Criminal Law:

THE REVISED PENAL CODE BOOK 1

Prepared By:
Prof. K. Calleja-Mojica

1
CRIMINAL LAW, defined.
It is that branch or division of municipal law which
defines crimes, treats of their nature, and provides for
their punishment.
A crime is an act or omission which is punishable under
the law.
If the crime is punished by the Revised Penal Code, it is
called a felony.
If it is a violation of a Special Law, it is called an
offense.
If it is punished by an Ordinance, it is referred to as
an Infraction of an Ordinance.
2
Nature of Criminal Law:
1.SUBSTANTIVE LAW : It defines the State’s right
to inflict punishment and the liability of the
offenders.
Under its police power, the State is justified in
punishing crimes in order to administer justice.
The State has an existence of its own to maintain,
a conscience to assert, and moral principles to be
vindicated. Penal justice rests primarily on the
moral rightfulness of the punishment imposed.
2. PUBLIC LAW: It deals with the relation of the
individual with the state.
3
GENERAL RULE: The power to define and punish an
act as a crime is vested with the legislative body of
government.

By way of exception to the principle of non-delegation of

legislative powers, the power may be delegated to the
Chief Executive in cases of extreme national emergency,
as provided under Section 23, par. 2, Article VI of the
1987 Philippine Constitution.

4
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS on the
passage of PENAL LAWS
1. That Congress cannot pass an ex post facto law or a
bill of attainder. (Section 22, Article III, 1987
Philippine Constitution)
An ex post facto law is one which:
• Makes criminal an act done before the passage of
the law and which was innocent when done, and
punishes such an act.
• Aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it
was, when committed.
• Changes the punishment and inflicts a greater
punishment than the law annexed to the crime
when committed.
• Alters the legal rules on evidence, and authorizes
conviction upon less or different testimony than the
law required at the time of the commission of the 5

offense.
 • Assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies
only but in effect imposes penalty or deprivation of
a right for something which when done was lawful
• Deprives a person accused of a crime of some
lawful protection to which he has become entitled,
such as the protection of a proclamation of
amnesty.
BILL OF ATTAINDER. It is a legislative act which
inflicts punishment without the benefit of a judicial trial.
Its essence is the substitution of a legislative act for a
judicial determination of guilt. (Section 14, Art. III,
1987 Philippine Constitution)
6
Penal laws must be general in application. Otherwise,
it would violate the equal protection clause of the
constitution.
Congress cannot provide for a cruel, degrading or
inhuman punishment nor can it impose excessive
fines. (Section 19, Art. III, 1987 Philippine
Constitution)

7
 CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL LAW
I.GENERALITY:
 Penal laws and those of public security and safety
shall be obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in
Philippine territory, subject to the principles of public
international law.” (Article 14, New Civil Code).
 Enforceable upon everyone who resides or visits or
sojourns in the country. The emphasis is on the
offender , the person who commits the crime, whether
he is a resident alien or not, tourist or citizen.
EXCEPTIONS:
1. It does NOT apply to cases covered by the principles
of public international law. 8
Members of the diplomatic corps of a country
who enjoy criminal immunity:
 Sovereigns and other chiefs/ heads of state.
 Ambassadors,
 Diplomat of a nation
 ministers plenipotentiary, ministers resident,
 charges d’ affaires and
 attaches
2. Cases covered by virtue of treaty stipulations
 Example: US-RP Military Bases Agreement and Visiting
Forces Agreement
9
 3. Cases covered by Laws of Preferential Application
Examples:
 Members of Congress are not liable for libel or slander fo
r any speech in Congress or in any committee thereof. (Sec
. 11, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution).
Any ambassador or public minister of any foreign State, a
uthorized and received as such by the President, or any do
mestic or domestic servant of any such ambassador or mini
ster are exempt from arrest and imprisonment and whose p
roperties are exempt from distraint, seizure and attachment
.3 (R.A. No. 75)
•Warship Rule – A warship of another country, even thoug
h docked in the Philippines, is considered an extension of t
he territory of its respective country. This also applies to em
10
bassies.
II. TERRITORIALITY
Penal laws take effect only within the limits of Philippine
territory. It cannot penalize a crime committed outside
the country, even if the same be committed by any of its
citizens. The Philippine Territory is encompassed by the
provisions of Article I of the 1987 Philippine Constitution
defining the National Territory.

In this view, the Philippines adopts the Archipelagic

Doctrine – which mandates the outlining of imaginary
lines starting from the lowest water mark and connecting
the outermost portions of the territory – in defining the
limits of the National Territory. The entire archipelago is
regarded as one integrated unit instead of being
fragmented into so many islands.
11
Composition of the National Territory:
1. TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION: The jurisdiction
exercised by a country over bodies of land, as
defined in the constitution.
2. FLUVIAL JURISDICTION: The jurisdiction over
maritime and interior or internal waters.
3. AERIAL JURISDICTION: The jurisdiction over the
atmosphere.

12
Article 2: Application of its provisions.Our Penal
Laws may also apply outside of Philippine Territory against
those who:
(a.) Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship;
If a crime is committed on board a foreign vessel and it is a
merchant vessel, there are two rules as to jurisdiction:

1. The FRENCH RULE which states that crimes committed on board a

foreign merchant vessel while on the waters of another country are
not triable in that country unless these affect the peace and security
or the safety of the state is endangered;

2.The ENGLISH RULE which provides that such crimes are triable in that
country unless they merely affect the internal management of the
vessel. Our country adheres to the English Rule. 13
(b) Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of
the Philippines or obligations and securities issued by the
Government of the Philippines;
(c) Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction
into the Philippines of the obligations and securities
mentioned in the preceding number;
(d) While being public officers or employees, should commit
an offense in the exercise of their functions; or
(e) Should 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.
The underlying reasons behind these five (5) instances
are:
(a) To preserve the territorial integrity of the Philippines;
(b) To preserve the economic integrity of the country; (c)
To preserve the integrity of Philippine public administration
and (d) To maintain the continuity & integrity of the State.14
Nonetheless, we must also consider the provisions of Section
15, Rule 110 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure which
provides:
a. The criminal action is instituted and tried in the court of the
municipality or territory where the offense was committed or any
of its essential ingredients occurred;
b. Where the crime is committed in a train, aircraft or other
private or public vehicle in the course of its trip, the criminal
action is instituted at the municipality or territory where the same
passed during its trip, including the place of departure and
arrival;
c. Where the crime is committed on board a vessel while in
the course of its voyage, the criminal action shall be instituted
in the Court of first port of entry or of any municipality or territory
where the vessel passed during the voyage, subject to the
generally accepted principles of international law and
d. Crimes under Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code are 15
cognizable by the Court where the criminal action is filed.
III. PROSPECTIVITY
“Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is
provided”. (Article 4, New Civil Code)
This characteristic provides that the law does not have any
retroactive effect, except if it favors the offender, unless he
is a habitual delinquent. (Article 22, Revised Penal Code).
This rule also applies to administrative rulings and circulars
(ABS CBN vs CTA 108 SCRA 142).
GENERAL RULE: Acts or omissions will only be subject to a
penal law if they are committed AFTER a penal law has
taken effect.
Conversely, acts or omissions which have been committed
before the effectivity of a penal law could not be penalized
16
by such penal law.
EXCEPTION: Penal laws may be given retroactive effect if
favorable to the accused.

EXCEPTION to the EXCEPTION::

 Whenever a new statute dealing with the crime
establishes conditions more lenient or favorable to the
accused, it can be given a retroactive effect.
 Where the new law is expressly made inapplicable to
pending actions or existing causes of action.
 Where the offender is a habitual delinquent.
 A habitual delinquent is one who, within a period of ten
years from the date of his last conviction or last release
of any of the following crimes: robbery (robo), theft
(hurto), estafa or swindling, falsification, serious and
less serious physical injuries, is found guilty of any of
the said crimes a third time or oftener. (Art. 62, par. 175,
RPC)
HOW PENAL LAWS ARE CONSTRUED:
Penal Laws are liberally construed in favor of the
offender.
Penal laws are construed strictly against the state, but
only when the law is ambiguous and there are doubts
as to its proper interpretation (People vs. Gatchalian,
104 Phil 664)
In case of conflict between the English Text and the
Spanish Text in the construction, the latter text prevails
EQUIPOISE RULE: When the evidence presented in
court is susceptible of two interpretations, one
consistent with innocence and the other with guilt, the
same should be resolved in favor of the accused.
(Corpus vs. People, 194 SCRA 73).

18
 THEORIES IN CRIMINAL LAW
CLASSICAL THEORY:
 The basis of criminal liability is human free will and the
purpose of the penalty is retribution.
 That man is essentially a moral creature with an absolute
free will to choose between good and evil, thereby placing
more stress upon the effect or result of the felonious act,
than upon the man, the criminal himself.
POSITIVIST THEORY:
 That man is subdued occasionally by a strange and morbid
phenomenon which constrains him to do wrong in spite of,
or contrary to his volition.
 That crime is essentially a social and natural phenomenon,
and as such, it cannot be treated and checked by the
application of abstract principles of law and jurisprudence
19

nor by the imposition of a punishment.

FELONIES
Art. 3. 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).
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.

20
Elements of Felonies:, in general:

 There must be an act or omission.

An ACT is a bodily movement tending to produce
some effect in the external world.
An OMISSION purports inaction – the failure to
perform a positive duty which one is obliged by law
to do.
 The act or omission is punishable by the Revised
Penal Code.
 It is committed by means of dolo or culpa.

21
Classification of felonies according to the means
they are committed:
1. INTENTIONAL FELONIES:
In this class of felony, the offender has the intention to
do or cause an injury to another. Felonies by dolo are
thus characterized by the presence of malice in its
commission.
2. CULPABLE FELONIES:
In this class, a person causes an injury, without intent to
cause an evil. Felonies by culpa are characterized by
the absence of malice.

22
Culpa can either arise from:
a. IMPRUDENCE:
This imports a deficiency of action – that a person
fails to take the necessary precaution to avoid injury
or damage. It arises because of one’s lack of skill.
b. NEGLIGENCE:
This imports a deficiency of perception – there is
a failure to pay proper attention and to use diligence
in foreseeing the injury or damage impending to be
caused. It arises because of a lack of foresight.

23
REQUISITES OF DOLO :
1. FREEDOM of action in doing the act on the part of the
offender.
One who acts without freedom is no longer a human
being but a tool. Thus, if one acts under the
compulsion of an irresistible force or because of an
uncontrollable fear is criminally exempt under Art. 12,
Section 5.
2. INTELLIGENCE on the part of the offender in doing
the act.
One without intelligence necessarily does not have the
capability to determine the morality of his acts.
3. Criminal INTENT on the part of the offender.
INTENT is the purpose to use a particular means to
effect a result. Generally, Intent is presumed from the
commission of an unlawful act.
24
 Criminal intent is presumed from the commission of
an unlawful act, but not from the proof of the
commission of an act which is not unlawful.

“Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea”.

The act itself does not make a man guilty unless
his intention were so.
“Actus me invito factus non est meus actus”.
An act done by me against my will is not my
act.

25
 Criminal Intent can be categorized into two:
General Criminal Intent:
This is presumed from the mere doing of a wrong act.
So this does not require proof, the burden is upon the
wrongdoer to prove that he acted without such criminal intent.

Specific Criminal Intent:

This is not presumed because it is an ingredient or
element of a crime, like intent to kill in the crimes of
attempted or frustrated homicide/parricide/murder or intent to
gain in Robbery or Theft. The prosecution has the onus
probandi.

26
 INTENT distinguished from MOTIVE:
intent motive
 Purpose to use a  Reason/ moving
particular means to bring power which impels
about a desired result one to action for a
(not a state of mind, not definite result
a reason for committing
a crime)
 If intentional, a crime  When there is motive
cannot be committed in the commission of a
without intent. Intent is crime, it always
sometimes manifested comes before intent.
by the instrument used But it is not an
by the offender. essential element of a
crime. 27
 Motive, when relevant:
1. When the identity of the accused is in dispute
2. For purposes of defense
3. In determining the sanity of the accused
4. In indirect assault (Art. 249)
5. When there are no eyewitnesses and suspicion is
likely to fall on a number of suspects
6. In defense of strangers (Art. 11, par. 3)
7. When the evidence is circumstantial.
8. When there are two antagonistic versions of the
killing.
When motive not necessary:
1. The identity is known/ positive identification.
2. Where the accused admits the crime. 28
 MISTAKE OF FACT:
Misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who caused
injury to another. He is not, however, criminally liable because
he did not act with criminal intent.
Ignorantia facti excusat.

Requisites of mistake of fact as a defense:

a. The act done would have been lawful had the facts
been as the accused believed them to be.
b. The intention of the accused in performing the act is
lawful.
c. The mistake was without fault or carelessness on
the part of the accused.

Case: People vs. Ah Chong, 15 Phil 488.

29
Contrasted with People vs. Oanis 74 Phil 257:
 MALA IN SE and MALA PROHIBITA, distinguished:

MALA IN SE:

 Criminal liability is based on the moral trait of the offender,

thus, liability would only arise when there is dolo or culpa
in the commission of the punishable act.
 Good faith or lack of criminal intent is a valid defense,
unless the crime is the result of culpa
 The degree of accomplishment of the crime is taken into
account in punishing the offender. Thus, there are
attempted, frustrated, and consummated stages in the
commission of a crime.
 When there is more than one offender, the degree of
participation of each in the commission of the crime is
taken into account in imposing the penalty. Thus offenders
30
are classified as principals, accomplice, and accessory.
MALA PROHIBITA:
 The moral trait of the offender is not considered. It is
enough that the prohibited act be voluntarily done.
 Good faith is not a defense.
 The act gives rise to a crime only when it is
consummated.
 Mitigating and aggravating circumstances are not
taken into account in imposing the penalty, because
the moral trait of the offender is not considered.
 The degree of participation of any offender is not
considered.
31
Requisites of Culpa:
 Criminal NEGLIGENCE on the part of the offender
— The crime was the result of negligence, reckless
imprudence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.
 FREEDOM of action in doing the act — He did not
act under duress.
 INTELLIGENCE on the part of the offender in
performing the negligent act.

32
 HOW CRIMINAL LIABILITY IS INCURRED

Article 4. Criminal liability is incurred:

a. any person committing a felony, although the wrongful
act be different from that intended;
b. by any person committing any 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 means.

33
 Three situations covered by Article 4, paragraph 1
How can a person commit a felony and the wrongful act
done is different from that which he intended?

ABERRATIO ICTUS (Mistake in the Blow):

The intended victim and the actual victim are both in the
scene of the crime. There is a faulty aim , that the intended
victim is not the person hit.
 PRAETER INTENTIONEM (The Blow went beyond the
intent):
The injury is on the victim but the resulting consequence is
so grave a wrong than what was intended.
ERROR IN PERSONAE (Mistake in the Identity of the
Victim):
There is a correct aim , but the actual victim turned out to be
a person different from the intended victim. 34
 DOCTRINE OF PROXIMATE CAUSE
That cause which, in natural and continuous
sequence, unbroken by any efficient supervening
cause, produces the injury and without which the
result would not have occurred.
A proximate cause is not necessarily the immediate
cause. This may be a cause which is far and remote
from the consequence which sets into motion other
causes which resulted in the felony.

35
EFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSE:
Is something absolutely foreign and totally unexpected
which intervened and which broke the relation of the
cause and effect, between the original felonious act and
the result.
There are some cases where the factor that intervened
between the criminal act and the resulting injury was
considered as an efficient intervening cause. So when
you are liable for a felony, you are liable up to a certain
point.

36
 The principle laid down by the Supreme Court
says: “He who is the cause of the cause is the cause
of the evil caused. The caused of death is actually the
caused of the evil caused”.

PROXIMATE CAUSE IMMEDIATE CAUSE EFFECT

IMMEDIATE CAUSE EFFECT

HEAD HITS VICTIM

PUNCH VICTIM
ROCK DIES


37
 When is death presumed to be the natural
consequence of the physical injuries that had been
inflicted:
1. The victim at the time the physical injuries were inflicted
was in good health
2. Death may be expected because of the physical injuries
3. Death ensued within a reasonable time
However, the injury is NOT the DIRECT, NATURAL and
LOGICAL consequence of the felony committed (or
proximate cause)
If the consequences produced have resulted from a
DISTINCT ACT or FACT ABSOLUTELY FOREIGN from
the criminal act.

38
Paragraph 2, Article 4:
IMPOSSIBLE CRIME, defined.
It is an act which would be an offense against person or
property were it not for the inherent impossibility of its
accomplishment or on account of the employment of
inadequate or ineffectual means.

Requisites of an IMPOSSIBLE CRIME:

1. The act performed would be an offense against persons
or property;
2. The act was done with evil intent;
3. Its accomplishment is inherently impossible, or that the
means employed is either inadequate or ineffectual;
4. The act performed should not constitute a violation 39of
another provision of the Revised Penal Code.
Nature of Impossibility:
The inherent impossibility contemplated under Article 4,
paragraph 2 is either legal, factual or physical
impossibility.
Legal Impossibility
There is legal impossibility if the intended acts, even if
completed, would not amount to a felony.
 Factual or Physical Impossibility
There is factual or physical impossibility where
extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor or
beyond his control prevent the consummation of the
intended felony.

40
Is an Impossible Crime really a crime?
No, an impossible crime is not really a crime. It is only
so-called an Impossible Crime because the act gives
rise to criminal liability. But, no felony committed.

Can a person be penalized for committing an

Impossible Crime?
Yes. The accused is to be punished for his criminal
tendency or propensity although no crime was
committed.

41
 Examples:
 If a person holds a cashier at a gun point not knowing that
the cash register is empty, he/she just committed an Impossi
ble Crime.
 If a person shoots someone without knowing that the gun w
as not loaded, he/she just committed an Impossible Crime.
 Four culprits armed with firearms and with the intent to kill
Palangpanan went to the house of the latter . After having pi
npointed his house, all four fired their guns and riddled the h
ouse with bullets. It so happened that Palangpanan was not
home that night.
***The accused intended to commit murder but there was an
inherent impossibility of committing murder because
Palangpanan was not at home. The court imposed penalty of
six (6) month imprisonment. (Intod vs. Court of Appeals, G.R
42

No. 103119, Oct. 21, 1992.

EXAMPLE:
Suppose Jake wants to kill Gretchen, and Jake plan to stab
her in her room in the middle of the night while she is
sleeping. So Jake went to her room, Jake saw her there
lying. Then Jake start stabbing her to death, but without
knowing that she is already dead because one to two hours
earlier she dies in her sleep.
Q: Are you liable for murder?
A: No, Murder is impossible because you cannot kill
somebody who is already dead. There is a physical
impossibility , you cannot kill a cadaver. But instead you will
be liable for an impossible crime because of the physical
impossibility of killing somebody who is dead.
43
EXAMPLE:
Dora wants to steal your mont blanc sign pen. That pen
is likely the same pen which Dora lost. Dora cannot buy
another one, so she steal yours. So Dora steal your
mont blanc sign pen , and upon looking, Dora realized
that it was hers. It was the mont blanc pen that she lost
almost three days ago.
Q: Did she commit the crime of theft?
A: No. There is legal impossibility. One of the elements
of theft is that the personal property taken by the
offender belongs to another . If it belongs to the
offender, it cannot be theft. It is impossible for the
offender to be at the same time the victim of his own act
. One cannot steal from himself.
44
Inadequate means
I placed a small quantity of poison in the food of James.
James took the food but he did not die because the
dosage placed was not sufficient to kill a person. I am
liable for committing an IMPOSIBLE CRIME.

Ineffectual means
I placed a poison in Nadine’s coffee believing it was
poison, but without realizing it, I placed a salt or sugar
by mistake . Nadine could not have been killed
because the poison that I placed there tuned out to be
sugar or salt. But because I believe that I could have
killed Nadine were it not for the ineffectual means, I am
45
liable for an impossible crime.
 How a felony develops?
 Mental Process/Internal Acts – Not punishable
 External /Physical Acts:
(a.)Preparatory Acts: General Rule- Not punishable
Exception- If the RPC
penalizes
(b.) Acts of execution:
 Attempted
 Frustrated
 Consummated

46
Preparatory External Acts or Preparation for
the commission of a Felony

This stage of execution are not punishable , except

when the law specifically provides for a penalty for such
preparatory acts.
EXAMPLE: Article 304, possession of picklocks and
similar tools. Picklocks and similar tools are usually
objects or gadgets which are owned by robbers. They
use it to open doors , windows, etc. It is considered to
be preparation of robbery.

47
 Acts of execution
After the preparatory acts comes the acts of execution
where A, now proceeds to implement his plan. A now
executes the commission of the act and there are 3
possibilities, which the RPC calls as the attempted,
frustrated and consummated stages of execution.

48
Article 5. Duty of the court in connection with acts which
should be repressed but which are not covered by law,
and cases of excessive penalties.
Whenever a court has knowledge of any act which it may
deem proper to repress and which is not punishable by
law, it shall render the proper decision, and shall report
to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice,
the reasons which induce the court to believe that said
act should be made the subject of penal legislation.
In the same way the court shall submit to the Chief
Executive, through the Department of Justice, such
statement or report as may be deemed proper, without
suspending the execution of the sentence, when a strict
enforcement of the provisions of this code would result in
the imposition of a clearly excessive penalty, taking into
consideration the degree of malice and the injury caused
by the offense.
49
 STAGES OF EXECUTION

Article 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies.

– Consummated, as well as those which are frustrated and
attempted are punishable.
A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary
for its execution and accomplishment are present;
and it is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts
of execution which would produce the felony as a
consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by
reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.
There is an attempted when the offender commences the
commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not
perform all the acts which should produce the felony by
reason of some cause or accident other than his own
spontaneous desistance. 50
 Stages in the development of a crime:
1. Internal Acts:
“Cogitationis poenam nemo meretur”. – No man deserves
a punishment for a thought.
2. External Acts: Included in external acts are:
a. Preparatory Acts:
These are ordinarily NOT punishable, except when the
law provides for their punishment in certain cases.
b. Acts of execution:
These are already punishable under the Revised Penal
Code.

51
I. ATTEMPTED STAGE: There is an attempt when
the offender commences the commission of a felony
directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts
of execution which should produce the felony by reason
of some cause or accident other than his own
spontaneous desistance.

OVERT ACTS: These refer to some physical activity or

deed, indicating the intention to commit a particular
crime, more than a mere planning or preparation, which
if carried to its complete termination following its natural
course, without being frustrated by external obstacles or
by voluntary desistance of the perpetrator, will logically
and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense.
52
To determine whether the crime is only attempted,
frustrated or consummated, we should consider:
A: THE NATURE OF THE CRIME
B. THE ELEMENTS CONSTITUTING THE FELONY
C: THE MANNER OF COMMITTING THE SAME
1. FORMAL CRIMES: These are consummated in
one instant.
2. Crimes consummated by mere attempt or proposal
by overt act
3. Felony by omission
4. Crimes requiring the intervention of two persons to
commit them are consummated by mere agreement,
5. MATERIAL CRIMES: These have three stages of
execution 53
INDETERMINATE OFFENSE: One where the purpose of
the offender in performing an act is NOT certain. Its
nature in relation to its objective is ambiguous.

Important phrases in the Attempted Stage of a

felony:
1. Directly by overt acts: The term comprehends the
fact that the offender MUST PERSONALLY EXECUTE
the felony.
2. Does not perform all the acts of execution
3. By reason of a CAUSE or ACCIDENT
4. Other than his own spontaneous desistance

54
 By reason of a CAUSE
Example:
Julia was trying to pick the pocket of Bea. Julia
was trying to lift the wallet inside the pocket of
the bag. Bea detected the action and held the
hands of Julia. So, Julia failed to take the wallet.
***There was the act of taking but Julia failed to
complete the possession of the wallet. The
reason here why , Julia failed to perform all the
acts of execution was because Bea prevented
her. That is the CAUSE OTHER THAN HIS/HER
OWN SPONTANEOUS DESISTANCE. 55
 By reason of ACCIDENT

Example:
Coco wants to kill Martin. Coco aims the gun. Coco
fired, but the gun jammed. It did not explode. So , with
that Coco failed to kill Martin.
*** When Coco pointed his gun at Martin, Coco already
commenced the act of trying to kill. The jamming, of the
gun was an accident which prevented the performance
of all the acts of execution. The crime was not
consummated, not because Coco stopped from
proceeding, but because of something else.

56
 OTHER THAN HIS OWN
SPONTANEOUS DESISTANCE
If Roberto commences the commission of a felony, but
did not complete it because of his own spontaneous
desistance, there is no criminal liability. He is not even
guilty of attempted felony on the theory that a person
who is already on the verge of committing crime but
desists or decides not to pursue because his
conscience bothers hi, such person should not be
penalized.

57
EXAMPLE:
Suppose Daniella would like to kill Romina. As a matter
of fact, she already commenced the commission of the
felony, and then realized that there are many
eyewitnesses. So she desisted . Can Daniella be
liable?

***The motive for not continuing is not important. What

is important is that she did not continue with the crime,
she desisted herself voluntarily. It don’t matter whether
her desistance was based on a noble reason , remorse
or out of fear of being caught. What is important is her
desistance. When she tries again, that will be another
story. But for such moment, she will not be held
criminally liable.
58
SUBJECTIVE PHASE: That portion of the acts constituting the
crime, starting from the point where the offender BEGINS the
commission of the crime to that point where he has still control
over his acts, including their natural course.

II. FRUSTRATED FELONY: The felony is frustrated

when the offender performs all the acts of execution that
would produce the felony as a consequence but the felony is
nevertheless not produced by reason of causes independent
of the will of the perpetrator.
Requisites of frustrated felony:
1. The offender performs all acts of execution
2. All 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 59the
perpetrator.
 IMPOSSIBLE CRIME
ATTEMPTED OR FRUSTRATED
The crime to be committed w The crime is possible of accomplis
as inherently impossible of th hment but it was produced becaus
e of a cause or an accident other t
e commission han the offender’s desistance, or b
It is one where the purpose of t ecause of independent of the will o
f the perpetrator.
he offender in performing an ac
t is not certain. Its nature in rela
tion to its objective is ambiguou
s. The intention of the accused
must be viewed from the nature
of the acts executed by him, an
d not from his admission.

60
61
Crimes which do not admit of
frustrated stage
Rape:
The essence of the crime is carnal knowledge.
 No matter what the offender may do to accomplish a
penetration, if there was no penetration yet, it cannot b
e said that the offender has performed all the acts of e
xecution.
We can only say that the offender in rape has perfor
med all the acts of execution when he has effected a p
enetration.
Once there is penetration, no matter how slight it is, t
he offense is consummated. 62
 People v. Orita (1990): For this reason, rape admits onl
y of the attempted and consummated stages, no frustrat
ed stage. (see the previously cited case of People v. Ca
mpuhan for the most recent doctrine on penetration).
Arson
 One cannot say that the offender, in the crime of arson,
has already performed all the acts of execution which co
uld produce the destruction of the premises through the
use of fire, unless a part of the premises has begun to b
urn.
 The crime of arson is therefore consummated even if onl
y a portion of the wall or any part of the house is burned.
The consummation of the crime of arson does not depen
d upon the extent of the damage caused. (People v. Her
nandez) 63
Bribery and Corruption of Public Officers
The manner of committing the crime requires the me
eting of the minds between the giver and the receiver.
If there is a meeting of the minds, there is consumm
ated bribery or consummated corruption.
If there is none, it is only attempted.
Adultery
This requires the sexual contact between two partici
pants.
If that link is present, the crime is consummated;

64
Physical Injuries
Under the Revised Penal Code, the crime of physical injuries i
s penalized on the basis of the gravity of the injuries.There is n
o simple crime of physical injuries. There is the need to categor
ize because there are specific articles that apply whether the p
hysical injuries are serious, less serious or slight.
Thus, one could not punish the attempted or frustrated stage
because one does not know what degree of physical injury was
committed unless it is consummated.
•Illustration: When Bert lost his left eye, Ernie‘s liability was aut
omatically for serious physical injuries. He would have no liabilit
y if the eye was intact. If the eye suffered damage due to the im
pact, the crime would not be frustrated nor attempted physical i
njuries because the RPC still considers this as a consummated
physical injury, its gravity depending on the duration that it took
for the damage to heal. 65
Theft
Once there is unlawful taking, theft is consummated.
Either the thing was taken or not.
Disposition of the stolen goods is not an element of theft und
er the RPC.

Factors in Determining the Stage of Execution of a

Felony:
a. The manner of committing the crime;
b. The elements of the crime; and
c. The nature of the crime itself.
66
EXAMPLE:
Brothers Jeonito and Marlon were walking when they
met a group composed of men who blocked their path and
attacked them with lead pipes and bladed weapons. One
stabbed Jeonito from behind. Jeonito‘s brother, Marlon, was hit
on the head. People v. Listerio (2000)

Held:
The SC held that the crime is a frustrated felony not an
attempted offense considering that after being stabbed and
clubbed twice in the head as a result of which he lost
consciousness and fell. Marlon's attackers apparently thought
he was already dead and fled. A crime cannot be held to be
attempted unless the offender, after beginning the commission
of the crime by overt acts, is prevented, against his will, by
some outside cause from performing all of the acts which 67
should produce the crime.
In other words, to be an attempted crime, the purpose
of the offender must be thwarted by a foreign force or
agency which intervenes and compels him to stop
prior to the moment when he has performed all of the
acts which should produce the crime as a
consequence, which acts it is his intention to perform.
If he has performed all the acts which should result in
the consummation of the crime and voluntarily
desists from proceeding further, it cannot be an
attempt.

68
III. CONSUMMATED FELONY: When all the elements
necessary for its execution and accomplishment are
present.

EXAMPLE: With intent to kill, A shot B and died. That is

consummated homicide or murder.
When not all the elements are proved, the consequences are:
1. The felony is NOT consummated.
2. The felony is not committed.
3. Another felony is committed.
69
Article 7. When light felonies are punishable. – Light
felonies are punishable only when they have been
consummated, with the exception of those committed
against persons or property.
The provisions of Article 7 of the Revised Penal Code
must be discussed and interrelated with the following
other provisions of the Revised Penal Code, viz:
Article 9 – On the Classification of Felonies
according to Gravity
Article 16 – On Persons who are criminally liable
for felonies
Article 25 – On Classification of Penalties
Article 26 – On Classification of Fines
Article 27 – On Duration of Penalties
Article 71 – The Scale for Graduating Penalties
by Degrees 70
General Rule: Light felonies are only punishable
when they are consummated.
a. Attempted light felonies are not punishable
b. Frustrated light felonies are not punishable
EXCEPTION: If the light felony is committed against
person or property, it is punishable even when
merely attempted or frustrated or consummated.

A light felony is merely a minor infraction of the law.

As a matter of fact, even if a light felony is
consummated, the penalty is only arresto menor or
a fine not exceeding P200. Damage or injury to
society or to the public order is very negligible. 71
Art. 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit
felony. — Conspiracy and proposal to commit
felony are punishable only in the cases in which
the law specially provides a penalty therefor.
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons
come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit.
There is proposal when the person who has
decided to commit a felony proposes it’s
execution to some other person or persons.

72
GENERAL RULE: Conspiracy and proposal to commit a
felony are not punishable.

(4) Coup d’état, (Art. 136)

EXCEPTION: They are pu (5) Sedition (Art. 141)
nishable only in the cases in (6) Monopolies and combinations i
which the law specially provi n restraint of trade, espionage (Art.
186)
des a penalty therefore.
(7) Illegal association (Art. 147)
Conspiracy to commit
(8) Highway Robbery (P.D. 532)
(1) Treason (Art. 115) (9) Espionage (Sec. 3, C.A. 616)
(2) Rebellion (Art. 136) (10) Selected acts under the Dang
erous Drugs Acts
(3) Insurrection (Art. 136)
(11) Arson
(12) Terrorism (R.A. 9372)
73
 Proposal to commit
(1) Treason (Art. 115)
(2) Coup d’ etat (Art. 136)
(3) Rebellion (Art. 136)
(4) Inducement not to answer summons, appear or be
sworn in Congress, etc. (Art. 150)

Rationale: Conspiracy and proposal to commit a crim

e are only preparatory acts and the law regards them as
innocent or at least permissible except in rare and exce
ptional cases.

74
Conspiracy – exists when two or more persons come
to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony
and decide to commit it.

Requisites of Conspiracy:
(1.)Two or more persons come to an agreement.
Agreement presupposes meeting of the minds of two
or more persons
(2) The agreement pertains to a commission of a
felony.
Agreement to effect what has been conceived and det
ermined.
(3) The execution of the felony was decided upon. 75
Conspiracy as a felony, distinguished from
conspiracy as a manner of incurring criminal
liability:
As a felony, conspirators do not need to actually com
mit treason, rebellion, insurrection, etc., it being sufficie
nt that two or more persons agree and decide to commi
t it.
As a manner of incurring criminal liability, if they com
mit treason, rebellion, etc., they will be held liable for it,
and the conspiracy which they had before committing t
he crime is only a manner of incurring criminal liability,
not a separate offense.
In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. 76
GENERAL RULE: When the conspiracy is established, all
who participated therein, irrespective of the quantity or
quality of his participation is liable equally, whether
conspiracy is pre-planned or instantaneous.

EXCEPTION: Unless one or some of the conspirators

committed some other crime which is not part of the
conspiracy.

EXCEPTION TO THE EXCEPTION: When the act constitutes

a ―single indivisible offense.

77
Proposal to commit a felony - when the person who has
decided to commit a felony proposes its execution to some
other person or persons. (Art. 8, RPC)
Examples: Proposal to commit treason (Art. 115) and
proposal to commit coup d‘état, rebellion or insurrection
(Art. 136).
Requisites of Proposal to commit a Felony:
(1) That a person has decided to commit a felony; and
(2) That he proposes its execution to some other person or
persons.
There is no criminal proposal when:
(1) The person who proposes is not determined to commit
the felony;
(2) There is no decided, concrete and formal proposal; 78

(3) It is not the execution of a felony that is proposed.

Example:
People v. Comadre (2004):
To establish conspiracy, evidence of actual cooperation
rather than mere cognizance or approval of an illegal
act is required. Conspiracy is never presumed; it must
be shown to exist as clearly and convincingly as the
commission of the crime itself. Mere presence of a
person at the scene of the crime does not make him a
conspirator for conspiracy transcends companionship.

79
80
Article 9. Grave felonies, less grave
felonies, and light felonies.
Grave felonies are those to which the law attaches the
capital punishment or penalties which in any of their
periods are afflictive, in accordance with article 25 of
this Code.
Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes
with penalties which in their maximum period are
correctional, in accordance with the above-mentioned
article.
Light felonies are those infractions of law for the
commission of which the penalty of arresto menor or a
fine not exceeding 200 pesos or both, is provided.
81
Grave Felony – one that is punishable by death or any
penalty which the Penal Code classified as an afflictive.

AFFLICTIVE FELONIES ( Art.25)

1.Reclusion Perpetua
2. Reclusion Temporal
3. Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification
4. Perpetual or temporary special disqualification
5. Prision Mayor
Less Grave Felony – One, which in its maximum period
is punishable by a penalty classified as correctional.
Light Felony – Infractions or violations of the RPC where
the prescribed penalty is imprisonment of arresto menor, or a
fine not exceeding P200 or both. 82
ARTICLE 10: Offenses not subject to the provision
of this Code. Offenses which are or in the future
may be punishable under special laws are not
subject to the provisions of this Code. This Code
shall be supplementary to such laws unless the
latter should specifically provides the contrary.
Sources of Criminal Law:

RPC
Special Penal Laws
- A law which punishes acts or omissions
NOT defined and penalized under the RPC.
- Special law is a statute enacted by the
Legislative branch, penal in character, which is not an
amendment of the Revised Penal Code.
Example: Violation of the Dangerous Drugs83
Act.
84
Imputability – is the quality by which an act may be
ascribed to a person as it author or owner. It implies that the
act committed has been freely and consciously done and
may, therefore, be put down to the doer as his very own.
Responsibility – is the obligation of suffering the
consequences of crime. It is the obligation of taking the
penal and civil consequences of the crime.
Imputability distinguished from responsibility – while
imputability implies that a deed may be imputed to a person,
responsibility implies that the person must take the
consequences of such a deed. Guilt – is an element of
responsibility, for a man cannot be made to answer for the
consequences of a crime unless he is guilty. (Reyes,
Revised Penal Code).
85
 Circumstances Affecting Criminal Liability
1. Justifying – those where the act of a person is said
to be in accordance with law, so that such person is
deemed not to have transgressed the law and is fre
e from both criminal and civil liability, except in para
graph 4 (state of necessity/emergency rule) where t
he civil liability is borne by the person benefited by t
he act.
2. Exempting (Non-imputability) – are those grounds
for exemptions from punishment because there is w
anting in the agent of the crime any of the condition
s which make the act voluntary, or negligent, such a
s intelligence, freedom of action, intent or negligenc
e.
86
3 . Mitigating – those which, if present in the
commission of a crime do not entirely free the actor
from criminal liability, but serve only to reduce the
penalty.
4. Aggravating - those which, if attendant in the
commission of the crime, serve to increase the penalty
without however, exceeding the maximum penalty
provided by law for the offense.
5. Alternative – those which must be taken into
consideration as aggravating or mitigating according to
the nature and effects of the crime and file other
conditions attending the commission.

87
Art. 11. Justifying circumstances. — The following do not
incur any criminal liability:
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights,
provided that the following circumstances concur:
First. Unlawful aggression;
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it;
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
person defending himself.
2. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his
spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural or
adopted brothers or sisters, or his relatives by affinity in the
same degrees and those by consanguinity within the fourth
civil degree, provided that the first and second requisites
prescribed in the next preceding circumstance are present,
and the further requisite, in case the provocation was given
88
by the person attacked, that the one making defense had no
part therein.
4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury,
does not act which causes damage to another, provided
that the following requisites are present:
First. That the evil sought to be avoidedactually exists;
Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done
to avoid it;
Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful
means of preventing it.
5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in
the lawful exercise of a right or office.
6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued
by a superior for some lawful purpose.
89
SIX TYPES of justifying circumstances:
1. Self defense
2. Defense of relatives
3. Defense of strangers
4. Avoidance of a greater evil
5. Fulfillment of duty
6. Obedience to an order issued for some lawful
purpose

90
1.Self Defense
Includes not only the defense of the person or body of the
one assaulted but also that of his rights, the enjoyment of
which is protected by law. It includes:

a. The right to honor. Hence, a slap on the face is

considered as unlawful aggression since the face
represents a person and his dignity. (Rugas vs, People)

b. The defense of property rights can be invoked if there is

an attack upon the property although it is not coupled with
an attack upon the person of the owner of the premises. All
the elements for justification must however be present.
(People v. Narvaez)
91
Lawful Aggression: Aggression by a public officer who
is acting in the fulfillment of a duty to effect an arrest.

Example: Suppose, Carlo is a thief running with his stolen

items. The police went after him. Carlo hits back at the
policeman . Now, the police sues him for direct assault.
Carlo invokes self-defense. Carlo’s defense is that the police
was the aggressor. If the police did not try to arrest him, he
would not hurt the police.

There is aggression, but it is LAWFUL aggression. That is

the duty of the policeman, so his aggression is lawful in
nature.
92
1st. Elements:

a. Unlawful aggression
(1) Equivalent to an actual physical assault; OR
threatened assault of an immediate and imminent kind
which is offensive and positively strong, showing the
wrongful intent to cause harm.

(2) The aggression must constitute a violation of the

law. When the aggression ceased to exist, there is no
longer a necessity to defend one‘s self. EXCEPT: when
the aggressor retreats to obtain a more advantageous
position to ensure the success of the initial attack,
unlawful aggression is deemed to continue.

93
3) Must come from the person attacked by the accused.

(4) Unlawful aggression must also be a continuing

circumstance or must have been existing at the time the
defense is made. Once the unlawful aggression is found
to have ceased, the one making the defense of a
stranger would likewise cease to have any justification
for killing, or even just wounding, the former
aggressor.[People vs. Dijan (2002)

Note: No unlawful aggression when there was an

agreement to fight and the challenge to fight was
accepted. BUT aggression which is ahead of an agreed
time or place is unlawful aggression. 94
 Example: Unlawful Aggression

If you are walking on the street peacefully and here comes

Cardo with a knife, Cardo tries to stab you with it. That is
UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION, unless Cardo can point to a
law which authorizes him to approach anybody and stab
him.

95
Aggression can either be:
1. actual
2. immenent

Actual/real aggression - Real aggression

presupposes an act positively strong, showing the
wrongful intent of the aggressor, which is not merely
threatening or intimidating attitude, but a material
attack. There must be real danger to life a personal
safety.

Imminent unlawful aggression - it is an attack that is

impending or on the point of happening. It must not
consist in a mere threatening attitude, nor must it be
merely imaginary. The intimidating attitude must be
offensive and positively strong. 96
Example: A started to insult B, uttering derogatory
remarks against B. B hit back and injured A. For the
injury sustained by A, B pleads self-defense.

Question: Can B invoke self-defense?

Answer: No, because the aggression attributed to A is

verbal. What the law contemplates is physical attack.
Insulting words, no matter how slanderous cannot
cause death or physical injuries.

97
Burden of Proof : The circumstances mentioned in
Article 11 are matters of defense and it is incumbent
upon the accused, in order to avoid criminal liability, to
prove the justifying circumstance claimed by him to the
satisfaction of the court.
Self- Defense : When the accused invoked self-
defense , it is incumbent upon him to prove by clear
and convincing evidence that he indeed acted in
defense of himself. He must rely on the strength of his
own evidence and not on the weakness of the
prosecution.
It must be proved with certainty by sufficient ,
satisfactory and convincing evidence that excludes any
vestige of criminal aggression on part of person
invoking it. 98
2nd. Element: Reasonable necessity of means employed
to prevent or repel it.

Test of reasonableness The means employed

depends upon:
(1) nature and quality of the weapon used by the
aggressor

(2) aggressor‘s physical condition, character, size, and

other circumstances

(3) and those of the person defending himself

(4) the place and occasion of the assault.

99
 REASONABLE OF THE COURSE OF ACTION:
Example: Mimiyuuuh was walking in a very dark street
which is a very dangerous area, and all of a sudden
Roberto, in the dark held Mimiyuuuh tightly at the back
, and Mimiyuuuh responded by hitting Roberto, could
you say that the reaction of Mimiyuuuh is reasonable?

100
 Reasonable means refer two things:
1. The course of action taken is reasonable
2. The weapon used to defend is also reasonable.

SIZE : If A attacks you with a knife, and you defend also

with a knife , you cannot say that the means is
reasonable because he is larger, and yours is shorter.

POWER: The law says the means is reasonable if a

gun is used to defend yourself from somebody who
attacks you with a knife. It is unreasonable because a
gun is more powerful against a knife. No, all things
being equal , a knife can also kill especially if the
assailants succeed. 101
 3rd. Element : Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of
the person defending himself.

If you are a victim of unlawful aggression, even if you defend

yourself reasonably, still you cannot claim self-defense if you were
the cause of the aggression , because you gave sufficient
provocation. You are also at fault. You are partly to blame for the
other party’s reaction. So if I provoked you, and because of the
provocation you attack me and I have to defend myself with
reasonable means, I cannot claim self-defense because I am also
at fault.

102
c. Lack of sufficient provocation on part of defender

(1) In case there was a provocation on the part of the

person attacked, the attack should not immediately
precede the provocation for defense to be valid.
(2) Never confuse unlawful aggression with provocation.
(3) Mere provocation is not enough. It must be real and
imminent. Unlawful aggression is an indispensable
requisite.
(4) If there is unlawful aggression but one of the other
requisites is lacking, it is considered an incomplete self-
defense which mitigates liability.
(5) Self-defense includes the defense of one‘s rights, that
is, those rights the enjoyment of which is protected by
law.
(6) Retaliation is different from an act of self-defense.
103
 Principles in the 3rd. Element of
Self-Defense:
1. There was no provocation at all on the part of the
person defending himself.

2. The person defending himself might have given

some provocation but it is not sufficient . In this case,
the law allows him to plead self-defense because even
if, he gave provocation, it is not commensurate with the
reaction on the attacker.

104
Requisites of Self- Defense:

1. Unlawful aggression
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it.
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
person defending himself.

Battered Woman Syndrome as a DEFENSE:

Victim survivors who are found by the courts to be

suffering from battered women syndrome do not incur
criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the absence
of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of
105
self-defense under the Revised Penal Code.
Who can avail of the Battered
Woman Syndrome as a DEFENSE?

1. Wife
2. Former Wife
3. Against a woman with whom the person has or had a
sexual relationship or dating relationship.
“Dating relationship” exist even without sexual intercourse
taking place between the two involved.
4. With whom he has a common child or against her child
whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without family
abode.

106
 Who is Battered Woman Syndrome?
She is a woman who is repeatedly subjected to any force
ful physical or psychological behavior by a man in order t
o coerce her to do something he wants her to do without
concern for her rights.
In order to be classified a BATTERED WOMAN, the cou
ple must go through the battering cycle at least twice. An
y woman may find herself in an abusive relationship with
a man once. If it occurs a second time , and she remains
in the situation , she is defined as a battered woman.
“Battered Woman Syndrome” refers to a scientifically def
ined pattern of psychological and behavioral symptoms f
ound in women living in battering relationships as a result
of cumulative abuse. 107
Rights included in self-defense:
1. Defense of person
2. Defense of rights protected by law
3. Defense of property:
The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has a right to
exclude any person from the enjoyment or disposal
thereof. For this purpose, he may use such force as may
be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or
threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his
property. (Art. 429, New Civil Code)
4. Defense of chastity

108
2. DEFENSE OF RELATIVE
Elements:
1. unlawful aggression
2. reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel the attack;
3. in case provocation was given by the person
attacked, that the person making the defense
had no part in such provocation.

109
Relatives entitled to the defense:
1. spouse
2. ascendants
3. descendants
4. legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or
sisters
5. relatives by affinity in the same degree
(2nd degree)
6. relatives by consanguinity within the 4th
civil degree.

110
3. DEFENSE OF STRANGER
Elements:

1. unlawful aggression
2. reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel the attack;
3. the person defending be not induced by revenge,
resentment or other evil motive.

Stranger – he is a person who is not among the relatives in

paragraph 2 of Article 11 (RPC)

Noble Principle behind Defense of Stranger:

Humanitarian reasons. What you can do for yourself, the
law allows you to do it for others. My fellowman, my keeper.
111
4. STATE NECESSITY

Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury,

does an act which causes damage to another,
provided that the following requisites are present:

First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually

exists;

Second. That the injury feared be greater than that

done to avoid it;

Third. That there be no other practical and less

harmful means of
preventing it.
112
5. FULFILLMENT OF DUTY OR
LAWFUL EXERCISE OF A RIGHT OR
OFFICE

Elements:
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 offense committed be
the necessary consequence of the due
performance of the duty, or the lawful exercise of
such right or office.

113
6. OBEDIENCE TO A SUPERIOR
ORDER
Elements:
1. There is an order that has been issued by a
superior;
2. The order is for a legal purpose or some lawful
purposes;
3. That the means used by the subordinate to carry
out said order is lawful.

The person giving the order must act within the

limitations prescribed by law. The subordinate taking
the order must likewise act within the bounds of law.
(People vs.Oanis) 114
 EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
are those grounds for exemptions from punishment
because there is wanting in the agent of the crime any
of the conditions which make the act voluntary, or
negligent, such as intelligence, freedom of action, intent
or negligence.

115
Art. 12. CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH EXEMPT FROM
CRIMINAL LIABILITY:

1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter

has acted during a lucid interval. When the imbecile
or an insane person has committed an act which the
law defines as a felony (delito), the court shall order
his confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums
established for persons thus afflicted, which he shall
not be permitted to leave without first obtaining the
permission of the same court.

2. A person under nine years of age.

116
3. A person over nine years of age and under fifteen,
unless he has acted with discernment, in which case,
such minor shall be proceeded against in accordance
with the provisions of Article 80 of this Code. When
such minor is adjudged to be criminally irresponsible,
the court, in conformably with the provisions of this
and the preceding paragraph, shall commit him to the
care and custody of his family who shall be charged
with his surveillance and education otherwise, he shall
be committed to the care of some institution or person
mentioned in said Article 80.

4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with

due care, causes an injury by mere accident without
fault or intention of causing it.
117
5. Any person who act under the compulsion
of irresistible force.
6. Any person who acts under the impulse of
an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater
injury.
7. Any person who fails to perform an act
required by law, when prevented by some
lawful insuperable cause.

118
 Justifying vs. Exempting
In justifying circumstances –
(1) The circumstance affects the act
, not the actor;
(2) The act complained of is conside
red to have been done within the bo
unds of law; hence, it is
legitimate and lawful in the eyes of t
he law;
(3) Since the act is considered lawf
ul, there is no crime, and because t
here is no crime, there is no
criminal;
(4) Since there is no crime or crimin
al, there is no criminal liability as we
ll as civil liability.
In exempting circumstances –
(1) The circumstances affect the actor, not
the act;
(2) The act complained of is actually wrong
ful, but the actor acted without voluntarines
s. He is a mere
tool or instrument of the crime;
(3) Since the act complained of is actually
wrongful, there is a crime. But because the
actor acted without voluntariness, there is
absence of dolo or culpa. There is no crimi
nal;
(4) Since there is a crime committed but th
ere is no criminal, there is civil liability for th
e wrong done. But there is no criminal liabil
ity. However, in paragraphs 4 and 7 of Artic
le 12, there is neither criminal nor civil liabil
119
ity.
1. AN IMBECILE OR INSANE PERSON,
unless the latter has acted during a lucid
interval.
When the imbecile or an insane person has committed
an act which the law defines as a felony (delito), the
court shall order his confinement on one of the hospital
or asylums established for persons thus afflicted. He
shall not be permitted to leave without first obtaining
the permission of the same court.
Requisites:
a. Offender is an imbecile
b. Offender was insane at the time of the commission of
the crime 120
Imbecility
It is the condition of the mind where the offender
might be advance in age, but the mental development
is comparable to that of a child between two (2) and
seven (7) years old.

Insanity
The inability to distinguish what is right from what is
wrong. There are types of insanity where there is
some period of time when he is normal. And if the
person committed a crime, when he is normal, then
he is liable.
One who acts with complete deprivation of
intelligence/reason or without the least discernment
or with total deprivation of freedom of the will.
121
The two tests for exemption on grounds of
insanity:
(1) The test of cognition, or whether the accused acted
with complete deprivation of intelligence in
committing said crime; and
(2) The test of volition, or whether the accused acted in
total deprivation of freedom of will.
Presumption is always in favor of sanity.
The defense has the burden to prove that the accused
was insane at the time of the commission of the crime.
For the ascertainment such mental condition of the
accused, it is permissible to receive evidence of the
condition of his mind during a reasonable period both
before and after that time. Circumstantial evidence
122
which is clear and convincing will suffice.
Insanity at the time of the commission of the crime and
not that at the time of the trial will exempt one from
criminal liability.
In case of insanity at the time of the trial, there will be a suspension of
the trial until the mental capacity of the accused is restored to afford
him a fair trial.

Evidence of insanity must refer to the time preceding

the act under prosecution or to the very moment of its
execution.
Without such evidence, the accused is presumed to be sane when he
committed the crime. Continuance of insanity which is occasional or
intermittent in nature will not be presumed. Insanity at another time
must be proved to exist at the time of the commission of the crime. A
person is also presumed to have committed a crime in one of the lucid
intervals. Continuance of insanity will only be presumed in cases
wherein the accused has been adjudged insane or has been
committed to a hospital or an asylum for the insane.
123
Instances of Insanity:
a. Dementia praecox (Schizoprenia) is covered by the
term insanity because homicidal attack is common in such
form of psychosis. It is characterized by delusions that he is
being interfered with sexually, or that his property is being
taken, thus the person has no control over his acts.
b. Kleptomania or presence of abnormal, persistent impulse
or tendency to steal, to be considered exempting, will still
have to be investigated by competent psychiatrist to
determine if the unlawful act is due to the irresistible impulse
produced by his mental defect, thus loss of will-power. If
such mental defect only diminishes the exercise of his
willpower and did not deprive him of the consciousness of
his acts, it is only mitigating.
124
c. Epilepsy which is a chronic nervous disease
characterized by convulsive motions of the
muscles and loss of consciousness may be covered by
the term insanity. However, it
must be shown that commission of the offense is during
one of those epileptic attacks.
Feeblemindedness is not imbecility because the
offender can distinguish right from
wrong. An imbecile and an insane to be exempted must
not be able to distinguish right from
wrong.

125
EFFECTS OF THE INSANITY OF
THE ACCUSED
1. At the time of the commission of the crime – EXE
MPT
2. During trial - proceedings suspended, accused co
mmitted to a hospital
3. After judgement or while serving the sentence – e
xecution of judgement is suspended, the accused
is committed to a hospital. The period of confinem
ent in the hospital is counted for the purpose of th
e prescription of the penalty.

126
2. A PERSON UNDER NINE YEARS OF AGE.
MINORITY
a. Requisite: Offender is under 9 years of age at the time
of the commission of the crime. There is absolute criminal
irresponsibility in the case of a minor under 9-years of age.
b. Basis: complete absence of intelligence.

127
 3. A PERSON OVER NINE YEARS OF
AGE AND UNDER FIFTEEN, UNLESS
HE HAS ACTED WITH DISCERNMENT,
in which case, such minor shall be
proceeded against in accordance with
the provisions of article 80 of this
Code.
When such minor is adjudged to be criminally
irresponsible, the court, in conformity with the
provisions of this and the preceding paragraph, shall
commit him to the care and custody of his family who
shall be charged with his surveillance and education;
otherwise, he shall be committed to the care of some
institution or person mentioned in said article 80.
128
Discernment means the mental capacity of a minor
between 9 and 15 years of age to fully appreciate the
consequences of his unlawful act and the mental capacity
to understand the difference between right and wrong.
Such is shown by:
(1)manner the crime was committed (i.e. commission of t
he crime during nighttime to avoid detection; taking the loo
t to another town to avoid discovery), or
(2) the conduct of the offender after its commission (i.e. e
lation of satisfaction upon the commission of his criminal a
ct as shown by the accused cursing at the victim).

129
How does the minority of the offender affect his
criminal liability?
(1)If the offender is within the bracket of nine years old
exactly or less, he is exempt from criminal liability but not fr
om civil liability. This type of offenders are absolutely exempt.
Even if the offender nine years or below acted with discernm
ent, this should not be taken against him because in this age
bracket, the exemption is absolute.
(2)If over nine but below 15, a distinction has to be made
whether the offender acted with or without
discernment. The burden is upon the prosecution to prove th
at the offender acted with discernment. It is not for the minor
to prove that he acted without discernment. All that the minor
has to show is that he is within the age bracket.
130
4. Any person who, while performing a
lawful act with due care, causes aninjury
by mere accident without fault or intention
of causing it.
ACCIDENT (DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA): Basis: lack
of negligence and intent.
Elements:
1.A person is performing a lawful act
2.Exercise of due care
3.Causes injury to another by mere accident
4.Without fault or intention of causing it 131
Discharge of a firearm in a thickly populated place in
the City of Manila being prohibited by Art. 155 of the
RPC is not a performance of a lawful act when such led
to the accidental hitting and wounding of 2 persons.
Drawing a weapon/gun in the course of self-defense
even if such fired and seriously injured the assailant is
a lawful act and can be considered as done with due
care since it could not have been done in any other
manner.

132
5. Any person who acts under the
compulsion of an irresistible force.

Basis: complete absence of freedom, an element of

voluntariness
Elements:
a. That the compulsion is by means of physical
force
b. That the physical force must be irresistible.
c. That the physical force must come from a third
person

133
6. Any person who acts under the impulse of
an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater
injury.
Basis: complete absence of freedom
Elements:
a. 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
b. that it promises an evil of such gravity and
imminence that the ordinary man would
have succumbed to it.
Duress, to be a valid defense, should be based on real,
imminent or reasonable fear for one’s life or limb. It should
134
not be inspired by speculative, fanciful or remote fear.
 IRRESISTABLE FORCE VS.
UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR
IRRESISTABLE FORCE
The offender was compelled
to commit a crime through t
he use of physical force, like
torture. He was tortured unt
il he had no more choice bu
t to commit the crime.
UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR
The manner by which he wa
s compelled to commit a cri
me was not through force,
but through threat or intimi
dation
135
7. Any person who fails to perform an
act required by law, when prevented by
some lawful or insuperable cause.
Basis: acts without intent, the third condition of
voluntariness in intentional felony.
Elements:
a. That an act is required by law to be done
b. That a person fails to perform such act
c. That his failure to perform such act was due to
some lawful or insuperable cause

136
Distinction between justifying and
exempting circumstance:
a. Exempting – there is a crime but there is no
criminal. Act is not justified but the actor is not
criminally liable. There is civil liability. There is a crime
but there is no criminal, the actor is exempted from liability
of his act.
Exception: Par 4 (causing an injury by mere accident)
and Par 7 (lawful cause).
b. Justifying – person does not transgress the law,
does not commit any crime because there is nothing
unlawful in the act as well as the intention of the actor.
There is no crime, the act is justified
137
INSTIGATION
•Instigator practically induces the would-be accused into the
commission of the offense and himself becomes co-principal.
•Accused will be acquitted.
•An absolutory cause
ENTRAPMENT
•The ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trap
ping and capturing the lawbreaker in the execution of his cri
minal plan.
•NOT a bar to accused’s prosecution and conviction.
•NOT an absolutory cause
138
 Mitigating Circumstances
Those which, if present in the commission of a crime do
not entirely free the actor from criminal liability, but
serve only to reduce the penalty. Those circumstance
which reduce the penalty of a crime
Effect – Reduces the penalty of the crime but does
not erase criminal liability nor change the nature of the
crime
Basis – The basis is either diminution of either freedom
of action , intelligence or intent or on the lesser
perversity of the offender. They reduce the penalty but
do not change the nature of the crime.

139
KINDS OF MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCES

140
Article 13. Mitigating circumstances. --
1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter,
when all the requisites necessary to justify the
act or to exempt from criminal liability in the
respective cases are not attendant.

Justifying circumstances
a. Self-defense/defense of relative/defense of
stranger – unlawful aggression must be present for Art
13 to be applicable. Other 2 elements not necessary. If
2 requisites are present – considered a privileged
mitigating circumstance.

141
If the question specifically refers to incomplete self-
defense, defense of relative or defense of stranger, you
have to qualify your answer.
1. To have incomplete self-defense, the offended party must
be guilty of unlawful aggression. Without this, there can be
no incomplete self-defense, defense of relative, or defense
of stranger.
2. If only the element of unlawful aggression is present, the
other requisites being absent, the offender shall be given
only the benefit of an ordinary mitigating circumstance.
3. If aside from the element of unlawful aggression another
requisite, but not all, are present, the offender shall be given
the benefit of a privileged mitigating circumstance. In such a
case, the imposable penalty shall be reduced by one or two
degrees depending upon how the court regards the
142
importance of the requisites present. Or absent.
b.State of Necessity (par 4) Avoidance of greater evil or
injury; if any of the last 2 requisites is absent, there’s only
an ordinary Mitigating Circumstance.
Example: While driving his car, Juan sees Pedro carelessly
crossing the street. Juan swerves to avoid him, thus hitting
a motorbike with 2 passengers, killing them instantly.
Not all requisites to justify act were present because harm
done to avoid injury is greater. Considered as mitigating.
c. Performance of Duty (par 5) Fulfillment of Duty
Example: Juan is supposed to arrest Pedro. He thus goes
to Pedro’s hideout. Juan sees a man asleep. Thinking it was
Pedro, Juan shot him. Juan may have acted in the
performance of his duty but the crime was not a necessary
consequence thereof. Considered as mitigating. 143
Exempting Circumstance
a. Minority over 9 and under 15 – if minor acted with
discernment, considered Privilege mitigating.
Example: 13 year old stole goods at nighttime. Acted
with discernment as shown by the manner in which the
act was committed.
b. Causing injury by mere accident – if 2nd requisite
(due care) and 1st part of 4th requisite (without fault –
thus negligence only) are ABSENT, considered as
mitigating because the penalty is lower than that
provided for intentional felony.
Example: Police officer tries to stop a fight between
Juan and Pedro by firing his gun in the air. Bullet
ricocheted and killed Petra. Officer willfully discharged
his gun but was unmindful of the fact that area was 144
populated.
c. Uncontrollable fear – only one requisite present,
considered mitigating
Example: Under threat that their farm will be burned,
Pedro and Juan took turns guarding it at night. Pedro
fired in the air when a person in the shadows refused to
reveal his identity. Juan was awakened and shot the
unidentified person. Turned out to be a neighbor
looking for is pet. Juan may have acted under the
influence of fear but such fear was not entirely
uncontrollable. Considered mitigating.

145
 2. That the offender is under eighteen year
of age or over seventy years. In the case of
the minor, he shall be proceeded against in
accordance with the provisions of Art. 80.

Applicable to:
a. Offender over 9, under 15 who acted with discernment
b. Offender over 15, under 18
c. Offender over 70 years
Age of accused which should be determined as his age at
the date of commission of crime, not date of trial.

146
VARIOUS AGES AND THEIR LEGAL
EFFECTS
a. under 9 – exempting circumstance
b. over 9, below 15 – exempting; except if acted with
discernment
c. minor delinquent under 18 – sentence may be
suspended (PD 603)
d. under 18 – privileged mitigating circumstance
e. 18 and above – full criminal responsibility
f. 70 and above – mitigating circumstance; no
imposition of death penalty; execution
of death sentence if already imposed is suspended and
147
commuted.
 3. That the offender had no intention
to commit so grave a wrong as that
committed (Praeter Intentionem)

Can be used only when the facts prove to show that there
is a notable and evident disproportion between means
employed to execute the criminal act and its
consequences.
Intent is an indispensable element of the crime. When the
intent is less than the actual act committed, reason and
fair play dictate that a mitigated responsibility be imposed
upon the offender.
148
4. That the 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. The basis is diminution of intelligence and intent.
Requisites: Provocation must be sufficient.
1. Sufficient – adequate enough to excite a person to
commit the wrong and must accordingly be proportionate to
its gravity.
2. Sufficiency depends on:
•the act constituting the provocation
•he social standing of the person provoked
• time and place provocation took place 149
 3.When it was the defendant who sought the deceased,
the challenge to fight by the deceased is NOT sufficient
provocation.

b. It must originate from the offended party

c. Provocation must be immediate to the act., i.e., to the
commission of the crime by the person who is provoked.

150
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 brother or
sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same
degree.
This has reference to the honor of a person. It concerns
the good names and reputation of the individual. (Pp
vs. Anpar, 37 Phil. 201)

151
1. There’s a grave offense done to the one committing the
felony etc.
2. That the felony is committed in vindication of such
grave offense.
PROVOCATION:
•There’s a grave offense done to the one committing the f
elony etc.. That cause that brought about the provocation
need not be a grave offense.
•Necessary that provocation or threat immediately preced
ed the act. No time interval.
VINDICATION:
•Grave offense may be also against the offender’s relativ
es mentioned by law.
•Offended party must have done a grave offense to the of 152
fender or his relatives. May be proximate. Time interval all
6. That of having acted upon an
impulse so powerful as naturally to
have produced PASSION OR
OBFUSCATION
Passion and obfuscation refer to emotional feeling
which produces excitement so powerful as to overcome
reason and self-control. It must come from prior unjust
or improper acts. The passion and obfuscation must
emanate from legitimate sentiments.

153
Passion and obfuscation is mitigating: when there are
causes naturally producing in a person powerful
excitement, he loses his reason and self-control.
Thereby dismissing the exercise of his will power.

PASSION AND OBFUSCATION are Mitigating

Circumstances only when the same arise from lawful
sentiments (not Mitigating Circumstance when done in
the spirit of revenge or lawlessness)

154
Requisites for Passion & Obfuscation
a. The offender acted on impulse powerful
enough to produce passion or obfuscation
b. That the act was committed not in the spirit
of lawlessness or revenge
c. The act must come from lawful sentiments

155