 4
Preventive Imprisonment 4
Prescription of Offense 4
Penalty, Habitual Delinquency 4

Compound vs. Complex Crimes 4


Territoriality
Art. 2, Revised Penal Code

GENERAL RULE:
The penal laws of the country have force
and effect only within its territory. It
cannot penalize crimes committed
outside the countrys territory.
Territoriality
Art. 1, 1987 Constitution
The territory of the country is not limited to the
land where its sovereignty resides but includes also
its maritime and interior waters as well as its
atmosphere.
Terrestrial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over
land.
Fluvial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over
maritime and interior waters.
Aerial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over the
atmosphere.
Territoriality

EXTRATERRITORIAL APPLICATION
of the RPC
Art. 2 (1): Crimes committed aboard merchant
vessels.
The RPC is applied to Philippine vessels if the
crime is committed while the ship is treading
a. Philippine waters (intra-territorial application), or
b. The High Seas i.e. waters NOT under the
jurisdiction of any State (extraterritorial application)
Territoriality

NOTE : The country of registry determines the


nationality of the vessel, NOT ITS OWNERSHIP.

For example, a murder committed by a Filipino


seaman aboard a Filipino-owned vessel
registered in China while it is sailing the high
seas is not cognizable by Philippine Courts.
Territoriality

Two rules on jurisdiction over crimes


committed aboard merchant vessels while in
the territorial waters of another country, i.e.
a foreign vessel treading Philippine waters
OR Philippine vessels treading waters under
the jurisdiction of another state (Reyes, p.
28):

.
Territoriality

FRENCH RULE:
It is the FLAG/Nationality of the vessel which determines
jurisdiction UNLESS the crime violates the peace and order of
the host country.

ENGLISH RULE:
The location or situs of the crime determines jurisdiction
UNLESS the crime merely relates to internal management of
the vessel.
Note: The Philippines adheres to the ENGLISH RULE.
.
Territoriality

Illustration:
To smoke opium within our territorial limits, even though
aboard a foreign merchant ship, is certainly a breach of the
public order here established, because it causes such drug to
produce its pernicious effects within our territory (People v.
Wong Cheng, G.R. No. L-18924, 19 October 1922).
Territoriality

NOTE 2: Philippine courts have no jurisdiction over


offenses committed on board foreign warships in
territorial waters. Warships are always reputed to be the
territory of the country to which they belong and cannot
be subjected to the laws of another state (U.S. v. Fowler,
1 Phil. 614).
Territoriality

NOTE 3: The Philippines subscribes to the Absolute Theory of


aerial jurisdiction.
The subjacent state has complete jurisdiction over the
atmosphere above it subject only to the innocent passage
by aircraft of a foreign country.

Under this theory, if the crime is committed in an aircraft, no


matter how high, as long as it can be established that it is
within the Philippine atmosphere, Philippine criminal law will
govern. (See Anti-hijacking Law)
Territoriality
EXTRATERRITORIAL APPLICATION
of the RPC

Art. 2 (2):
Forging/Counterfeiting Coins or Currency Notes in the
Philippines

Elements:
1. The forgery is committed abroad; and
2. it refers to Philippine coin, currency note, obligation
and security
Territoriality
EXTRATERRITORIAL APPLICATION
of the RPC

Art. 2 (3):
When liable for acts connected with the introduction of
coins or currency notes of the Philippines or obligations and
securities issued by the Philippine Government.

Example: A Filipino working in a Hongkong printing shop shipped to a


businessman in Binondo, Manila several boxes of fake one thousand
peso bills of the Philippines. Although the felony was committed in
Hongkong, he may be prosecuted in the Philippine courts because he
introduced into the Philippines forged currency notes.
Territoriality

EXTRATERRITORIAL APPLICATION
of the RPC

Art. 2 (4):
When public officers or employees commit an
offense in the exercise of their functions.
Territoriality

NOTE:
The Revised Penal Code governs if the crime
(whether or not in relation to the exercise of public
functions) was committed within the Philippine
Embassy or within the embassy grounds in a foreign
country. This is because embassy grounds are
considered an extension of sovereignty. Thus the
crime is deemed to have been committed in
Philippine soil.
Territoriality

Illustration:
A Philippine consulate official who is validly married
here in the Philippines and who marries again in a foreign
country cannot be prosecuted here for bigamy because
this is a crime not connected with his official duties.
However, if the second marriage was celebrated within the
Philippine embassy, he may be prosecuted here, since it is
as if he contracted the marriage here in the Philippines
Territoriality

EXTRATERRITORIAL APPLICATION
of the RPC

Art. 2 (5): Commit any of the crimes against national


security and the law of nations, defined in Title One of
Book Two of the Revised Penal Code.

Examples of Crimes against National Security: Piracy, Treason,


Espionage, etc.

Example of Crimes against the Law of Nations: Genocide


Territoriality
Evangelista v. People (G.R. No. 163267, 5 May 2010)

Accused was charged of the crime of illegal possession of


firearms for bringing unlicensed firearms from Abu Dhabi to the
Philippines. He insisted that since Dubai is outside the territorial
jurisdiction of the Philippines, our criminal laws are not
applicable.
Territoriality
Evangelista v. People (G.R. No. 163267, 5 May 2010)

The Supreme Court ruled that in order for the courts to


acquire jurisdiction in criminal cases, the offense should have
been committed or any one of its essential ingredients should
have taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
The accomplishment by accused of the Customs Declaration Form
upon his arrival at the NAIA is very clear evidence that he was
in possession of the subject firearms when he entered the
Philippines. Thus, since he does not have any license for the
firearms which were proven to be in his possession when he
arrived in the Philippines, Evangelistas conviction was affirmed
Accessories Exempt from
Criminal Liability

5 Questions
Chart Title
Others RPC, Book 1
TOPIC # of
Questions
Impossible Crime 10
Stages of Commission 9
Conspiracy 9
Privileged Mitigating Circumstances 9

Extinguishment of Criminal Liability 9

Exemption from Criminal Liability 7

Civil Liability 6
Territoriality 5
Accessories Exempt from Criminal 5
Liability
Penalty, Complex Crimes 5
Reclusion Perpetua vs. Life 5
Imprisonment
Light Felonies 4
Preventive Imprisonment 4
Prescription of Offense 4
Penalty, Habitual Delinquency 4

Compound vs. Complex Crimes 4


Accessories Exempt from Criminal Liability

Article 20 provides that the penalties prescribed 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 with the
exception of accessories who profited themselves or
assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime.
Penalty for Complex Crimes

5 Questions
Chart Title
Others RPC, Book 1
TOPIC # of
Questions
Impossible Crime 10
Stages of Commission 9
Conspiracy 9
Privileged Mitigating Circumstances 9

Extinguishment of Criminal Liability 9

Exemption from Criminal Liability 7

Civil Liability 6
Territoriality 5
Accessories Exempt from Criminal 5
Liability
Penalty, Complex Crimes 5
Reclusion Perpetua vs. Life 5
Imprisonment
Light Felonies 4
Preventive Imprisonment 4
Prescription of Offense 4
Penalty, Habitual Delinquency 4

Compound vs. Complex Crimes 4


Penalty for Complex Crimes

Art. 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.
Light Felonies

4 Questions
Chart Title
Others RPC, Book 1
TOPIC # of
Questions
Impossible Crime 10
Stages of Commission 9
Conspiracy 9
Privileged Mitigating Circumstances 9

Extinguishment of Criminal Liability 9

Exemption from Criminal Liability 7

Civil Liability 6
Territoriality 5
Accessories Exempt from Criminal 5
Liability
Penalty, Complex Crimes 5
Light Felonies 4
Preventive Imprisonment 4
Prescription of Offense 4
Penalty, Habitual Delinquency 4

Compound vs. Complex Crimes 4


Light Felonies

The following are criminally liable for light felonies


(Art. 16):

1. Principals; and

2. Accomplices.
Light Felonies
RULES RELATIVE TO LIGHT FELONIES:
a. Light felonies are punishable only when they
have been consummated.
b. When light felonies are committed against
persons or property, they are punishable even if
they are only in the attempted or frustrated stage of
the execution.
c. Only principals and accomplices are liable for
light felonies.
d. Accessories are not liable for light felonies,
even if they are committed against persons or
property.
Preventive Imprisonment

4 Questions
Chart Title
Others RPC, Book 1
TOPIC # of
Questions
Impossible Crime 10
Stages of Commission 9
Conspiracy 9
Privileged Mitigating Circumstances 9

Extinguishment of Criminal Liability 9

Exemption from Criminal Liability 7

Civil Liability 6
Territoriality 5
Accessories Exempt from Criminal 5
Liability
Penalty, Complex Crimes 5
Light Felonies 4
Preventive Imprisonment 4
Prescription of Offense 4
Penalty, Habitual Delinquency 4

Compound vs. Complex Crimes 4


Preventive Imprisonment
Art. 29. Period of preventive imprisonment deducted
from term of imprisonment. Offenders who have
undergone preventive imprisonment shall be credited in the
service of their sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty,
with the full time during which they have undergone preventive
imprisonment, if the detention prisoner agrees voluntarily in
writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon
convicted prisoners, except in the following cases:

1. When they are recidivists or have been convicted previously


twice or more times of any crime; and

2. When upon being summoned for the execution of their


sentence they have failed to surrender voluntarily.
Preventive Imprisonment
If the detention prisoner does not agree to abide by the
same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners,
he shall be credited in the service of his sentence with four-
fifths of the time during which he has undergone preventive
imprisonment (RPC, Art. 29).

Whenever an accused has undergone preventive


imprisonment for a period equal to or more than the
possible maximum imprisonment of the offense charged to
which he may be sentenced and his case is not yet
terminated, he shall be released immediately without
prejudice to the continuation of the trial thereof or the
proceeding on appeal, if the same is under review. In case
the maximum penalty to which the accused may be
sentenced is destierro, he shall be released after thirty (30)
days of preventive imprisonment (RPC, Art. 29).
Prescription of Offenses
(RPC, Art. 90)

4 Questions
Chart Title
Others RPC, Book 1
TOPIC # of
Questions
Impossible Crime 10
Stages of Commission 9
Conspiracy 9
Privileged Mitigating Circumstances 9

Extinguishment of Criminal Liability 9

Exemption from Criminal Liability 7

Civil Liability 6
Territoriality 5
Accessories Exempt from Criminal 5
Liability
Penalty, Complex Crimes 5
Light Felonies 4
Preventive Imprisonment 4
Prescription of Offense 4
Penalty, Habitual Delinquency 4

Compound vs. Complex Crimes 4


Prescription of Offenses (RPC, Art. 90)
PERIOD OF
PRESCRIPTION
Crimes punishable by Death,
Reclusion Perpetua or Reclusion 20 years
Temporal
Other afflictive penalties 15 years
Correctional penalties 10 years
Arresto mayor 5 years
Libel and similar offenses 1 year
Oral Defamation or Slander by
6 months
Deed
Light Offenses 2 months
Habitual Delinquency

4 Questions
Chart Title
Others RPC, Book 1
TOPIC # of
Questions
Impossible Crime 10
Stages of Commission 9
Conspiracy 9
Privileged Mitigating Circumstances 9

Extinguishment of Criminal Liability 9

Exemption from Criminal Liability 7

Civil Liability 6
Territoriality 5
Accessories Exempt from Criminal 5
Liability
Penalty, Complex Crimes 5
Light Felonies 4
Preventive Imprisonment 4
Prescription of Offense 4
Penalty, Habitual Delinquency 4

Compound vs. Complex Crimes 4


Habitual Delinquency
Art. 62. 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 of 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 of prision mayor
in its minimum and medium periods; and
Habitual Delinquency
Art. 62. Habitual delinquency shall have the following
effects:

... ... ...

(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 herewith, shall in no case exceed 30 years.
Habitual Delinquency
Art. 62. x x x

... ... ...

For the purpose 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.
Compound vs. Complex Crimes
4 Questions
Chart Title
Others RPC, Book 1
TOPIC # of
Questions
Impossible Crime 10
Stages of Commission 9
Conspiracy 9
Privileged Mitigating Circumstances 9

Extinguishment of Criminal Liability 9

Exemption from Criminal Liability 7

Civil Liability 6
Territoriality 5
Accessories Exempt from Criminal 5
Liability
Penalty, Complex Crimes 5
Light Felonies 4
Preventive Imprisonment 4
Prescription of Offense 4
Penalty, Habitual Delinquency 4

Compound vs. Complex Crimes 4


Compound vs. Complex Crimes
Art. 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.

TWO KINDS OF COMPLEX CRIMES


1. COMPOUND CRIME - When a single act
constitutes two or more grave or less grave
felonies
2. COMPLEX CRIME PROPER - When an
offense is a necessary means for committing
the other.
Compound Crime
REQUISITES:
1. That only a SINGLE ACT is performed by the offender
2. That the single acts produces (a) 2 or more grave felonies, or (b)
one or more grave and one or more less grave felonies, or (c)
two or more less grave felonies

The single act of rolling the hand grenade on the floor of the gymnasium
which resulted in the death of victims constituted a compound crime of
multiple murders (People v. Mores, G.R. No. 18984, June 26, 2013). Where
the use of grenade renders the victim defenseless, use of explosives
shall be considered as a qualifying circumstance because this is the
principal mode of attack. Thus, treachery will be relegated merely as a
generic aggravating circumstance (People v. Comadre, et al. G.R. No.
153559, June 8, 2004). The single act of running over the victims with a
van constitutes compound crime with multiple murders (People v.
Punzalan, Jr., G.R. No. 199892, December 10, 2012).
Single Act Treated As Several Acts

Single act of pressing the trigger of Thompson or armalite is


treated as several acts as many as there are bullets fired from
gun. Because of special mechanism of Thompson, the single
act of pressing its trigger will cause the continuous firing of
bullets. Thus, accused is liable as many homicides as there are
victims (People v. Desierto, (C.A.) 45 O.G.4542; People v.
Sanchez, G.R. No. 131116, August 27, 1999; People v. Tabaco,
G.R. Nos. 100382-100385, March 19, 1997; People v. Vargas,
Jr., G.R. No. 86728, April 6, 1990; People v. Bermas, G.R. Nos.
76416 and 94312, July 5, 1999).
Single Criminal Impulse Rule

The single criminal impulse rule under the Lawas doctrine


(People v. Lawas, L-7618-20, June 30, 1955) is more of an
exception than the general rule (People v. Remollino, G.R. No.
L-14008, September 30, 1960). Article 48 on compound crime
speaks of single act, but not single criminal impulse (People v.
Pineda, G.R. No. L-26222, July 21, 1967). In Lawas case, the SC
was merely forced to apply Article 48 because of the
impossibility of ascertaining the number of persons killed by
each accused (People v. Nelmida, G.R. No. 184500, September
11, 2012). Thus, the Lawas doctrine should not be applied if
there is conspiracy since the number of victims actually killed
by each conspirator is not anymore material if there is
conspiracy (People v. Elarcosa, G.R. No. 186539, June 29,
2010).
Complex Crime Proper

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.
Intent vs. Motive

4 Questions
Chart Title
Others RPC, Book 1

TOPIC # of
Questions
Intent vs. Motive 4
Entrapment vs. Instigation 4
Effect of Pardon 4
nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege 3

Definition of Felony 3

Alternative Circumstances 3

Classes of Penalty 3
Extinguishment of Civil Liability upon 3
acquittal
Pardon and Disqualification 3

Pecuniary Liabilities 3
Application of Penalty in Relation to 3
ISL
Subsidiary Liability of Employers 3
Motive 3
Cardinal Principles of Criminal Law 2
Intent vs. Motive

MOTIVE is the moving power which impels one to


action for a definite result.

INTENT is the purpose to use a particular means


to effect such result (Reyes, p. 57).
Intent vs. Motive
Motive is not an essential element of a crime, and hence,
need not be proved for purposes of conviction (People v.
Aposaga, No. L-32477, 30 October 1981).

Motive is essential only when there is doubt as to the


identity of the assailant. It is immaterial when the
accused has been positively identified (People v.
Gadiana, G.R. No. 92509, 13 March 1991).

Proof of motive alone is not sufficient to support a


conviction but lack of motive may be an aid in showing
the innocence of the accused (People v. Corput, 107 Phil
44, 49).
Entrapment vs. Instigation
4 Questions
Chart Title
Others RPC, Book 1

TOPIC # of
Questions
Intent vs. Motive 4
Entrapment vs. Instigation 4
Effect of Pardon 4
nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege 3

Definition of Felony 3

Alternative Circumstances 3

Classes of Penalty 3
Extinguishment of Civil Liability upon 3
acquittal
Pardon and Disqualification 3

Pecuniary Liabilities 3
Application of Penalty in Relation to 3
ISL
Subsidiary Liability of Employers 3
Motive 3
Cardinal Principles of Criminal Law 2
ENTRAPMENT INSTIGATION
Ways and means are resorted to The instigator practically induces
for the purpose of trapping and the would-be accused into the
capturing the lawbreaker in the commission of the offense and
execution of his criminal plan himself becomes a co-principal.
The means originate from the mind The law enforcer conceives the
of the criminal. commission of the crime and
suggests to the accused who
adopts the idea and carries it into
execution.
A person has planned or is about A public officer or a private
to commit a crime and ways and detective induces an innocent
means are resorted to by a public person to commit a crime and
officer to trap and catch the would arrest him upon or after the
criminal. commission of the crime by the
latter.

Not a bar to the prosecution and The accused must be acquitted.


conviction of the lawbreaker.
Effect of Pardon
(RPC, Art. 266-C)
4 Questions
Chart Title
Others RPC, Book 1

TOPIC # of
Questions
Intent vs. Motive 4
Entrapment vs. Instigation 4
Effect of Pardon 4
nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege 3

Definition of Felony 3

Alternative Circumstances 3

Classes of Penalty 3
Extinguishment of Civil Liability upon 3
acquittal
Pardon and Disqualification 3

Pecuniary Liabilities 3
Application of Penalty in Relation to 3
ISL
Subsidiary Liability of Employers 3
Motive 3
Cardinal Principles of Criminal Law 2
Effect of Pardon (RPC, Art. 266-C)
Article 266-C. Effect of Pardon. - 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.
TOPIC # of
Questions
Asked
Nullum Crimen, Nulla Poena Sine Lege 3
Definition of Felony 3
Alternative Circumstances 3
Classes of Penalty 3
Extinguishment of Civil Liability upon 3
acquittal
Pardon and Disqualification 3
Pecuniary Liabilities 3
Application of Penalty in Relation to ISL 3
Subsidiary Liability of Employers 3
Motive 3
Nullum Crimen, Nulla Poena Sine Lege

3 Questions
Nullum Crimen, Nulla Poena Sine Lege

There is no crime when there is no law


punishing the same.

RPC, Art. 21. Penalties that may be imposed.


No felony shall be punishable by any
penalty not prescribed by law prior to its
commission.
Nullum Crimen, Nulla Poena Sine Lege

It is a basic principle of criminal law that no person


should be brought within the terms of a penal statute
who is not clearly within them nor should any act be
pronounced criminal which is not clearly made so by the
statute. (Bernardo v. People, G.R. No. L-62114, 5 July
1983)
Definition of Felony
3 Questions
Definition of Felony
FELONY
The term felony is limited only to violations of the Revised
Penal Code.

Art. 3, RPC. Definitions.


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) (1st par.)

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, or lack of
skill (2nd par.).
Alternative Circumstances (Art. 15)
3 Questions
Alternative Circumstances (Art. 15)
Alternative circumstances are those which must be
taken into consideration as aggravating or mitigating
according to the nature and effects of the crime and the
other conditions attending its commission.

The following are alternative circumstances:


1. relationship,
2. intoxication and
3. the degree of instruction and education of the offender.
Alternative Circumstances (Art. 15)
The alternative circumstance of relationship shall
be taken into consideration when the offended party is
the spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate,
natural, or adopted brother or sister, or relative by
affinity in the same degrees of the offender.

The intoxication of the offender shall be taken


into consideration as a mitigating circumstance when
the offender has committed a felony in a state of
intoxication, if the same is not habitual or subsequent
to the plan to commit said felony; but when the
intoxication is habitual or intentional, it shall be
considered as an aggravating circumstance.
Classes of Penalty

3 Questions
Classes of Penalty
(Art. 25)
The penalties which may be imposed according to this Code,
and their different classes, are those included in the
following:

Scale
Principal Penalties

Capital punishment:
Death.

Afflictive penalties:
Reclusion perpetua,
Reclusion temporal,
Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification,
Perpetual or temporary special disqualification,
Prision mayor.
Classes of Penalty
(Art. 25)
The penalties which may be imposed according to this Code,
and their different classes, are those included in the
following:

Scale
Principal Penalties

Correctional penalties:
Prision correccional,
Arresto mayor,
Suspension,
Destierro.

Light penalties:
Arresto menor,
Public censure.
Classes of Penalty
(Art. 25)

Penalties common to the three preceding classes:


Fine, and
Bond to keep the peace.

Accessory Penalties
Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification,
Perpetual or temporary special disqualification,
Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for,
the profession or calling.
Civil interdiction,
Indemnification,
Forfeiture or confiscation of instruments and proceeds of the
offense,
Payment of costs.
Classes of Penalty

A fine, whether imposed as a single or as an alternative


penalty, shall be considered an afflictive penalty, if it
exceeds 6,000 pesos; a correctional penalty, if it does not
exceed 6,000 pesos but is not less than 200 pesos; and a
light penalty if it be less than 200 pesos (Art. 26).
Extinguishment of Civil Liability upon
Acquittal

3 Questions
Extinguishment of Civil Liability upon
Acquittal

The rule is that the acquittal of an accused of the


crime charged will not necessarily extinguish his
civil liability, unless the court declares in a final
judgment that the fact from which the civil liability
might arise did not exist. Courts can acquit an
accused on reasonable doubt but still order payment of
civil damages in the same case. It is not even
necessary that a separate civil action be instituted.
(Romero v. People, G.R. No. 167546, 17 July 2009)
Pardon and Disqualification
(RPC, Arts. 30 and 36)
3 Questions
Pardon and Disqualification

Art. 36. Pardon; its effect. 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 the pardon.
Pardon and Disqualification
Art. 30. Effects of the penalties of perpetual or temporary
absolute disqualification. The penalties of perpetual or
temporary absolute disqualification for public office shall produce
the following effects:

1. The deprivation of the public offices and employments which the


offender may have held even if conferred by popular election.

2. The deprivation of the right to vote in any election for any popular
office or to be elected to such office.

3. The disqualification for the offices or public employments and for


the exercise of any of the rights mentioned.

In case of temporary disqualification, such disqualification as is


comprised in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this article shall last during the
term of the sentence.
Pecuniary Liabilities

3 Questions
Pecuniary Liabilities

Art. 89. How criminal liability is totally


extinguished. Criminal liability is totally extinguished:

1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal


penalties and as to pecuniary penalties, liability
therefor is extinguished only when the death of
the offender occurs before final judgment.

... ... ...


Pecuniary Liabilities
People v. Bunay
(G.R. No. 171268, 14 September 2010, J. Bersamin)

Facts: Accused was found guilty by the RTC of the


crime of qualified rape. The CA then affirmed the
RTCs decision. Upon accuseds appeal to the Court,
a letter was received from the Bureau of
Corrections Assistant Director who advised that the
accused had died at the New Bilibid Prison Hospital
in Muntinlupa in which the immediate cause was
cardio-respiratory arrest with pneumonia.
Pecuniary Liabilities
People v. Bunay
(G.R. No. 171268, 14 September 2010, J. Bersamin)

Held: The Court ruled that the death of the accused


during the pendency of his appeal totally
extinguished his criminal liability. This is based on
Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code which provides
that Criminal liability is totally extinguished: (1) by
the death of the convict, as to the personal
penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability
therefor is extinguished only when the death of the
offender occurs before final judgment.
Pecuniary Liabilities
People v. Bunay
(G.R. No. 171268, 14 September 2010, J. Bersamin)

Held: The death of the accused likewise


extinguished the civil liability that was based
exclusively on the crime for which the accused was
convicted because no final judgment of conviction
was yet rendered by the time of his death. This case
was then considered closed and terminated.
Subsidiary Liability of Employers

3 Questions
Subsidiary Liability of Employers

Art. 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other


persons. The subsidiary liability 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.
Motive
3 Questions
Motive
Motive is not an essential element of a crime, and
hence, need not be proved for purposes of conviction
(People v. Aposaga, No. L-32477, 30 October 1981).

Motive is essential only when there is doubt as to the


identity of the assailant. It is immaterial when the
accused has been positively identified (People v.
Gadiana, G.R. No. 92509, 13 March 1991).

Proof of motive alone is not sufficient to support a


conviction but lack of motive may be an aid in
showing the innocence of the accused (People v.
Corput, 107 Phil 44, 49).
Topic # of Questions
Asked

Cardinal Principles of Criminal Law 2


Limits on Power of Congress 2
Diplomatic Immunity from Criminal Prosecution 2

Mitigating Circumstances / Voluntary Surrender 2


Qualifying Circumstances 2
Successive Service of Sentence 2
Computation of prescription of offenses 2
Prescription of penalty 2
Application of Indivisible Penalties 2
Subsidiary penalty 2
Corpus Delicti and Elements 2
Delito Continuado vs. Complex Crimes 2
Mala in se vs. Mala Prohibita 2
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW

Generality

The criminal law of the country governs and


applies to all persons in Philippine Territory,
regardless of nationality, age, gender or other
personal circumstances.
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW
Generality
Art. 14, New Civil Code
Penal laws and those of public security and safety shall be
obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in the Philippine
territory, subject to the principles of public international
law and to treaty stipulations.

Example:
An American who visits the Philippines in order to kill his
Filipina girlfriend because of extreme jealousy is still
liable for murder although he is a foreigner.
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW

Generality

Exceptions to the rule of Generality

1. Treaty stipulations
Example: Visiting Forces Agreement of 1998 (VFA)
- Article V (1) (b) United States military authorities shall
have the right to exercise within the Philippines all criminal
and disciplinary jurisdiction conferred on them by the
military law of the US over US personnel in the Philippines.
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW

Generality

Exceptions to the rule of Generality


2. Laws of preferential application

Example: Parliamentary immunity under Sec. 11, Art. VI


of the Constitution - Members of the Congress are
immune from arrest for all offenses punishable by not
more than 6 yrs. imprisonment while Congress is in
session
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW

Generality
Exceptions to the rule of Generality
2. Laws of preferential application
Example: Principles of public international law
Persons exempt from the operation of our criminal
laws by virtue of the principles of public international
law:
1. Sovereigns and other chiefs of state.
2. Ambassadors, ministers, plenipotentiary,
ministers resident, and charges daffaires
(Ryes, p. 12).
A consul is not entitled to the privileges and immunities of
an ambassador or minister (Shneckenburger v. Moran, 63
Phil. 250).
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW
Generality

US v. Sweet (1901)
Facts: Sweet was an employee of the US army in the
Philippines. He assaulted a prisoner of war for which he was
charged with the crime of physical injuries. Sweet interposed
the defense that the fact that he was an employee of the US
military authorities deprived the court of the jurisdiction to try
and punish him.

Held: The case is open to the application of the general


principle that the jurisdiction of civil tribunals is unaffected by
the military or other special character of the person brought
before them for trial, unless controlled by express legislation to
the contrary.
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW

Territoriality
Art. 2, Revised Penal Code

GENERAL RULE:
The penal laws of the country have force
and effect only within its territory. It
cannot penalize crimes committed
outside the countrys territory.
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW
Territoriality
Art. 1, 1987 Constitution
The territory of the country is not limited to the
land where its sovereignty resides but includes also
its maritime and interior waters as well as its
atmosphere.
Terrestrial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over
land.
Fluvial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over
maritime and interior waters.
Aerial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over the
atmosphere.
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW
Territoriality

EXTRATERRITORIAL APPLICATION
of the RPC
Art. 2 (1): Crimes committed aboard merchant
vessels.
The RPC is applied to Philippine vessels if the
crime is committed while the ship is treading
a. Philippine waters (intra-territorial application), or
b. The High Seas i.e. waters NOT under the
jurisdiction of any State (extraterritorial application)
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW

Territoriality

NOTE : The country of registry determines the


nationality of the vessel, NOT ITS OWNERSHIP.

For example, a murder committed by a Filipino


seaman aboard a Filipino-owned vessel
registered in China while it is sailing the high
seas is not cognizable by Philippine Courts.
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW

Territoriality

Two rules on jurisdiction over crimes


committed aboard merchant vessels while in
the territorial waters of another country, i.e.
a foreign vessel treading Philippine waters
OR Philippine vessels treading waters under
the jurisdiction of another state (Reyes, p.
28):

.
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW

Territoriality

FRENCH RULE:
It is the FLAG/Nationality of the vessel which determines
jurisdiction UNLESS the crime violates the peace and order of
the host country.

ENGLISH RULE:
The location or situs of the crime determines jurisdiction
UNLESS the crime merely relates to internal management of
the vessel.
Note: The Philippines adheres to the ENGLISH RULE.
.
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW
Territoriality

Illustration:
To smoke opium within our territorial limits, even though
aboard a foreign merchant ship, is certainly a breach of the
public order here established, because it causes such drug to
produce its pernicious effects within our territory (People v.
Wong Cheng, G.R. No. L-18924, 19 October 1922).
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW

Territoriality

NOTE 2: Philippine courts have no jurisdiction over


offenses committed on board foreign warships in
territorial waters. Warships are always reputed to be the
territory of the country to which they belong and cannot
be subjected to the laws of another state (U.S. v. Fowler,
1 Phil. 614).
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW
Territoriality

NOTE 3: The Philippines subscribes to the Absolute Theory of


aerial jurisdiction.
The subjacent state has complete jurisdiction over the
atmosphere above it subject only to the innocent passage
by aircraft of a foreign country.

Under this theory, if the crime is committed in an aircraft, no


matter how high, as long as it can be established that it is
within the Philippine atmosphere, Philippine criminal law will
govern. (See Anti-hijacking Law)
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW
Territoriality

EXTRATERRITORIAL APPLICATION
of the RPC

Art. 2 (2):
Forging/Counterfeiting Coins or Currency Notes in the
Philippines

Elements:
1. The forgery is committed abroad; and
2. it refers to Philippine coin, currency note, obligation
and security
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW
Territoriality

EXTRATERRITORIAL APPLICATION
of the RPC

Art. 2 (3):
When liable for acts connected with the introduction of
coins or currency notes of the Philippines or obligations and
securities issued by the Philippine Government.

Example: A Filipino working in a Hongkong printing shop shipped to a


businessman in Binondo, Manila several boxes of fake one thousand
peso bills of the Philippines. Although the felony was committed in
Hongkong, he may be prosecuted in the Philippine courts because he
introduced into the Philippines forged currency notes.
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW

Territoriality

EXTRATERRITORIAL APPLICATION
of the RPC

Art. 2 (4):
When public officers or employees commit an
offense in the exercise of their functions.
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW

Territoriality

NOTE:
The Revised Penal Code governs if the crime
(whether or not in relation to the exercise of public
functions) was committed within the Philippine
Embassy or within the embassy grounds in a foreign
country. This is because embassy grounds are
considered an extension of sovereignty. Thus the
crime is deemed to have been committed in
Philippine soil.
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW

Territoriality
Illustration:
A Philippine consulate official who is validly married
here in the Philippines and who marries again in a foreign
country cannot be prosecuted here for bigamy because
this is a crime not connected with his official duties.
However, if the second marriage was celebrated within the
Philippine embassy, he may be prosecuted here, since it is
as if he contracted the marriage here in the Philippines
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW

Territoriality

EXTRATERRITORIAL APPLICATION
of the RPC

Art. 2 (5): Commit any of the crimes against national


security and the law of nations, defined in Title One of
Book Two of the Revised Penal Code.

Examples of Crimes against National Security: Piracy, Treason,


Espionage, etc.

Example of Crimes against the Law of Nations: Genocide


BASIC PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW

Territoriality

Evangelista v. People (G.R. No. 163267, 5 May 2010)

Accused was charged of the crime of illegal possession of


firearms for bringing unlicensed firearms from Abu Dhabi to the
Philippines. He insisted that since Dubai is outside the territorial
jurisdiction of the Philippines, our criminal laws are not
applicable.
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW

Territoriality

Evangelista v. People (G.R. No. 163267, 5 May 2010)

The Supreme Court ruled that in order for the courts to


acquire jurisdiction in criminal cases, the offense should have
been committed or any one of its essential ingredients should
have taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
The accomplishment by accused of the Customs Declaration Form
upon his arrival at the NAIA is very clear evidence that he was
in possession of the subject firearms when he entered the
Philippines. Thus, since he does not have any license for the
firearms which were proven to be in his possession when he
arrived in the Philippines, Evangelistas conviction was affirmed
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW

Prospectivity

Art.21. Penalties that may be imposed.-

No felony shall be punishable by any


penalty not prescribed by law prior to its
commission.
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW

Prospectivity
GENERAL RULE:

Acts or omissions will only be subject to a penal law


if they are committed AFTER a penal law had
already taken effect.

An act or omission which has been committed


before the effectivity of a penal law could not be
penalized by such penal law because penal laws
operate only prospectively.
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW

Prospectivity
EXCEPTION:
Art. 22 provides for instances when an ex post facto law is
allowed or when penal laws may be given retroactive
effect.

RPC, Art. 22. Retroactive effect of penal laws.


Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect in so far as
they favor the person guilty of a felony, who is not a
habitual criminal, although at the time of the publication of
such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the
convict is serving the same.
Basic Principles of Criminal Law
Prospectivity

Ex post facto law is prohibited.

Ex post facto law is one that is specifically made to


retroact to cover acts before it became effective to the
prejudice of the accused; or to make a certain crime
graver or prescribe a heavier penalty for it (In The
Matter Of The Petition For The Declaration Of The
Petitioner's Rights And Duties Under Sec. 8 Of R.A. No.
6132, G.R. No. L-32485, 22 October 1970).
Basic Principles of Criminal Law
Prospectivity
Different effects of repeal of penal law (Reyes, p. 14):
1. If the repeal makes the penalty lighter in the new law, the
new law shall be applied, except when the offender is a
habitual delinquent or when the new law is made not
applicable to pending action or existing causes of action.

2. If the new law imposes a heavier penalty, the law in force at


the time of the commission of the offense shall be applied.

3. If the new law totally repeals the existing law so that the act
which was penalized under the old law is no longer
punishable, the crime is obliterated.
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW

Strict construction of penal laws against


the State
(The Doctrine of Pro Reo)

Whenever a penal law is to be construed or applied


and the law admits of two interpretations - one
lenient to the offender and one strict to the offender,
that interpretation which is lenient or favorable to the
offender will be adopted (Intestate Estate Of Manolita
Gonzales Vda. De Carungcong, v. People, G.R. No.
181409, 11 February 2010).
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW

Strict construction of penal laws against


the State
(The Doctrine of Pro Reo)

1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 14(2):


In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be
presumed innocent until the contrary is proved x
x x.
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF
CONGRESS TO ENACT PENAL LAWS
1. Equal Protection

No person or class of persons shall be deprived to the


same protection of the laws which is enjoyed by other
persons or other classes in the same place and in like
circumstances. For classification to be reasonable, it
must:
(a) Rest on substantial distinctions;
(b) Germane to the purpose of the law;
(c) Not limited to existing conditions only;
(d) Apply equally to all members of the same class
(Mendoza v. People, G.R. No. 183891, 19
October 2011).
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF
CONGRESS TO ENACT PENAL LAWS
2. Due Process
In criminal proceedings, due process requires that the
accused be informed why he is being proceeded against and
what charge he has to meet, with his conviction being made
to rest on evidence that is not tainted with falsity after full
opportunity for him to rebut it and the sentence being
imposed in accordance with a valid law. It is assumed,
therefore, that the court that renders the decision is one of
competent jurisdiction (Ang Tibay v. CA, 69 Phil. 635).
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF
CONGRESS TO ENACT PENAL LAWS

3. Non-imposition of cruel and unusual


punishment or excessive fines

Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel,


degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall
death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons
involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides
for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced
to reclusion perpetua (Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 19).
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF
CONGRESS TO ENACT PENAL LAWS

3. Non-imposition of cruel and unusual


punishment or excessive fines

The imposition of the penalty of death is prohibited.


Accordingly, R.A. No. 8177 (Act Designating Death by Lethal
Injection) is repealed. R.A. No. 7659 (Death Penalty Law) and
all other laws, executive orders and decrees, insofar as they
impose the death penalty, are repealed or amended
accordingly (Sec. 1 of R.A. No. 9346, otherwise known as An
Act Prohibiting The Imposition of Death Penalty in The
Philippines).
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF
CONGRESS TO ENACT PENAL LAWS

4. Bill of Attainder

A statute becomes a bill of attainder when it applies


either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable
members of a group inflicting punishment on them
amounting to a deprivation of any right, civil or political,
without judicial trial. Stated otherwise, the singling out of a
definite class, the imposition of a burden on it, and a
legislative intent, suffice to stigmatize a statute as a bill of
attainder (Montenegro v. Castaeda, 91 Phil. 882).
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF
CONGRESS TO ENACT PENAL LAWS

5. Ex post facto law

Ex post facto law is one which:

(1) makes criminal an act done before the passage of the


law and which was innocent when done, and punishes
such an act;

(2) aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was,


when committed;
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF
CONGRESS TO ENACT PENAL LAWS
5. Ex post facto law

Ex post facto law is one which:

(3) changes the punishment and inflicts a greater


punishment than the law annexed to the crime when
committed;

(4) alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes


conviction upon less or different testimony than the law
required at the time of the commission of the offense;
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF
CONGRESS TO ENACT PENAL LAWS
5. Ex post facto law
Ex post facto law is one which:
(5) assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies only,
in effect imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for
something which when done was lawful; and

(6) deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful


protection to which he has become entitled, such as the
protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a
proclamation of amnesty. (In Re Kay Villegas Kami, Inc., G.R.
No. L-32485, 22 October 1970).

.
CONSULAR AND DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY

Consular officers are immune from criminal prosecution


of acts performed in the exercise of function (1967
Convention on Consular Relation).

Immunity does not cover slander (Liang vs. People, GR


No. 125865, January 28, 2000), or reckless imprudence
resulting in homicide for not being function-related.
CONSULAR AND DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY
A Chinese diplomat, who killed another Chinese diplomat
in Cebu, is immune from criminal prosecution (The
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations).

Unlike consular officers, diplomatic agents are vested


with blanket diplomatic immunity from civil and criminal
suits (Minucher vs. Hon. CA, G.R. No. 142396, February
11, 2003).
VOLUNTARY SURRENDER AS MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE

Art. 13. Mitigating circumstances. The following are


mitigating circumstances:

... ... ...

7. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to


a person in authority or his agents, or that he had
voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to the
presentation of the evidence for the prosecution;
VOLUNTARY SURRENDER AS MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE

REQUISITES OF VOLUNTARY SURRENDER:

1. That the offender had not been actually arrested.


2. That the offender surrendered himself to a person in
authority or to the latters agent.
3. That the surrender was voluntary.
QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES

QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES are those that


change the nature of the crime.

Example: Art. 248 enumerates the qualifying aggravating


circumstances which qualify the killing of a person to
murder.
QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
A qualifying aggravating circumstance cannot be offset
by a mitigating circumstance.

It is now a requirement that the aggravating or


qualifying circumstances be expressly and specifically
alleged in the complaint or information. Otherwise,
they cannot be considered by the trial court in its
judgment, even, if they are subsequently proved
during trial (Sombilon, Jr. vs. People, G.R. No. 175528,
September 30, 2009). This procedural rule has a
retroactive application because of pro reo (People vs.
Dadulla, G. R. No. 172321, February 9, 2011, J.
Bersamin).
SUCCESSIVE SERVICE OF SENTENCE
Art. 70. Successive service of sentence. When the
culprit has to serve two or more penalties, he shall serve
them simultaneously 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 imposed, or should they have been served
out.
SUCCESSIVE SERVICE OF SENTENCE
Art. 70. x x x For the purpose of applying the
provisions of the next preceding paragraph the
respective severity of the penalties shall be determined
in accordance 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 Temporal absolute disqualification,
11. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be
voted for, the right to follow a profession or calling, and
12. Public censure.
SUCCESSIVE SERVICE OF SENTENCE
Art. 70. x x x

Notwithstanding 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 total of those imposed equals the
same maximum period.

Such maximum period shall in no case exceed forty years.

In applying the provisions of this rule the duration of perpetual


penalties (pena perpetua) shall be computed at thirty years.
COMPUTATION OF PRESCRIPTION OF OFFENSES

Art. 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.
PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTY
Art. 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 of arresto mayor, which prescribes in five years;
4. Light penalties, in one year.
APPLICATION OF INDIVISIBLE PENALTIES

Art. 63. Rules for the application of indivisible


penalties.

In all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible


penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any
mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have
attended the commission of the deed.
APPLICATION OF INDIVISIBLE PENALTIES
Art. 63. Rules for the application of indivisible
penalties.
... ... ...

In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed


of two indivisible penalties, the following rules shall be
observed in the application thereof:

1. When in the commission of the deed there is present only


one aggravating circumstance, the greater penalty shall be
applied.

2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating


circumstances and there is no aggravating circumstance, the
lesser penalty shall be applied.
APPLICATION OF INDIVISIBLE PENALTIES
Art. 63. Rules for the application of indivisible
penalties.
... ... ...

3. When the commission of the act is attended by some


mitigating circumstances and there is no aggravating
circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied.

4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances


attended the commission of the act, the court shall
reasonably allow them to offset one another in
consideration of their number and importance, for the
purpose of applying the penalty in accordance with the
preceding rules, according to the result of such
compensation.
SUBSIDIARY PENALTY
Art. 39. Subsidiary penalty. If the convict has no
property with which to meet the fine mentioned in the
paragraph 3 of the nest preceding article, he shall be subject
to a subsidiary personal liability at the rate of one day for
each eight pesos, subject to the following rules:

1. If the principal penalty imposed be prision correccional or


arresto and fine, he shall remain under confinement until his
fine referred to 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.
SUBSIDIARY PENALTY
Art. 39. Subsidiary penalty. x x x

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 imposed is higher than


prision correccional, no subsidiary imprisonment
shall be imposed upon the culprit.
SUBSIDIARY PENALTY
Art. 39. Subsidiary penalty. x x x

4. If the principal penalty imposed is not to be


executed by confinement in a penal institution, but
such penalty is of fixed duration, the convict, during
the period of time established in the preceding
rules, shall continue to suffer the same deprivations
as those of which the principal penalty consists.
CORPUS DELICTI AND ELEMENTS

Corpus delicti has been defined as the body,


foundation, or substance of a crime. (People v.
Tuniaco, G.R. No. 185710, 19 January 2010)

In its primary sense, corpus delicti refers to the


fact that the crime has been actually committed
(Tan v. People, G.R. No. 134298, 26 August 1999)
CORPUS DELICTI AND ELEMENTS

To prove the corpus delicti, it is sufficient for the


prosecution to be able show that (1) a certain
fact has been proven -- say, a person has died or
a building has been burned; and (2) a particular
person is criminally responsible for the act.
(Rimorin vs. People, GR 146481, 30 April 2003)
CORPUS DELICTI AND ELEMENTS

In murder, corpus delicti has two elements: (a)


that a certain result has been established, for
example, that a man has died and (b) that some
person is criminally responsible for it. (People v.
Tuniaco, G.R. No. 185710, 19 January 2010)

In theft, corpus delicti also has two elements,


namely: (1) that the property was lost by the
owner, and (2) that it was lost by felonious
taking. (Tan v. People, G.R. No. 134298, 26
August 1999)
DELITO CONTINUADO
(CONTINUED CRIME OR CONTINUOUS CRIME)

Miriam Defensor Santiago v. Garchitorena (G.R.


No. 109266, 2 December 1993)

For delito continuado to exist, there should be a


plurality of acts performed during a period of
time; unity of penal provision violated; and unity
of criminal intent or purpose, which means that
two or more violations of the same penal
provisions are united in one and same instant or
resolution leading to the perpetration of the
same criminal purpose or aim.
DELITO CONTINUADO
(CONTINUED CRIME OR CONTINUOUS CRIME)

Miriam Defensor Santiago v. Garchitorena (G.R.


No. 109266, 2 December 1993)

In appearance, a delito continuado consists of


several crimes but in reality there is only one
crime in the mind of the perpetrator.

The offense consists of a series of acts arising


from one criminal intent or resolution.
DELITO CONTINUADO
(CONTINUED CRIME OR CONTINUOUS CRIME)
Miriam Defensor Santiago v. Garchitorena (G.R. No.
109266, 2 December 1993)

Applying the concept of delito continuado, the following


were treated as constituting only one offense:

(1) The theft of 13 cows belonging to two different owners committed by


the accused at the same time and at the same period of time (People v.
Tumlos, 67 Phil. 320 [1939] ).

(2) The theft of six roosters belonging to two different owners from the
same coop and at the same period of time (People v. Jaranillo, 55 SCRA
563 [1974] ).
DELITO CONTINUADO
(CONTINUED CRIME OR CONTINUOUS CRIME)
Miriam Defensor Santiago v. Garchitorena (G.R. No.
109266, 2 December 1993)

Applying the concept of delito continuado, the following


were treated as constituting only one offense:

(3) The theft of two roosters in the same place and on the same occasion
(People v. De Leon, 49 Phil. 437 [1926] ).

(4) The illegal charging of fees for services rendered by a lawyer every
time he collects veteran's benefits on behalf of a client, who agreed that
the attorney's fees shall be paid out of said benefits (People v. Sabbun,
10 SCRA 156 [1964] ). The collection of the legal fees were impelled by
the same motive, that of collecting fees for services rendered, and all
acts of collection were made under the same criminal impulse (People v.
Lawas, 97 Phil. 975 [1955] ).
DELITO CONTINUADO
(CONTINUED CRIME OR CONTINUOUS CRIME)
Miriam Defensor Santiago v. Garchitorena (G.R. No.
109266, 2 December 1993)

The court did not apply the concept of delito continuado


in the following cases:

(1) Two estafa cases, one of which was committed during the period
from January 19 to December 1955 and the other from January 1956 to
July 1956 (People v. Dichupa, 113 Phil. 306 [1961] ). The said acts were
committed on two different occasions.

(2) Several malversations committed in May, June and July, 1936, and
falsifications to conceal said offenses committed in August and October
1936. The malversations and falsifications "were not the result of only
one purpose or of only one resolution to embezzle and falsify . . ."
(People v. Cid, 66 Phil. 354 [1938] ).
DELITO CONTINUADO
(CONTINUED CRIME OR CONTINUOUS CRIME)
Miriam Defensor Santiago v. Garchitorena (G.R. No.
109266, 2 December 1993)

The court did not apply the concept of delito continuado


in the following cases:

(3) Two estafa cases, one committed in December 1963 involving the
failure of the collector to turn over the installments for a radio and the
other in June 1964 involving the pocketing of the installments for a
sewing machine (People v. Ledesma, 73 SCRA 77 [1976] ).

(4) 75 estafa cases committed by the conversion by the agent of


collections from customers of the employer made on different dates
DELITO CONTINUADO
(CONTINUED CRIME OR CONTINUOUS CRIME)
Foreknowledge Doctrine
There is no delito continuado where the accused when he
committed the first threat against the victim has no knowledge
that he will chance upon the second and third victims to commit
the second and third threat. Without such foreknowledge, three
threats could not be said to have been committed under a single
criminal impulse, which is the basis of applying delito continuado
principle. Several threats can only be considered as continued
crime if the offender threatened three individuals at the same
place and at the same time (Paera v. People, G.R. No. 181626, May
30, 2011).
MALA IN SE VS. MALA PROHIBITA

Violations of the Revised Penal Code are referred


to as mala in se, which literally means, that the act
is inherently evil or bad or per se wrongful. On the
other hand, violations of special laws are generally
referred to as mala prohibita (People v. Quijada,
G.R. Nos. 115008-09, 24 July 1996).
MALA IN SE VS. MALA PROHIBITA
Note, however, that not all violations of special laws are
mala prohibita. While intentional felonies are always mala in
se, it does not follow that prohibited acts done in violation of
special laws are always mala prohibita. Even if the crime is
punished under a special law, if the act punished is one
which is inherently wrong, the same is malum in se, and,
therefore, good faith and the lack of criminal intent is a valid
defense; unless it is the product of criminal negligence or
culpa (Arsenia Garcia v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No.
157171, 14 March 2006).
MALA IN SE VS. MALA PROHIBITA
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan
(G.R. No. 148560, 19 November 2001)

Facts: Estrada is challenging the plunder law. One of the


issues he raised is whether plunder is a malum prohibitum or
malum in se.

Held: Plunder is a malum in se which requires proof of


criminal of criminal intent. Precisely because the constitutive
crimes are mala in se the element of mens rea must be
proven in a prosecution for plunder. It is noteworthy that the
amended information alleges that the crime of plunder was
committed willfully, unlawfully and criminally. It thus alleges
guilt knowledge on the part of the petitioner.
PENALTIES
(with discussion on
Probation Law)
General principles

No felony shall be punishable by any penalty not


prescribed by law prior to its commission (Art. 21).

The imposition of the penalty of death is now prohibited. In


lieu of the death penalty, the following shall be imposed.

(a) the penalty of reclusion perpetua, when the law


violated makes use of the nomenclature of the
penalties of the Revised Penal Code; or
General principles

(b) the penalty of life imprisonment, when the law violated


does not make use of the nomenclature of the
penalties of the Revised Penal Code.

Person convicted of offenses punished with reclusion


perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to
reclusion perpetua, shall not be eligible for parole
under Act No. 4180, otherwise known as the
Indeterminate Sentence Law.
Purpose

The purpose of punishing crimes is to deter the


offender and others from committing the offense, to
isolate him from society, to reform and rehabilitate
him, and to maintain social order (Eumelia Mitra v.
People, G.R. No. 191404, 5 July 2010).
Classification (Art. 9)

Art. 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 Art. 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 a penalty of arrest menor or a fine not
exceeding 200 pesos or both, is provided.
Classification (Art. 25)
The penalties which may be imposed according to the RPC,
and their different classes, are those included in the
following:

Scale
Principal Penalties

Capital punishment:
Death.

Afflictive penalties:
Reclusion perpetua,
Reclusion temporal,
Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification,
Perpetual or temporary special disqualification,
Prision mayor.
Classification (Art. 25)
The penalties which may be imposed according to the RPC,
and their different classes, are those included in the
following:

Scale
Principal Penalties

Correctional penalties:
Prision correccional,
Arresto mayor,
Suspension,
Destierro.

Light penalties:
Arresto menor,
Public censure.
Classification (Art. 25)

Penalties common to the three preceding classes:


Fine, and
Bond to keep the peace.

Accessory Penalties
Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification,
Perpetual or temporary special disqualification,
Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted
for, the profession or calling.
Civil interdiction,
Indemnification,
Forfeiture or confiscation of instruments and proceeds of the
offense,
Payment of costs.
Classification (Art. 26)

A fine, whether imposed as a single or as an alternative


penalty, shall be considered an afflictive penalty, if it
exceeds 6,000 pesos; a correctional penalty, if it does not
exceed 6,000 pesos but is not less than 200 pesos; and a
light penalty if it be less than 200 pesos.
Penalty for Complex Crimes

ARTICLE 48. Penalty for Complex Crimes.


When a single act constitutes two or more crimes,
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.
Order of Severity

ARTICLE 70. Successive Service of Sentences; Exception.


When the culprit has to serve two or more penalties, he shall serve
them simultaneously if the nature of the penalties will so permit;
otherwise, said penalties shall be executed successively, following
the order of their respective severity, which shall be determined in
accordance with the following scale:
1. Death.
2. Reclusin perpetua.
3. Reclusin temporal.
4. Prisin mayor.
5. Prisin correccional.
6. Arresto mayor.
7. Arresto menor.

A person sentenced to destierro who is also sentenced to the


penalty of prisin or arresto shall be required to serve these latter
penalties before serving the penalty of destierro.
Fine (Art. 71)

The fine shall be considered as the last of all the


principal penalties listed in the preceding article.

When a fine is so imposed, the duration of the


subsidiary liability corresponding thereto, by reason of
the insolvency of the offender, shall not exceed that
which is provided in Rule 2 of Article 39.
Execution and Service

Probation Law (P.D. No. 968, as amended)

Definition

"Probation" is a disposition under which a


defendant, after conviction and sentence, is released
subject to conditions imposed by the court and to the
supervision of a probation officer.
Execution and Service

Probation Law (P.D. 968, as amended)

Disqualified Offenders (Sec. 9) The benefits of this law


shall not extend to those:

(a) sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of


more than six years;

(b) convicted of any offense against the security of the


State;

(c) who have previously been convicted by final judgment of


an offense punished by imprisonment of not less than one
(1) month and one (1) day and/or a fine of not less than Two
Hundred (200) Pesos;
Execution and Service

Probation Law (P.D. 968, as amended)

Disqualified Offenders (Sec. 9) The benefits of this


law shall not extend to those:

(d) who have been once on probation; and

(e) who are already serving sentence at the time the


substantive provisions of this law became applicable.
Francisco v. Court of Appeals
(G.R. No. 108747; 6 April 1995)

Probation is a special privilege granted by the state to a penitent


qualified offender. It essentially rejects appeals and encourages an
otherwise eligible convict to immediately admit his liability and save
the state of time, effort and expenses to jettison an appeal. The law
expressly requires that an accused must not have appealed his
conviction before he can avail of probation. This outlaws the
element of speculation on the part of the accused to wager on the
result of his appeal that when his conviction is finally affirmed on
appeal, the moment of truth well-nigh at hand, and the service of his
sentence inevitable, he now applies for probation as an "escape
hatch" thus rendering nugatory the appellate court's affirmance of his
conviction. Consequently, probation should be availed of at the first
opportunity by convicts who are willing to be reformed and
rehabilitated, who manifest spontaneity, contrition and remorse.
Lagrosa v. People
(GR. No. 152044, 3 July 2003)

Petitioners Domingo Lagrosa and Osias Baguin were convicted by the


Regional Trial Court of Tagbilaran of violating Section 68 of P.D 705, as
amended (the Revised Forestry Code), for having in their possession
forest products without the requisite permits. The trial court sentenced
them to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from two (2)
years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as
minimum, to eight (8) years of prision mayor, as maximum.

Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) which modified and


reduced the penalty to an indeterminate penalty ranging from six (6)
months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to one (1)
year, eight (8) months and twenty one (21) days of prision correccional, as
maximum. They then filed for Probation with the trial court but such was
denied. The CA, upon petition for certiorari, affirmed the decision of the
trial court. Aggrieved, the petitioners raised the issue to the Supreme
Court asserting that the application for probation was made at the first
opportunity.
Lagrosa v. People
(GR. No. 152044, 3 July 2003)

Petitioners contend that they should be allowed to apply for


probation even if they had already appealed the decision of the trial
court. They argue that their case should be considered an exception to
the general rule which excludes an accused who has appealed his
conviction from the benefits of probation. To bolster this assertion,
petitioners claim that what prompted them to appeal the decision of
the trial court was the erroneous penalty imposed by the trial court. [
Lagrosa v. People
(GR. No. 152044, 3 July 2003)

HELD: The petitioners may not be granted probation.


The trial court sentenced petitioners to a maximum term of
eight years, which was beyond the coverage of the
Probation Law. They only became eligible for probation after
the Court of Appeals modified the judgment of the trial court
and reduced the maximum term of the penalty imposed on
them to one year, eight months and twenty-one days.
Having appealed from the judgment of the trial court and
having applied for probation only after the Court of Appeals
had affirmed their conviction, petitioners were clearly
precluded from the benefits of probation.
Lagrosa v. People
(GR. No. 152044, 3 July 2003)

HELD: The Supreme Court held that petitioners are not


being candid when they claimed that what prompted them
to appeal the decision of the trial court was the erroneous
penalty it imposed. The fact that petitioners put the
merits of their conviction in issue on appeal belies
their claim that their appeal was prompted by what was
admittedly an incorrect penalty. Certainly, the
protestations of petitioners connote a profession of
guiltlessness, if not complete innocence, and do not simply
assail the propriety of the penalties imposed. For sure,
petitioners never manifested that they were appealing only
for the purpose of correcting a wrong penalty to reduce it to
within probationable range.
Lagrosa v. People
(GR. No. 152044, 3 July 2003)

HELD: Hence, upon interposing an appeal, more so after


asserting their innocence therein, petitioners should be
precluded from seeking probation. By perfecting their appeal,
petitioners ipso facto relinquished the alternative remedy of
availing of the Probation Law, the purpose of which is simply
to prevent speculation or opportunism on the part of an
accused who, although already eligible, does not at once
apply for probation, but did so only after failing in his appeal.
Arnel Colinares v. People
(G.R. No. 182748; 13 December 2011)

The accused was convicted by the RTC for Frustrated Homicide


punishable by imprisonment of more than six (6) years. On appeal, the
Supreme Court found him guilty of Attempted Homicide which offense
is punishable by less than six (6) years imprisonment. The accused
then applied for probation. The Supreme Court held that the
accused should be granted probation although he appealed from
the judgment of conviction. The ruling in Francisco does not
apply because Arnel Colinares has no right to choose whether or
not to appeal or apply for probation since the stiff penalty that the
trial court imposed on him denied him that choice. It was only after
he appealed the judgment of conviction that he was granted the right
to apply for probation. The ruling in Francisco remains that those who
will appeal from judgments of conviction, when they have the option to
try for probation, forfeit their right to apply for that privilege.
Padua v. People
(G.R. No. 168546, 23 July 2008)

Michael Padua was charged and convicted for violation of Section


5, Article II of Rep. Act No. 9165 for selling dangerous drugs. Under
Section 24 of Rep. Act No. 9165, any person convicted of drug
trafficking cannot avail of the privilege of probation. The law
considers the users and possessors of illegal drugs as victims while
the drug traffickers and pushers as predators. Hence, while drug
traffickers and pushers, like Michael Padua, are categorically
disqualified from availing the law on probation, youthful drug
dependents, users and possessors alike, are given the chance to
mend their ways.

Thus, while the provisions of R.A. 9165, particularly Section


70 thereof, deals with Probation or Community Service for First-
Time Minor Offender in Lieu of Imprisonment, minor Michael
Padua who was charged and convicted of violating Section 5,
Article II, R.A. 9165, cannot avail of probation.
Child in Conflict of the Law

Section 42 of R.A. No. 9344 provides:

Probation as an Alternative to Imprisonment. -


The court may, after it shall have convicted and
sentenced a child in conflict with the law, and upon
application at any time, place the child on probation in
lieu of service of his/her sentence taking into account the
best interest of the child. For this purpose, Section 4 of
Presidential Decree No. 968, otherwise known as the
"Probation Law of 1976", is hereby amended
accordingly.
Execution and Service

Probation Law (P.D. 968, as amended)


Period of Probation (Sec. 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) When the sentence imposes a fine only and the


offender is made to serve subsidiary imprisonment in
case of insolvency, the period of probation shall not be
less than nor to be more than twice the total number of
days of subsidiary imprisonment as computed at the
rate established in the RPC.
Execution and Service

Probation Law (P.D. 968, as amended)


Arrest of Probationer (Sec. 15)
At any time during probation, the court may issue a
warrant for the arrest of a probationer for violation of any
of the conditions of probation.
The probationer, once arrested and detained, shall
immediately be brought before the court for a hearing,
which may be informal and summary, of the violation
charged.
The defendant may be admitted to bail pending such
hearing. In such a case, the provisions regarding release
on bail of persons charged with a crime shall be applicable
to probationers arrested.
Execution and Service

Probation Law (P.D. 968, as amended)


Arrest of Probationer (Sec. 15)
If the violation is established, the court may revoke or
continue his probation and modify the conditions thereof.
If revoked, the court shall order the probationer to serve
the sentence originally imposed.

An order revoking the grant of probation or modifying the


terms and conditions thereof shall not be appealable.
Execution and Service

Probation Law (P.D. 968, as amended)

Termination of Probation; Exception (Sec. 16)

After the period of probation and upon consideration


of the report and recommendation of the probation
officer, the court may order the final discharge of the
probationer upon finding that he has fulfilled the terms
and conditions of his probation and thereupon the
case is deemed terminated.
Execution and Service

Probation Law (P.D. 968, as amended)

Termination of Probation; Exception (Sec. 16)

The final discharge of the probationer shall operate


to restore to him all civil rights lost or suspend as a
result of his conviction and to fully discharge his
liability for any fine imposed as to the offense for
which probation was granted.

The probationer and the probation officer shall each


be furnished with a copy of such order.
Diagram of Application of Articles 50 to 57
Principals Accomplices Accessories

Consummated 0 1 2

Frustrated 1 2 3

Attempted 2 3 4

Note: 0 represents the penalty prescribed by law in


defining a crime, which is to be imposed on the principal in a
consummated offense, in accordance with Article 46 of the
RPC. The other figures represent the degrees to which the
penalty must be lowered, to meet the different situations
anticipated by law.
Exceptions to the rules under Articles 50 to 57

1. The provisions contained in Articles 50 to 57, inclusive,


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 (RPC, Article 60).

2. The courts, in view of the facts of the case, may impose


upon the person guilty of the frustrated crime of
parricide, murder or homicide, defined and penalized in
the preceding articles, a penalty lower by one degree
than that which should be imposed under the provision
of Article 50. The courts, considering the facts of the
case, may likewise reduce by one degree the penalty
which under article 51 should be imposed for an attempt
to commit any of such crimes (RPC, Article 250).
Bases for the determination of the extent of penalty
to be imposed under the RPC

1. The stage reached by the crime in its development


(either attempted, frustrated or consummated);

2. The participations therein of the persons liable; and

3. The aggravating or mitigating circumstances which


attended the commission of the crime.

In the different stages of execution in the commission of


the crime and in the participation therein of the persons
liable, the penalty is graduated by degree.
Degree and Period, Distinguished

A degree is one entire penalty, one whole penalty or one


unit of the penalties enumerated in the graduated scales
provided for in Article 71. Each of the penalties of reclusion
perpetua, reclusion temporal, prision mayor, etc.,
enumerated in the graduated scales of Article 71, is a
degree.

A period is one of the three equal portions, called


minimum, medium, and maximum, of a divisible penalty.
Duration of Penalties (Art. 27)

The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be from twenty


(20) years and one (1) day to forty (40) years.

The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be from twelve


(12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years.

The duration of the penalties of prision mayor and


temporary disqualification shall be from six (6) years and
one (1) day to twelve (12) years, except when the penalty of
disqualification is imposed as an accessory penalty, in which
case, its duration shall be that of the principal penalty.
Duration of Penalties (Art. 27)

The duration of the penalties of prision correccional,


suspension and destierro shall be from six (6) months and
one (1) day to six (6) years, except when suspension is
imposed as an accessory penalty, in which case, its duration
shall be that of the principal penalty.

The duration of the penalty or arresto mayor shall be from


one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months.

The duration of the penalty of arresto menor shall be from


one (1) day to thirty (30) days.

The bond to keep the peace shall be required to cover


such period of time as the court may determine.
Four Indivisible Penalty

There are four kinds of divisible penalty, which are governed


by Article 64, to wit:

(1) Penalty composed of three periods fixed in accordance


with Article 76;
(2) Penalty not composed of three periods computed in
accordance with Article 65;
(3) Complex penalty under Article 77, par. 1; and
(4) Penalty without specific legal form under Article 77, par. 2.
Penalty Containing Three Periods

Article 76 of RPC expressly fixed the range of the period


for reclusion temporal, prision mayor, temporary
disqualification, prision correccional, destierro, suspension,
arresto mayor, and arresto menor. To find the range of the
periods of any of the aforesaid penalties, one will simply read
Article 76. If the crime committed is homicide and there is
one mitigating circumstance of confession, the prescribed
penalty of reclusion temporal shall be applied in its minimum
period because of Article 64. Article 76 expressly states that
the range of the minimum period of reclusion temporal is from
12 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months. Within the
range of this period, the maximum indeterminate penalty
shall be fixed.
Penalty Containing Three Periods

The range of the minimum, medium and maximum


periods fixed in accordance with Article 76 is one-third equal
portion of the respective penalties except arresto mayor.
Under Article 76, the minimum period of arresto mayor
ranges from 1 month and 1 day to 2 months; medium period
ranges from 2 month and 1 day to 4 months; and maximum
period ranges from 4 months and 1 day to 6 months. Hence,
the time included in the duration of the minimum period of
arresto mayor is only one month while that of the medium
and maximum is two months.
Penalty Not Composed of Three Periods

Penalties with divisible duration, the periods of which are


not expressly mentioned in Article 76 are called penalties not
composed of three periods; since Article 76 has not fixed the
duration of their periods, they must be computed in
accordance with Article 65. Under this provision, the time
included in the duration of penalty shall be divided into three
equal portions and periods shall be formed from each portion.

The penalty for malversation under paragraph 2 of Article


217 of the RPC is prision mayor in its minimum and medium
period. The range of this penalty is not found in Article 76.
Considering that this penalty is not composed of three
periods, the time included in the penalty prescribed should be
divided into three equal portions, which each portion forming
one period, pursuant to Article 65 (Zafra v. People, G.R. No.
176317, July 23, 2014, J. Bersamin).
Penalty Not Composed of Three Periods

The duration of prision mayor in its minimum and medium


period is 6 years and 1 day to 10 years. To determine the
time included in the duration deduct one day and the lower
limit of the prescribed penalty from its upper limit.

10 years------------------upper limit
-6 years and 1 day-----lower limit
-1 .
4 years-------------------time included in the duration of
penalty

Fours years, which is the time included in the duration shall


be divided into three equal portions.

4 years/3 = 1 year and 4 months-----1/3 portion of the


penalty
Penalty Not Composed of Three Periods

The minimum, medium and maximum periods shall be formed out


of 3 equal portions of the penalty. The time included in the duration
of each period is 1 year and 4 months.

6 years
+1 year and 4 months
7 years and 4 months
+1 year and 4 months
8 years and 8 months
+1 year and 4 months
10 years

Thus, the minimum period of the prescribed penalty of prision


mayor in its minimum and medium periods ranges from 6 years
and 1 day to 7 years and 4 months; its medium period ranges from
7 years, 4 months and 1 day to 8 years and 8 months; its maximum
period ranges from 8 years , 8 months and 1 day to 10 years (Zafra
v. People, G.R. No. 176317, July 23, 2014, J. Bersamin).
Complex Penalty

Complex penalty is composed of three distinct penalties. The periods of


complex penalty is formed in accordance with Article 77, par. 1.
Applying this provision, each of the components of the complex penalty
shall form a period; the lightest of them shall be the minimum, the next
the medium, and the most severe the maximum period.

Reclusion temporal to death prescribed for treason committed by


resident alien under Article 114 of the RPC is a complex penalty. This
penalty is composed of three distinct penalties, namely: reclusion
temporal, reclusion perpetua and death penalty. Out of these three
components, periods shall be formed in accordance with Article 77, par.
1. Thus, reclusion temporal, which is the lightest of the three, shall be
minimum period of penalty of reclusion temporal to death; reclusion
perpetua, which is the next penalty, shall be the medium period; death
penalty, which is the most severe, shall be the maximum period. Thus,
in the absence of modifying circumstances, reclusion temporal to death
prescribed for treason shall be applied in its medium period, and that
is, reclusion perpetua.
Complex Penalty

Prision correctional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its


medium period prescribed for simple robbery under Article 294 of RPC
is a complex penalty since it is composed of three distinct penalties.
Thus, prision correccional in its maximum period, which is the lightest
of the three, shall be minimum period of this prescribed penalty. Prision
mayor in its minimum period, which is the most severe, shall be the
maximum period. In sum, prision correccional in its maximum period to
prision mayor in its medium period prescribed for robbery shall be
broken down as follows:

Minimum: Prision correccional in its maximum period


(4 years, 2 months and 1 day to 6 years)
Medium: Prision mayor in its minimum period
(6 years and 1 day to 8 years)
Maximum: Prision mayor in its medium period
(8 years and 1 day to 10 years)
See: People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 168173, December 24, 2008, En Banc, People v. Barrientos, G.R. No. 119835, January 28,
1998, En Banc, People v. Castillo, G.R. No. L-11793, May 19, 1961, En Banc, People v. Diamante, G.R. No. 180992, September
4, 2009, and People v. Lumiwan, G.R. Nos. 122753-56, September 7, 1998.
Complex Penalty

Reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua


prescribed for sexual abuse under Section 5 (b) of RA No. 7610 is a
complex penalty since it is composed of three distinct penalties.
Applying Article 77, par, 1, this complex penalty can be broken down as
follows:

Minimum: Reclusion temporal in its medium period


(14 years, 8 months and 1 day to 17 years and 4 months)
Medium: Reclusion temporal in its maximum period
(17 years, 4 months and 1 day to 20 years)
Maximum: Reclusion perpetua

See: People v. Morante, G.R. No. 187732, November 28, 2012


Penalty Without Specific Legal Form
Reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua prescribed for mutilation under Article 262
is a penalty without a specific form (People v. Romero, G.R. No. 112985, April 21,
1999). The duration of its periods is not fixed by Article 76. This penalty cannot be
divided into three equal portions in accordance with Article 65 since it has an
indivisible component, and that, is reclusion perpetua. It is not a complex penalty
under Article 77, par. 1 since it merely is merely composed of two distince penalties.
Thus, its periods shall be determinbed in accordance with Article 77, par. 2, which
provides that the periods shall be distributed, applying for analogy the prescribed
rules. Applying Article 77, par. 1 by analogy, the maximum period shall be formed out
of the most severe penalty, and that is, reclusion perpetua. Applying Article 65 by
analogy, the duration of reclusion temporal shall be divided into two equal portions
and minimum and medium periods shall be formed from each portion. Applying
Article 77, par. 3, reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua is broken as follows:

Minimum: Lower half of reclusion temporal


(12 years and 1 day to 16 years)
Medium: Higher half of reclusion temporal
(16 years and 1 day to 20 years)
Maximum: Reclusion perpetua

See: People v. Macabando, G.R. No. 188708, July 31, 2013; People v. Romero, G.R. No. 112985, April 21, 1999; Gonzales v.
People, G.R. No. 159950, February 12, 2007; and People v. Olivia, G.R. No. 122110, September 26, 2000
Penalty Without Specific Legal Form
Reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua prescribed for
malversation under Article 217 is a penalty without specific form. The duration of its
periods is not fixed by Article 76. This penalty cannot be divided into three equal
portions in accordance with Article 65 since reclusion perpetua component is not
divisible. It is not a complex penalty under Article 77, par. 1 since it is merely
composed of two distinct penalties. Thus, its periods shall be determined in
accordance with Article 77, par. 2. Applying this provision, the maximum period shall
be formed out of the most severe penalty, and that is, reclusion perpetua. The
duration of reclusion temporal in its maximum period shall be divided into two equal
portions, and minimum and medium periods shall be formed from each portion. In
sum, reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua is broken down
as follows:

Minimum: Lower half of reclusion temporal in its maximum period


(17 years, 4 months and 1 day to 18 years and 8 months)
Medium: Higher half of reclusion temporal in its maximum period
(18 years, 8 months and 1 day to 20 years)
Maximum: Reclusion perpetua

See: Estepa v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 59670, February 15, 1990, Torres v. People, G.R. No. 175074, August 31, 2011, Cabarlo
v. People, G.R. No. 172274, November 16, 2006; Mesina v. People, G.R. No. 162489, June 17, 2015, Bersamin.
Special Mitigating Circumstance
Accused was found guilty of parricide punishable by the penalty of
reclusion perpetua to death. Applying rules for application of indivisible
penalties (Article 63), the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be
applied if there are two mitigating circumstance. The penalty cannot be
lowered to reclusion temporal, no matter how many mitigating
circumstances are present. The special mitigating circumstance is found in
rules for application of divisible penalties (Article 64), which is not
applicable because the penalty is not divisible (People v. Takbobo, G.R. No.
102984, June 30, 1993). The Takbobo principle is also applicable if the
penalty prescribed by law for the crime committed is a single indivisible
penalty such as reclusion perpetua.

If there are three mitigating circumstance and one aggravating


circumstance, special mitigating circumstance for purposes of graduating
the penalty shall not be appreciated. Although there are two remaining
mitigating circumstances after applying the off-set rule, the penalty shall not
be lowered by one degree because the appreciation of special
circumstance requires that there is no aggravating circumstance.
Offset Rule

Only ordinary aggravating and mitigating circumstances are subject to the


offset rule. Privileged mitigating circumstance of minority cannot be off-set
by ordinary aggravating circumstance (Aballe v. People, G.R. No. L-64086,
March 15, 1990). If privileged mitigating circumstance and ordinary
aggravating circumstance attended the commission of felony, the former
shall be taken into account in graduating penalty; the latter in applying the
graduated penalty in its maximum period (People v. Lumandong, G.R. NO.
132745, March 9, 2000, En Banc). Quasi-recidivism is a special
circumstance and cannot be offset by a generic mitigating circumstance
(People v. Macariola, G.R. No. L-40757, January 24, 2983). The
circumstance of treachery, which qualifies the killing into murder, cannot be
offset by a generic mitigating circumstance voluntary surrender (people v.
Abletes and Pamero, G.R. No. L-33304, July 31, 1974).
Penalty of offense under special law

The penalty for possession of dangerous drugs is 12 years and 1 day to 20 years of
imprisonment. The court cannot impose a straight penalty of 12 years and 1 day
since the application of indeterminate sentence law is mandatory (unless the
accused deserves a lenient penalty by confessing pursuant to the Nang Kay
principle). Applying the Islaw, the minimum indeterminate penalty shall not be less
than 12 years and 1 day while the maximum shall not exceed 20 years. Thus, the
court can sentence the accused to suffer 15 years of imprisonment as minimum to
18 years as maximum (Asiatico vs. People. G.R No. 195005, September 12, 2011;
Escalante vs. People, G.R. No. 192727, January 9, 2013)

Under Section 9 of RA 3019, the penalty for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 is
imprisonment for not less than 6 years and 1 months and not more than 15 years.
Applying the ISLAW, the minimum indeterminate penalty shall not be less than 6
years and 1 month while the maximum shall not exceed 15 years. Thus, the court
can sentence the accused to suffer 6 years and 1month of imprisonment as
minimum to 10 years as maximum (People vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 177105-06, August
12, 2010, Bersamin)
Mandatory application of ISLAW
The application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law is mandatory to both the
Revised Penal Code and the special laws (Romero vs. People, G.R No.
171644, November 23, 2011). However, the Supreme Court, in People vs.
Nang Kay, G.R. No. L-3565, April 20, 1951, has provided an exception. In this
case, the accused pleased guilty to offense where the law prescribed a penalty
of 5 to 10 years imprisonment. The court sentenced the accused to suffer 5
years of imprisonment. The Supreme Court sustained the penalty. Fixing the
penalty at the minimum limit without applying Act No. 4103 is favorable to the
accused since the accused shall be automatically released upon serving 5
years of imprisonment. Applying Act No. 4103 would lengthen the penalty
because the indeterminate maximum penalty must be necessarily more than 5
years (People vs. Arroyo, G.R. No. L-35584-85, February 13, 1982). However,
the Nang Kay principle is not applicable where the crime is punishable under
the Revised Penal Code. The application of ISLAW is always mandatory if the
penalty is prescribed by RPC since it is favorable to the accused. It is favorable
to the accused since in fixing the minimum penalty, the prescribed penalty
under the Code shall be lowered by one degree. On the other hand, in fixing the
minimum penalty for offense under special law involved in the Nang Kay case, the
prescribed penalty shall not be lowered (People vs. Judge Lee, Jr, G.R. No. 66859,
September 12, 1984).
Mandatory application of ISLAW

The Nang Kay principle is not also applicable where the accused does not
deserve a lenient penalty. In Batistis vs. People, G.R. No. 181571,
December 16. 2009, the SC through Justice Bersamin said the Nang Kay
exception is not applicable where there is no justification for lenity towards
the accused since he did not voluntarily plead guilty, and the crime
committed is a grave economic offense because of the large number of
fake Fundador confiscated.
Indeterminate Sentence Law

(a) Application on the imposed sentence

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 which shall be
within the range of the penalty next lower to that
prescribed by the Code for the offense.
Indeterminate Sentence Law

(a) Application on the imposed sentence

If the offense is punished by any other law


(Special 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.
Indeterminate Sentence Law

(b) Coverage

The Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable


to:

a. Those convicted of offenses punished with


death penalty or life imprisonment;

b. Those convicted of treason, conspiracy or


proposal to commit treason or espionage;
Indeterminate Sentence Law

(b) Coverage

The Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable


to:

c. Those convicted of misprision of treason,


rebellion, sedition or coup d' etat;

d. Those convicted of piracy or mutiny on the


high seas or Philippine waters;
Indeterminate Sentence Law

(b) Coverage

The Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable


to:

e. Those who are habitual delinquents, i.e.,


those who, within a period of ten (10) years from the
date of release from prison or last conviction of the
crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries,
robbery, theft, estafa, and falsification, are found guilty
of any of said crimes a third time or oftener;
Indeterminate Sentence Law

(b) Coverage

The Indeterminate Sentence Law is not


applicable to:

f. Those who escaped from confinement or


evaded sentence;

g. Those who having been granted conditional


pardon by the President of the Philippines shall have
violated any of the terms thereof;
Indeterminate Sentence Law

(b) Coverage

The Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable to:

h. Those whose maximum term of imprisonment does


not exceed one (1) year or those with definite sentence;

i. Those convicted of offenses punished with reclusion


perpetua, or whose sentences were reduced to reclusion
perpetua by reason of Republic Act No. 9346 enacted on June
24, 2006, amending Republic Act No. 7659 dated January 1,
2004; and

j. Those convicted for violation of the laws on terrorism,


plunder and transnational crimes.
Indeterminate Sentence Law

Conditions of Parole

Every prisoner released from confinement on parole


shall report personally to such government officials or other
parole officers appointed by the Board of Indeterminate
Sentence for a period of surveillance equivalent to the
remaining portion of the maximum sentence imposed upon
him or until final release and discharge by the Board of
Indeterminate Sentence. The officials so designated shall
keep such records and make such reports and perform such
other duties as may be required by said Board (Sec. 6).
Indeterminate Sentence Law

Conditions of Parole

The limits of residence of such paroled prisoner during


his parole may be fixed and from time to time changed by
the said Board in its discretion. If during the period of
surveillance such paroled prisoner shall show himself to be
a law-abiding citizen and shall not violate any law, the Board
of Indeterminate Sentence may issue a final certificate of
release in his favor, which shall entitle him to final release
and discharge (Sec. 6).
Indeterminate Sentence Law

Conditions of Parole

Whenever any prisoner released on parole, during the


period of surveillance, violate any of the conditions of his
parole, the Board of Indeterminate Sentence may issue
an order for his re-arrest which may be served in any
part of the Philippines by any police officer. In such case
the prisoner so re-arrested shall serve the remaining
unexpired portion of the maximum sentence for which he
was originally committed to prison, unless the Board of
Indeterminate Sentence shall, in its discretion, grant a
new parole to the said prisoner (Sec. 8).
Three-fold Rule

The maximum duration of the convict's sentence


shall not be more than threefold 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 total of those
imposed equals the same maximum period. Such
maximum period shall in no case exceed forty (40)
years.
In applying the provisions of this rule the duration of
perpetual penalties shall be computed at thirty years
(Art. 70).
Subsidiary Imprisonment

If the convict has no property with which to meet the


fine, he shall be subject to a subsidiary personal liability at
the rate of one day for each eight pesos, subject to the
following rules:

1. If the principal penalty imposed be prision


correccional or arresto 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.
Subsidiary Imprisonment

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 correccional, no subsidiary imprisonment shall be
imposed upon the culprit.
Subsidiary Imprisonment

4. If the principal penalty imposed is not to be


executed by confinement in a penal institution, but such
penalty is of fixed duration, the convict, during the period
of time established in the preceding rules, shall continue
to suffer the same deprivation as those of which the
principal penalty consists.

5. The subsidiary personal liability which the convict


may have suffered by reason of his insolvency shall not
relieve him from the fine in case his financial
circumstances should improve.
Adoption of the technical nomenclature of Spanish penalty

RPC is not generally applicable to malum prohibitum. However, when a special law,
which punished malum prohibitum, adopts the technical nomenclature of the
penalties in RPC, the provisions under this Code shall apply (People vs. Simon, G.R.
No. 93028, July 29, 1994) such as: (1) Article 68 on the privilege mitigating
circumstance of minority; (2) Article 64 on application on penalty in its minimum
period if there is confession; and (3) Article 160 on special aggravating circumstance
of quasi-recidivism.

RA No.7080 and RA No. 10591 adopt the nomenclature of the penalties in RPC.
Hence, minority, confession (Jacaban vs. People, G.R. No. 184955, March 23, 2015;
Malto vs. People, G.R. No. 164733, September 21, 2007) or quasi-recidivism shall
be considered in plunder and illegal possession of loose firearm.

Under Section 98 of RA No. 9165, the provisions of RPC shall not apply except in
the case of minor offenders. Hence, if the accused is a minor, privilege mitigating
circumstance of minority (People vs. Mantalaba G.R. No. 186227, July 20, 2011;
People vs. Musa, G.R. No. 199735, October 24, 2012; Asiatico vs. People, G.R No.
195005, September 12, 2011), confession or quasi-recidivism (People vs. Salazar,
G.R. No. 98060, January 27, 1997) shall be considered in crime involving dangerous
drugs. In this case, life imprisonment shall be considered as reclusion perpetua. If
the accused is an adult, these circumstances shall not be appreciated.
Adoption of the technical nomenclature of Spanish penalty

If the special law (such as RA No. 6325 on hijacking and RA No. 3019 one
corruption) did not adopt the technical nomenclature of penalties in RPC, the latter
shall not apply. Mitigating circumstance of confession shall not be appreciated since
the penalty not borrowed from RPC cannot be applied in its minimum period. The
crime has no attempted or frustrated stage since penalty not borrowed from RPC
cannot be graduated one or two degrees lower.

Mitigating circumstance of old age can only be appreciated if the accused is over 70
years old at the time of the commission of the crime under RA No. 3019 and not at
the time of promulgation of judgment (People vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 177105-06,
August 12, 2010, J. Bersamin). Moreover, this mitigating circumstance of old age
cannot be appreciated in crime punishable by RA No. 3019 since this law did not
adopt the technical nomenclature of the penalties of the RPC.
Incorrect Penalty

The court should prescribe the correct penalties in


complex crimes in strict observance of Article 48 of
the Revised Penal Code. In estafa through
falsification of commercial documents, the court
should impose the penalty for the graver offense in
the maximum period. Otherwise, the penalty
prescribed is invalid, and will not attain finality (De
Castro vs. People, G.R. No. 171672, February 02,
2015, J. Bersamin).
De Castro vs. People
(G.R. No. 171672, February 02, 2015, J. Bersamin)

The guilt of the petitioner for four counts of estafa through falsification of a
commercial document was established beyond reasonable doubt. As a bank
teller, she took advantage of the bank depositors who had trusted in her
enough to leave their passbooks with her upon her instruction.

In the four criminal cases involved in this appeal, the falsification of


commercial documents is punished with prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods (i.e., two years, four months and one day to six years)
and a fine of P5,000.00. In contrast, the estafa is punished according to the
value of the defraudation.

In Criminal Case No. 94-5524, estafa was the graver felony because the
amount of the fraud was P20,000.00; hence, the penalty for estafa is to be
imposed in its maximum period. However, the RTC and the CA fixed the
indeterminate sentence of two years, 11 months and 10 days of prison
correccional, as minimum, to six years, eight months and 20 days of prision
mayor, as maximum. Such maximum of the indeterminate penalty was short by
one day, the maximum period of the penalty being six years, eight months
and 21 days to eight years. Thus, the indeterminate sentence is corrected
to three years of prison correccional, as minimum, to six years, eight
months and 21 days of prision mayor, as maximum.
De Castro vs. People
(G.R. No. 171672, February 02, 2015, J. Bersamin)

In Criminal Case No. 94-5525, involving P2,000.00, the estafa is


punished with four months and one day of arresto mayor in its maximum
period to two years and four months of prision correccional in its minimum
period. The falsification of commercial document is penalized with prision
correccional in its medium and maximum periods (i.e., two years, four
months and one day to six years) and a fine of P5,000.00. The latter
offense is the graver felony, and its penalty is to be imposed in the
maximum period, which is from four years, nine months and 11 days to
six years plus fine of P5,000.00. The penalty next lower in degree
is arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its
minimum period (i.e., four months and one day to two years and four
months). Thus, the indeterminate sentence of three months of arresto
mayor, as minimum, to one year and eight months of prision
correccional, as maximum that both the RTC and the CA fixed was
erroneous. The SC rectified the error by prescribing in lieu thereof the
indeterminate sentence of two years of prision correccional, as minimum,
to four years, nine months and 11 days of prision correccional plus
fine of P5,000.00, as maximum.
De Castro vs. People
(G.R. No. 171672, February 02, 2015, J. Bersamin)

In Criminal Case No. 94-5526, involving P10,000.00, the RTC and the
CA imposed the indeterminate sentence of four months and 20 days
of arresto mayor, as minimum, to two years, 11 months and 10 days
of prision correccional, as maximum. However, the penalty for the
falsification of commercial documents is higher than that for the estafa. To
accord with Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for
falsification of commercial documents (i.e., prision correccional in its
medium and maximum periods and a fine of P5,000.00) should be
imposed in the maximum period. Accordingly, the SC revised the
indeterminate sentence so that its minimum is two years and four months
of prision correccional, and its maximum is five years of prision
correccional plus fine of P5,000.00.
De Castro vs. People
(G.R. No. 171672, February 02, 2015, J. Bersamin)

In Criminal Case No. 94-5527, where the amount of the fraud was
P35,000.00, the penalty for estafa (i.e., prision correccional in its maximum
period to prision mayor in its minimum period, or four years, two months
and one day to eight years) is higher than that for falsification of
commercial documents. The indeterminate sentence of two years, 11
months and 10 days of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight years
of prision mayor, as maximum, was prescribed. Considering that the
maximum period ranged from six years, eight months and 21 days to eight
years, the CA should have clarified whether or not the maximum of eight
years of prision mayor already included the incremental penalty of one
year for every P10,000.00 in excess of P22,000.00. Absent the
clarification, we can presume that the incremental penalty was not yet
included. Thus, in order to make the penalty clear and specific, the
indeterminate sentence is hereby fixed at four years of prision correccional,
as minimum, to six years, eight months and 21 days of prision mayor, as
maximum, plus one year incremental penalty. In other words, the maximum
of the indeterminate sentence is seven years, eight months and 21 days
of prision mayor.
Incorrect Penalty

In Fransdilla vs. People, (GR No. 197562, April 20, 2015, J.


Bersamin), the trial judge fixed the indeterminate sentence at
"imprisonment of 12 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months
of reclusion temporal as minimum to 17 years, 4 months and 1 day to
20 years of reclusion temporal as maximum". This is a patent
elementary error. Considering that the clear objective of the ISLAW is
to have the convict serve the minimum penalty before becoming
eligible for release on parole, both the minimum and the maximum
penalties must be definite, not ranging. This objective cannot be
achieved otherwise, for determining when the convict would be eligible
for release on parole would be nearly impossible if the minimum and
the maximum were as indefinite as the RTC fixed the indeterminate
sentence. Indeed, that the sentence is an indeterminate one relates
only to the fact that such imposition would leave the period between
the minimum and the maximum penalties indeterminate "in the sense
that he may, under the conditions set out in said Act, be released from
serving said period in whole or in part."
Incorrect Penalty

In People vs. Fontanilla, G.R. No. 177743, January 25, 2012,


J. Bersamin - The trial court sentenced the accused to suffer
reclusion perpetua to death for murder. This is erroneous.
Reclusion perpetua and death should not be imposed as a
compound, alternative or successive penalty for a single felony. In
short, the imposition of one precluded the imposition of the other.

Article 64 of RPC provides the rules on application of divisible


penalty. Under this provision, the penalty prescribed for a felony
shall be applied in its proper imposable period based on the
presence of modifying circumstances.
Incorrect Penalty

Under Article 349 of RPC, the penalty for bigamy


is prision mayor. In the absence of modifying
circumstances, prision mayor pursuant to Article 64 shall be
applied in its medium period, which ranges from 8 years and
1 day to 10 years. Applying the ISLAW, the minimum of the
indeterminate sentence should be within the range of prision
correccional, the penalty next lower than that prescribed for
the offense, which is from 6 months and 1 day to 6 years.
Accordingly, the indeterminate sentence of 2 years and 4
months of prision correccional, as minimum, to 8 years and 1
day of prision mayor as maximum is proper. (Lasanas vs.
People, G.R. No. 159031, 23 June 2014, J. Bersamin)
Incorrect Penalty

Under Article 249 of RPC, the penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal.
In the absence of any modifying circumstances, reclusion temporal shall be
applied in its medium period, which ranges from 14 years, 8 months and 1
day to 17 years and 4 months. Applying Article 64, within the limits of the
medium period of reclusion temporal, 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. Thus, the court could not impose the highest penalty of the
medium period of reclusion temporal, and that, is 17 years and 4 months
without specifying the justification for so imposing. Without proper
justification, the court should impose the lowest penalty of the medium period
of reclusion temporal, and that is, 14 years, 8 months. Since ISLAW is
applicable, 14 years, 8 months shall be considered as the maximum penalty
while the minimum penalty shall be fixed within the limits of prision mayor,
which ranges from 6 years and 1 day to 12 years. Hence, the accused is
sentenced to suffer 10 years of prision mayor as minimum indeterminate
penalty to 14 years, 8 months of reclusion temporal as maximum penalty.
(Ladines vs. People, G.R. No. 167333, 11 January 2016, J. Bersamin)
THANK YOU!

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen