Criminal Law I Finals Reviewer
Criminal Law I Finals Reviewer
Criminal Law I Finals Reviewer
LAW 1 REVIEWER
CRIMINAL
LAW I
Finals Reviewer
BECAUSE SHARING IS LOVING
A new command I give you: Love one another.
As I have loved you, so you must love one another
By this everyone will know that you are my disciples,
if you love one another.
John 13: 34-35
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
VI. Why Ex Post Facto Laws are Prejudicial to the Accused
1. Makes criminal an act, which before the laws passage was
innocent.
2. Aggravates a crime.
3. Changes the punishment and inflicts a greater penalty 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.
5. Imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for something which
when done was lawful.
6. Deprives a person accused of a crime some lawful protection
which he was entitled to, such as the protection from a former
conviction or acquittal.
VII. Constitutional and Statutory Rights
Constitutional Rights (Article III, Bill of Rights, 1987
Constitution)
o Bill of Rights states that the accused has the right to
speedy trial, due process, right against self
incrimination, free access to the courts, etc.
Statutory Rights are found in and created by statutes
o Section 1 Rule 115 of the Revised Rules in Criminal
Procedure states that the accused have the right to be
informed of accusations against him, confront and
cross-examine witnesses, make appeals, etc.
VIII. Can an Accused Waive his Rights?
YES but only those that affect only him and not society
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
IX. Characteristics of Criminal Law
General
o Binding on all persons who live or sojourn in the
Philippines.
Territorial
o Criminal Law undertakes to punish crimes committed
within Philippine territory
Prospective
o Forward Looking and never retroactive
X. The Military
General Rule: Jurisdiction of civil court over a case is not
affected by the military character of the accused.
o When the military courts takes cognizance of a case
involving a person subject to military law, the Articles of
War apply. The Revised Penal code and other penal law
is not applicable.
Members of the military can be tried under civil court because
military courts and civil courts have concurrent jurisdiction.
o This is true even in times of war provided that (a) the
crime was not committed where hostilities are in
progress, and (b) the civil courts are functioning.
o US v. Sweet
Sweet was a member of the US military. He
claimed that because of this, our courts had no
jurisdiction over him and the case filed against
him.
The fact that he was a member of the US
military did not affect the jurisdiction of the civil
courts unless special legislation said otherwise
XI. Exceptions to the applicability of the RPC
Laws and Treaties of preferential application
o Bases Agreement March 14, 1947
o RP-US Visiting Forces Agreement February 10, 1998
o Republic Act 75 October 21, 1946
Republic Act No. 75
RA No. 75 works in favor of diplomatic representatives and their
domestic servants (Section 4).
Exception: When the process against servant (who is a citizen of
the Philippines) is founded on debt contracted before he
entered such service (Section 5).
Not applicable when the foreign country adversely affected
does not provide similar protection to our diplomatic
representatives.
Persons exempt from the operation of our criminal laws by virtue of
the principles of public international law
II Hyde International Law: as a principle of international law,
the following are not subject to the operation of our criminal
laws:
o Sovereigns and other chiefs of state.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
XII. Exceptions to the prospective application of criminal laws: New
Statutes that are more lenient or favorable to the accused
Must be favorable to the accused in order for it to be followed
as long as (a) accused committed act before the new statute
came out, and (b) he is not a habitual criminal.
XIII. Different Effects of Repeals on Penal Law
If the penalty in the repeal is lighter, it shall be applied to the
case except if accused is a habitual criminal.
If the penalty in the repeal is heavier, the law in force when the
offense was committed shall be applied.
If the new law totally repeals the old law, the crime is
obliterated.
o People v. Tamayo
While the case was pending, the ordinance
violated was repealed.
The accused was acquitted.
If the new law simply reenacts the old law, criminal liability is
not destroyed.
o US v. Cuna
Accused was charged with selling opium
While the case was pending, a new law against
opium was passed which still included the act
done by the accused
The new law does not take away the criminal
liability of the accused
If both old law and new law punish the same offense, offender
can be tried in the law which is more favorable to him
provided that the old law was still in place when he committed
the offense.
If the new law fails to penalize an act (punishable under the old
law), it is no longer punishable.
o Cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex
The reason for the law ceasing, the law itself
also ceases.
o People v. Sindiong and Pastor
Accused was prosecuted from neglecting to
make a return of the sales of newspapers and
magazines within time prescribed as stated in
law.
While case was pending, a new law was passed
wherein the act of the accused was no longer
included as punishable.
The accused were acquitted.
If someone is mistakenly accused and convicted under a
repealed law, he may be tried again under the new law as long
as such an offense still exists in the law.
Self repealing laws (laws with expiry dates) are self executing.
XIV. Construction of Penal Laws
Penal Laws are strictly construed against government and
liberally in favor of the accused.
o This does not apply if the law is clear and unambiguous.
o People v. Garcia
Respondent accused of violating a law
prohibiting the selling of PCSO tickets without
being authorized
Accused claims he sold llave tickets
Respondent is acquitted because the law does
not expressly prohibit the selling of llave tickets
The Spanish text is superior to the English text.
o People v. Mangulabnan
Respondent fires a gun upwards while
committing a robbery.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
II. Content
Book I
o Basic principles affecting criminal liability (Art. 1-20)
o Provisions on penalties including criminal and civil
liability (Art. 21-113)
Book II
o Definition of felonies with the corresponding penalties
(art. 114-365)
III. Theories that guided the RPC
Classical
o The basis of criminal liability is free will and the purpose
of the penalty is retribution.
o Man is seen as an essentially moral creature. Thus,
more emphasis on the act and its effect rather than on
the person who committed the act.
o Establishment of a mechanical and direct proportion
between crime and punishment.
Positivist
o Man is subdued occasionally by a strange and morbid
phenomenon which constrains him to do wrong in spite
of or contrary to his volition.
o Crime is a natural and social phenomenon; each case is
different.
The RPC is guided primarily by the Classical theory though it is
also partly influenced by the Positivist Theory.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
PRELIMINARY TITLE
DATE OF EFFECTIVENESS AND APPLICATION OF THE
PROVISIONS
Article 1. Time when Act takes effect
This code shall take effect on the first day of January, nineteen
hundred and thirty two.
Article 2. Application of its provisions.
Except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential application,
the provisions of this code shall be enforced not only within the
Philippine archipelago, including its atmosphere, its internal waters
and maritime zone, but also outside of its jurisdiction, against those
who:
1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship;
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the
Philippine Islands or obligations and securities issued by the
government of the Philippine Islands;
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into
these Islands of the obligations and securities mentioned in
the preceding number;
4. While being a public officers or employees, should commit an
offense in the exercise of their functions; or
5. Should commit any of the acts against national security and
the law of nations, defined in title one of book two of this
code.
POINTS
I. Important Phrases
Its atmosphere
Penal laws extend to all their air space which covers the
territory, subject to the right of way or easement in
favor of foreign aircrafts.
Interior Waters
o Bodies of water within the 3 mile limit
Maritime Zone
o 3 miles from the coastline starting from the low water
mark
o 12 miles measured in a straight line from headland to
headland
o Established through international treaties
o
II. Human Security Act of 2007 (RA 9372)
Has provisions providing for extra-territorial application subject
to existing treaties and laws of preferential application
The Act shall apply to:
o Persons committing a crime within the Philippine
territory
o Persons involved in a crime within the Philippine
territory despite being physically outside of the territory
o Persons who commit an offense while on a Philippine
ship or airship
o Persons who commit crimes within our embassies,
consulates, and other diplomatic premises occupied by
the Philippine government in an official capacity
o Any person committing a hate crime against Filipinos
o Any person committing a crime directly against the
Philippine government
PAR. 1: The RPC with regards offenses on a Philippine ship or airship
Does not apply when the ship or airship is within foreign
territory.
Does not apply if ship or airship is not properly registered with
the Philippine Bureau of Customs even if owner is Filipino.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
Does not apply if the crime is committed in high seas (i.e. areas
of the seas not belonging to any one country), BUT the vessel is
not registered or licensed in the Philippines.
I. The RPC and Foreign ships or airships
Continuing offense:
o Defined as forbidden conditions existing while the ship
or airship was in our territory even if such conditions
already existed prior to its entry into our territory.
o Continuing offense is punishable by our courts.
When a foreign merchant vessel enters the 3-mile limit, the
ships officers and crew are subject to the jurisdiction of our
courts.
o Disorders which disturb only the peace of the ship or
those on board are to be dealt exclusively by the
sovereignty of the home of the ship.
o Disturbances which may affect public peace of the
Philippines may be suppressed and the offenders may
be punished by Philippine authorities.
With regards foreign ships, the Philippines follows the English
Rule:
o French Rule crimes are not triable unless they affect
the peace and security of the territory and safety of the
state.
o English Rule crimes are triable unless they only involve
matters within the vessel.
Absolutely no jurisdiction over foreign war ships.
II. Crimes not involving a breach of public order committed on board a
foreign merchant vessel in transit are not triable by our courts
Carrying opium on a ship which is in transit is not triable in our
courts. BUT, when the opium is landed, it is within our
jurisdiction because such act is an open violation of the laws of
the Philippines (US v. Look Chaw).
PAR. 2: SHOULD FORGE OR COUNTERFEIT ANY COIN OR CURRENCY OF
THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, OR OBLIGATIONS AND SECURITIES ISSUED BY
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS.
AND
PAR. 3: SHOULD BE LIABLE FOR ACTS CONNECTED WITH THE
INTRODUCTION INTO THESE ISLANDS OF THE OBLIGATIONS AND
SECURITIES MENTIONED IN THE PRECEDING NUMBER.
I. Why are people who introduce forged or counterfeit obligations and
securities being punished?
They are being punished because such acts have an effect on
our economy
Thus, any person who makes counterfeits in a foreign country
may be prosecuted before our courts for violation of Article 163
(coins or currency counterfeit) OR Article 166 (forging securities
or obligations) of the RPC.
PAR. 4: WHILE BEING PUBLIC OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES SHOULD
COMMIT AN OFFENSE IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR FUNCTIONS
I. Does the RPC apply to public servants and employees who commit
their offenses abroad?
Yes as long as it was during the exercise of their functions.
PAR. 5: SHOULD COMMIT ANY OF THE CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL
SECURITY AND THE LAWS OF NATIONS, DEFINED IN TITLE ONE, BOOK
TWO OF THIS CODE.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
CHAPTER 1: FELONIES
Article 3. Definitions
Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies.
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 act results from imprudence, negligence, lack
of foresight, or lack of skill.
POINTS
I. Elements of Felonies
1. There must be an act or omission.
2. Said act or omission must be punishable by Revised Penal Code.
3. Said act or omission must be performed by means of deceit or
fault.
II. FIRST REQUISITE: There Must Be An Act Or Omission
A. Important Words And Phrases
Act
o Any bodily movement tending to produce some effect
in the external world.
No need for it to actually be produced.
Possibility of its production suffices.
o Must be defined as a felony in the Revised Penal Code
At least an overt act an act which has direct
connection with the felony to be committed.
Omission
o Failure to perform a positive duty that one is bound to
do
There must be a law requiring the doing or
performance of an act
o Examples
Article 275, par. 1 Abandonment of persons
in danger.
Article 213, par. 2[b] Failure to issue
receipts
Article 116 Misprision of Treason.
B. Are Internal Acts Covered By The Revised Penal Code?
No because they are beyond the sphere of penal law. Thinking
of committing a felony does not constitute a felony unless you
act on it.
Thus, only external act is punished.
III. SECOND REQUISITE: Said Act Or Omission Must Be Punishable By
Revised Penal Code
Punishable by law
o Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege
There is no crime when there is no law
punishing it
Case: People v. Silvestre and Atienza
o Atienza threatens to burn down a house; Silvestre is
standing right beside him.
o Silvestre does nothing as Atienza commits the crime.
o Court ruled that Silvestre is not criminally liable
because mere passive presence at the scene of
anothers crime, mere silence, and a failure to give the
alarm, without evidence of agreement or conspiracy is
not punishable
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
o
o
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
B. Both Intentional And Culpable Felonies Are Voluntary
Reasons
o Man has free will.
o Man is a rational being who can distinguish between
good and evil.
o Intentional felonies were intended while culpable
felonies resulted from acts, which were voluntary but
not intended as felonies.
Acts cease to be voluntary when there is compulsion or
prevention by force or intimidation
V. Intent
Intent is a mental state manifested through the overt acts of
people.
o A person who causes an injury by mere accident does
not have intent therefore is not criminally liable.
When the acts naturally produce a definite result, courts are
slow in concluding that some other result was intended
o People v. Sia Teh Ban
Respondent stole a watch therefore showing
intent to gain.
Criminal intent and the will to commit a crime
are always presumed to exist on the part of the
person who executes an act which the law
punishes, unless the contrary shall appear
Lack of intent to kill the deceased because offender meant to
kill another person does not clear the offender of criminal
liability.
Lack of intent may be inferred from the facts of the case.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
10
VII. Crimes Punishable By Special Laws
A. General Points
Includes crimes punishable by municipal or city ordinances.
Dolo is not required.
o It is enough that the prohibited act is done freely and
consciously.
o The act alone, irrespective of its motives, constitutes
the offense.
People v. Bayona
Unwittingly but voluntarily brought a
gun into a polling place
Convicted because no matter what his
intentions were, the act prohibited by
the special laws was committed
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
11
B. Reasons Why Criminal Intent Is Not Necessary In Crimes Made By
Statutory Enactment
The act in itself, without the intervention of any other fact, is
the evil.
o Example: Law Prohibiting display of revolutionary flags
The evil to society and to the government does
not depend upon the state of mind of the one
who displays the banner, but upon the effect
which that display has upon the public mind.
The public is not affected by the intention of
the offender but by the act itself.
When the doing of an act is prohibited by a special law, it is
considered that the act is injurious to public welfare and the
doing of the prohibited act is the crime itself.
C. Good Faith And Absence Of Criminal Intent Are Not Valid Defenses
In Crimes Punished By Special Laws
Since the offense is malam prohibitum, the performance of the
act itself will constitute the offense.
Exceptions:
o People v. Landicho If it is done in order to comply
with government policies.
When there is a law prohibiting the carrying of
loose firearms in relation to a man who was
authorized to buy and collect guns to be sold to
the authorities later on, that individual is not
criminally liable.
This is not the same if the man held on to the
firearms for a undue length of time when he
VIII. Mala In Se And Mala Prohibita Distinguished
General rule: Acts in mala in se, there must be a criminal
intent; but those in mala prohibita it is sufficient if the
prohibited act was intentionally done.
A. Mala In Se
Wrongful from its nature.
Crimes mala in se are those so serious in their effects on society
as to call for almost unanimous condemnation from its
members.
Punishable by Revised Penal Code.
B. Mala Prohibita
Wrongful because it is prohibited by a statute.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
12
C. When The Acts Are Inherently Immoral, They Are Mala In Se Even If
Punished Under Special Law
People v. Sunico et al.
o Voters names were omitted from the list.
o The act was mala in se because the omission and failure
to include a voters name in the registry list of voters is
not only wrong because it is prohibited, it is wrong per
se because it disenfranchises a voter and violates one
of his fundamental rights.
o For such an act to be punished, it must be shown that
said act was committed with malice.
IX. Motive
A. Intent Distinguished From Motive
Motive The moving power which impels one to action for a
definite result.
Intent The purpose to use a particular means to effect such
result.
B. Motive: When Relevant And When Not Need To Be Established
Not an essential element of a crime; need not be proven for
purposes of a conviction.
o Even a strong motive cannot take the place of proof
beyond reasonable doubt.
Good motives do not prevent an act from becoming a crime
o Example: Mercy Killing
Relevance:
o When the identity of the perpetrator is being disputed,
the motive is very relevant (People v. Murray).
o
o
C. How Motive Is Proved
Established by the testimony of witnesses on the acts or
statements of the accused before or immediately after the
commission of the offense.
Establishment through the evidence presented.
Lack of motive may be aid in showing innocence.
Proof of motive alone is not sufficient to support a conviction.
It cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt,
sufficient to overthrow presumption of innocence.
Article 4. Criminal liability
Criminal liability shall be incurred:
1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
13
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
14
V. When A Person Has Not Committed A Felony, He Is Not Criminally
Liable For The Result Which Is Not Intended
US v. Villanueva
o Accused, out of curiosity, snatched a bolo carried by
the victim in his belt. The victim was subsequently
injured.
o Accused is not criminally liable because there is no
provision punishing the act of snatching the property of
another just to satisfy curiosity.
People v. Bindoy
o Accused, carrying a bolo in one hand, got into a heated
altercation with Pacas wife. Pacas attempted to take
away the bolo from the accused and during the scuffle,
an innocent bystander was injured.
PAR. 1: BY ANY PERSON COMMITTING A FELONY (DELITO),
ALTHOUGH THE WRONGFUL ACT DONE BE DIFFERENT FROM THAT
WHICH HE INTENDED
I. Requisites Of Article 4 Paragraph 1
In order that a person may be held criminally liable for a felony
different from that which he intended to commit:
1. Intentional felony was committed
2. The wrong done to the aggrieved party be the direct, natural,
and logical consequence of the felony committed by the
offender
II. FIRST REQUISITE: Intentional Felony Was Committed
A. No Felony Is Committed When:
The act or omission is not punishable under Revised Penal
Code.
o Suicide is not punishable under the Revised Penal Code
(Article 253) If A jumps off the building and lands on
B, he is not criminally liable for intentional homicide.
The act is covered by any of the justifying circumstances in
Article 11
o Self defense, fulfillment of duty, etc.
o These acts must still be exercised with due care
otherwise the accused will be liable for culpable felony.
o Example: People v. Salinas
Accused, along with B, go to the house of C and
D. Accused enters the house, B stays outside. B
challenges C to a fight and accused holds on to
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
15
B. Any Person Who Creates In Anothers Mind An Immediate Sense Of
Danger, Which Causes The Latter To Do Something Resulting In The
Latters Injuries, Is Liable For The Resulting Injuries
People v. Toling
o Accused proceeds to commit robbery aboard a
jeepney. Accused threatens the passengers and
subsequently, B jumps out of the jeepney in order to
escape. B ends up hitting her head on the pavement
and eventually dies.
o It was held that accused is guilty for the death of B
because he created an immediate sense of danger that
prompted B to try and escape.
o Similarly, if a person believing himself to be in danger
of death or great bodily harm jumps into the water and
drowns, the person who caused him to believe he was
in danger is criminally liable for his death
III. SECOND REQUISITE: Wrong Done Must Be The Direct, Natural, And
Logical Consequence Of A Felonious Act (Proximate Cause).
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
16
Cases
o People v. Quianson
A injures B. While taking medical treatment, B
removes the drainage from his wound in order
to alleviate immense pain. This results in the
development of an infection which eventually
leads to the death of B.
A contends that he was not involved in the
taking out of the drainage which eventually led
to the infection and subsequent death.
Court rules that A is criminally liable for the
death of B because his removal of the drainage
was due to the immense pain he felt from the
wounds inflicted by A.
o US v. Marasigan
Accused strikes at B with a knife. In an attempt
to ward off the blow, the finger of B was
severed.
Claims of the accused that B can get surgery in
order to restore his finger is not a valid defense
because B is not obliged to receive surgical
treatment in order to relieve accused of his
liability.
o People v. Reloj
Accused stabs B with an ice pick. B undergoes a
successful surgical operation but days later he
dies because of a condition that takes place as
A. Proximate Cause
The felony committed must be the proximate cause of the resulting
injury
Proximate cause is that 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.
o Natural refers to an occurrence in the ordinary course
of human life or events.
o Logical means that there is a rational connection
between the act of the accused and the resulting injury
or damage.
Proximate legal cause
o That acting first and producing the injury, either
immediately, or by setting other events in motion, all
constituting a natural and continuous chain of events,
each having a close causal connection with its
immediate predecessor.
o There must be a relation of cause and effect, the
cause being the felonious act of the offended, the
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
17
B. How To Determine The Proximate Cause
Vda. de Bataclan, et al. v. Medina
o Passenger bus travelling in the province at 2 in the
morning turns over, trapping 4 passengers. Gasoline
begins to leak and spread all over the bus. Men with
torches come to help out the trapped passengers but
the fire from their torches (keep in mind the gasoline
that spread all around the bus) causes the bus to
become engulfed in flames.
o It was ruled that the proximate cause was not the fire
from the torches but instead the turning over of the
bus. The arrival of men carrying torches in the middle
of the night to help the trapped passengers was a
natural consequence seeing as how it was dark and
they were in the province.
o Furthermore, there is negligence on the part of the
agents of the carrier since they would have realized
C. Intervening Causes
The following are not efficient intervening causes
People v. Illustre & People v. Reyes The weak or diseased
physical condition of the victim, as when one is suffering from
tuberculosis or heart disease.
People v. Almonte & People v. Quianson Nervous
temperament, as when a person dies in consequence of an
internal hemorrhage because he was moving around against
doctors orders because of his nervous temperament due to the
wound inflicted by the accused.
People v. Buhay, US v. Valdez Causes inherent to the victim
o Victim does not know how to swim
o Victim is an alcoholic
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
18
D. Natural Consequence
When death is presumed to be the natural consequence of physical
injuries inflicted
1. The victim was in normal health when the injury was inflicted.
2. Death may be expected from the physical injuries inflicted.
3. Death ensued within a reasonable time.
Case: People v. Tammang
o Boy was in good health the morning of the incident.
Teacher assaults boy and boy complains about
experiencing oppressive pain to his mother later on.
Boy vomits blood until he dies 3 days later.
o Teachers liability for homicide necessarily follows from
the premises stated.
o Had it been proven that the boy died from
hypochondria and not the injuries inflicted by the
teacher, accused would have been acquitted on the
charge of homicide.
Not direct, natural, and logical consequence of the felony committed.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
19
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
20
IV. Purpose Of The Law In Punishing The Impossible Crime
To suppress criminal propensity or criminal tendencies
Article 5. Duty of the court in connection with acts which should be
repressed but which are not covered by the law, and in cases of
excessive penalties.
Whenever a court has knowledge of any act which it may deem
proper to repress and which is not punishable by law, it shall render
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 the subject of legislation.
In the same light, the court shall submit to the Chief Executive,
through the Department of Justice, such statements as may be
deemed proper, without suspending the execution of the sentence,
when a strict enforcement of the provisions of this Code would result
in the imposition of a clearly excessive penalty, taking into
consideration the degree of malice and the injury caused by the
offense.
POINTS
I. First Paragraph Pertains To Acts Which Should Be Repressed But
Which Are Not Punishable By Law.
Basis of Paragraph 1: Nulllum crimen, nulla poena sine lege
o There is no crime if there is no law that punishes the
act (no matter how bad that act may be).
Trial of a criminal case requires the following:
1. The act committed by the accused appears not
punishable by any law.
2. The court deems it proper to repress such act.
3. In that case, the court must render the proper decision
by dismissing the case and acquitting the accused.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
21
B. Penalties Are Not Excessive When Intended To Enforce A Public
Policy
People v. Estoista
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
22
III. Duty Of The Courts To Apply The Law
A. Courts Have The Duty To Apply The Penalty Provided By Law
It is the duty of judicial officers to respect and apply the law,
regardless of their private opinions.
o Courts are not concerned with the wisdom, efficacy, or
morality of laws. Such questions fall exclusively within
the legislative that makes the law and the executive
who approves or vetoes it.
o Example
Judge sentences accused to life imprisonment
when the law clearly states that the
punishment should be death.
In this situation, the judge did not fulfill
his duty
B. Judge Has The Duty To Apply The Law As Interpreted By The
Supreme Court
Judge must first think that it is his duty to apply the law as
interpreted by the Highest Court of the land, and that any
deviation from a principle laid down by the latter would
unavoidable cause, as a sequel, unnecessary inconveniences,
delays and expenses to the litigants
Judge is free to state his opinion on the matter if his views
contrast with those of the SC but he must still follow the
interpretation of the SC
C. Courts Are Not The Forum To Plead For Sympathy
Dura lex sed lex
o The law is hard but it is the law
III. Strict Enforcement Of The Provisions Of This Code
Article 5 may not be invoked for cases of mala prohibita
because it is expressly worded that Article 5 only applies to
strict enforcement of the provisions of the Revised Penal Code
Article 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies.
Consummated felonies as well as those which are frustrated and
attempted are punishable.
A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its
execution and accomplishment are present; and it is frustrated when
the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce
the felony as a consequence but, which, nevertheless do not produce
it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.
There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of
a felony, directly through overt acts, and does not perform all the acts
of execution which would produce the felony by reason of some cause
or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.
POINTS
I. Development Of Crime
From the moment the culprit conceives the idea of committing
a crime up to the realization of the same, his act passes through
certain stages.
A. Stages:
1. Internal acts
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
23
II. STAGE 1: Attempted Felony
A. Elements Of Attempted Felony
1. Commencement of the commission of the felony directly by
overt acts.
2. Offender does not perform all acts of execution which should
produce the felony.
3. The offenders act is not stopped by his own spontaneous
desistance.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
24
Subjective phase of the offense
In an attempted felony, the offender never gets past the
subjective phase.
Definition
o 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 still has
control over his acts, including their natural cause.
As long as he does not commit the last act of
execution, offender is still in the subjective
phase
Example: A tries to poison B with poisoned soup.
o Subjective phase ends as soon as the B swallows the
soup.
III. Overt Acts
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, nor by the voluntary desistance of the
perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete
offense.
A. Distinguishing Between Preparatory Acts And Overt Acts
Act of buying poison
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
25
IV. Indeterminable offense
It is one when the purpose of the offender in performing an act
is not certain. Its nature in relation to its objective is
ambiguous.
A. The Intention Of The Accused Must Be Viewed From The Nature Of
The Acts Executed By Him, And Not From His Admission
The intention of the accused must be ascertained from the
facts
o It is necessary that the mind be able to directly infer
from the facts the intention of the perpetrator to cause
a particular injury.
People v. Lamahang
o Acts susceptible of double interpretation, that is, in
favor as well as against the accused, and which show an
innocent as well as a punishable act, must not and
cannot furnish grounds by themselves for attempted
crime.
o Acts must be shown to be directly aimed at the
execution of the crime, and therefore they must have
an immediate and necessary relation to the offense.
V. STAGE 2: Frustrated Felony
A. Elements Of Frustrated Felony
1. Offender commits all acts of execution.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
26
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
27
E. Distinguishing Attempted Or Frustrated Felony From Impossible
Crime
In attempted or frustrated felony, the crime could have been
accomplished in impossible crime, the crime can never be
accomplished.
Attempted or frustrated felony are thwarted by external
reasons impossible crime is thwarted by internal reasons
such as the inherent impossibility of the crime or the
employment of inadequate or ineffectual means by the
offender.
VI. STAGE 3: Consummated Felony
A. Important Words And Phrases For Consummated Felony
All the elements necessary for its execution and
accomplishment are present.
o Every crime has its own elements which must all be
present to constitute a culpable violation of a precept
of law.
B. What Happens When Not All The Elements Of A Felony Are Proved?
Felony is not shown to have been consummated.
Felony is not shown to have been committed.
Another felony is shown to have been committed.
Examples
o Homicide not consummated without death.
o Theft not consummated if no intent to gain.
o Estafa not consummated if there is no deceit or
abuse of confidence proven.
Can instead be found guilty of attempted or
frustrated estafa.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
28
VII. How To Determine Between Attempted, Frustrated, And
Consummated
A. Nature Of Crime
Arson
o Attempted poured gasoline around the house but
got caught before he could strike a match.
o Frustrated poured gasoline around the house and lit
the fire but the house did not burn
o Consummated poured gasoline around the house
and lit the fire. The house is burning.
B. Elements Constituting The Felony
Theft
o Consummated when thief is able to get hold of object
even if he is not able to carry it away
US v. Adiao
A steals a belt and keeps it in his desk.
Belt is found in his desk shortly after.
Court ruled that the theft had been
consummated because A was already
in possession of the belt.
People v. Espiritu
Accused steal linen curtains and put
these items in the back of their truck.
Accused gets caught when they try to
pass a checkpoint.
Estafa
o The crime is consummated when the offended party is
actually damaged or prejudiced.
US v. Dominguez
A receives money from a sale which he
should give to the cashier. A puts the
money in his pocket with intent to
misappropriate the amount.
Court ruled that this is frustrated estafa
because estafa can only be
consummated when the offended
party has been damaged or prejudiced.
C. Manner Of Committing Crime
1. Formal crimes Consummated in one instant; no attempt.
o There are crimes like slander and false testimony that
are consummated by a single act. It is either
consummated or not.
2. Crimes Consummated By Mere Attempt
o Flight to enemys country a mere attempt is a
consummated felony.
o Corruption of minors a mere proposal to satisfy the
lust of another will consummate the offense.
3. Felony By Omission
o There is no attempted stage because in this kind of
felony, the offender does not execute acts.
4. Crimes Requiring The Two Or More Persons Is Consummated
By Mere Agreement
o Corruption of a public officer consummated if
agreement is reached; attempted if offer is rejected.
o Cases
People v. Diego Quin
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
29
Attempted
People v. Ramolete
o A shoots B but misses all the
vital organs.
o A is liable for attempted
homicide because all the acts
of execution were not done
(you have to mortally wound
your target in order to
complete all the acts of
execution).
Murder
Frustrated
People v. Mision
o A stabs B and C. B dies, C lives.
o A is liable for frustrated murder
in relation to C.
Frustrated theft
The Espiritu and Dino cases
o Both were claimed to be cases of frustrated theft
because they were unable to dispose freely of the
articles stolen
People v. Espiritu
Accused stole a truck in a compound
surrounded by a tall fence. Accused
was caught before he left compound
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
30
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
31
IX. There Is No Attempted Or Frustrated Impossible Crime
In impossible crime, all the acts of execution were committed
therefore an attempt is impossible.
There is no frustrated impossible crime because the acts
performed by the offender are considered as constituting a
consummated crime.
The act was completely carried out, the result was just
inherently impossible.
Article 7. When light felonies are punishable
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
32
o
o
Article 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony
Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are punishable only in the
cases in which the law specially provides a penalty therefore.
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it
There is proposal when the person who has decide to commit a felony
proposes its execution to some other person or persons
POINTS
I. Important Words And Phrases
Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony
o Two different things: (1) conspiracy & (2) felony
Only in the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty
therefore
o There must be a specific provision in the Revised Penal
Code punishing a specific instance of conspiracy or
proposal.
Treason (Article 115)
Rebellion (Article 136)
Sedition (Article 141)
II. Reason For The Rule
Conspiracy and proposal to commit a crime are only
preparatory acts, and the law regards them as innocent or at
least permissible except in rare and exceptional cases.
As long as the conspirators do not perform overt acts in
furtherance of their malevolent designs, the sovereignty of the
state is not outraged and the tranquility of the public remains
undisturbed.
III. When A Felony Is Committed, The Existence Of A Conspiracy
Assumes Pivotal Importance In Determining Who Is Criminally Liable.
IV. Treason, Rebellion, Coup Detat, Insurrection, Sedition Must
Actually Not Be Committed
If they are committed, the charge is no longer proposal to or
conspiracy to commit but rather the act itself.
o Ex:
If A commits treason, he is guilty of treason and
not conspiracy or proposal to commit treason
because the act of treason has already been
committed.
A cannot be charged with treason and
conspiracy to commit treason at the same
time.
Though it must be said that the establishment of a conspiracy
could be used to see who else is criminally liable.
V. Conspiracy
A. Examples Of Conspiracy As A Felony And Conspiracy As A Manner
Of Incurring Criminal Liability
A and B decide to rise publicly and take arms against the
government with the help of their followers.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
33
B. Article 186 Of The Revised Penal Code Punishing Conspiracy
Monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade.
o Penalty is prision correccional in its minimum period or
a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both.
Any person who shall enter into any contract or
agreement or shall take part in any conspiracy
or combination in the form of a trust or
otherwise, in restraint of trade or commerce or
to prevent by artificial means free competition
in the market.
Any person who, being a manufacturer,
producer, shall combine, conspire or agree with
any person for the purpose of making
transactions prejudicial to lawful commerce, or
of increasing the market price of any such
merchandise.
C. Requisites Of Conspiracy
1. Two or more persons came to an agreement
D. Direct Proof Is Not Essential To Establish Conspiracy
Existence of conspiracy can be inferred from the collective acts
of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the
crime
o Not necessary to show that all conspirators actually hit
and killed the victim
E. Indications Of Conspiracy
When the defendants by their acts aimed at the same object,
one performing one part and the other performing the other so
as to complete it, with a view to the attainment of the same
object, and their acts, though independent, were in fact
concerted and cooperative, indicating closeness of personal
association, concerted action and concurrence of sentiments,
the court will be justified in concluding that said defendants
were engaged in a conspiracy.
o At the time of the aggression, all of them acted in
concert, each doing his part to fulfill their common
design to kill the victim, and although only one of them
may have actually stabbed the victim, the act of that
one is deemed to be the act of all.
Acts of the defendants must show a common design.
o Neither joint nor simultaneous action is per se
sufficient proof of conspiracy.
o Obedience to command does not necessarily show
concert of design, for at any rate it is the acts of the
conspirators that show their common design.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
34
F. Quantum Of Proof Required To Establish Conspiracy
Elements of conspiracy must be proven beyond reasonable
doubt.
o Evidence of actual cooperation rather than mere
cognizance or approval of an illegal act is required.
A conspiracy must be established by positive and conclusive
evidence.
o Conspiracy must be shown to exist as clearly and
convincingly as the commission of crime itself.
o Mere presence of a person at the scene of the crime
does not make him a conspirator for conspiracy
transcends companionship.
o People v. Comadre
Mere act of running away with the accused
does not automatically lead to a conspiracy
VI. Proposal
A. The Rpc Specially Provides A Penalty For Mere Proposal In Article
115 And 136
Article 115
o Proposal to commit treason prison correctional and
a fine not exceeding 5,000 pesos
Article 136
o Proposal to commit coup detat prision mayor in its
minimum period and a find not exceeding 8,000 pesos
o Proposal to commit rebellion or insurrection prision
correctional in its medium period and a fine not
exceeding 2,000 pesos
The felony must actually not be committed or else it would not count
as a mere proposal.
B. Requisites Of A Proposal
1. Person has decided to commit a felony.
2. Person proposes the execution of that felony to others.
C. Situations When There Is No Criminal Proposal
Person who proposes the felony is not determined to commit
the felony.
o A wants to overthrow the government but is afraid to
do it. A suggests the overthrow of the government to
desperate people who would do it with the slightest
provocation. A is not liable for proposal to commit
rebellion because A has not decided to commit it.
There is no decided, concrete, and formal proposal.
o A mere suggestion to commit rebellion does not count
as a formal proposal.
It is not the execution of a felony that is proposed.
o A wants to overthrow the government. A goes around
the country with his pals to convince people of the
need to have a new government.
Going around the country trying to convince
people of the need for a new government is
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
35
D. What If The Proponents Of The Rebellion Desist Before Rebellion Is
Committed?
Once a proposal to commit rebellion is made by the proponent
to another person, the crime of proposal to commit rebellion is
consummated and the desistance of the proponent cannot
legally exempt him from criminal liability
Similarly, the law does not require that the proposal be
accepted by whoever it was proposed to.
o If it is accepted, it would become conspiracy and not
proposal because there was agreement
E. Proposal As An Overt Act
One who offers money to a public officer but is rejected is liable
for attempted bribery
VII. Reasons Why Proposal And Conspiracy Are Punished
The crimes in which conspiracy and proposal are punishable are
crimes against the security of the state or economic security.
o Treason against external security.
o Coup detat, rebellion, sedition against internal
security,
o Monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade
against economic security,
If the perpetrator succeeds in these crimes against the external
and internal security of the state, they would obtain power and
therefore impunity for their crimes.
o If A overthrows the government successfully, A will
likely not be punished for rebellion.
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 the law for the commission of
which the penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos,
or both, is provided.
POINTS
I. Important Words And Phrases
Capital punishment
o Death penalty
Penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive
o When the penalty prescribed includes an afflictive
penalty.
A felony punishable by prision correccional to
prision mayor is a grave felony because prision
mayor is afflictive.
o If the penalty prescribed is composed of two or more
periods corresponding to different divisible penalties,
the higher or maximum period must be that of an
afflictive penalty.
A felony punishable by prision correccional (in
its maximum period) to prision mayor (in its
minimum period) is a grave felony because the
minimum period of prision mayor is considered
afflictive.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
36
Article 10. Offenses not subject to the provisions of this Code.
Offenses, which are or in the future may be punishable under special
laws are not subject to the provisions of this code. This code shall be
supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should specially provide
the contrary.
POINTS
I. Meaning Of Article 10
Composed of 2 clauses
o First clause provides that the offenses under special
laws are not subject to the provisions of this code.
Special penal laws prevail over general ones.
o Second clause makes the Revised Penal Code
supplementary to the special laws unless the special
laws say otherwise.
II. Important Words And Phrases
Special laws
o A penal law which punishes acts not punished in the
Revised Penal Code.
Enacted by the legislative
Not a law which amends the Revised Penal
Code
Usually follows the form of American penal law
Supplementary
o The Revised Penal Code supplies what is lacking in the
special laws unless the latter provides for the contrary
Examples
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
37
III. Provisions Of The Revised Penal Code On Penalties Cannot Be
Applied To Offenses Punishable Under Special Laws
Special laws do not provide a scale of penalties where a given
penalty can be lowered by one or two degrees.
o Example:
Mitigating circumstances and aggravating
circumstances cannot affect the penalties in
the special laws unless expressly provided by
said special law.
People v. Noble
Even when accused pleaded guilty,
Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code on
mitigating circumstances did not
automatically take effect .
Special laws use the term imprisonment rather than the
other terms ascribed to the penalties found in the Revised
Penal Code.
Hence, the penalty for illegal possession of firearms under the
special laws is imprisonment and not prision correccional
because the latter is peculiar to offenses punished in the
Revised Penal Code.
IV. If The Special Laws Adopt The Penalties Found In The Revised
Penal Code, The Rules For Graduating Penalties By Degrees Can Be
Applied
V. Article 6 Of The Revised Penal Code (Attempted, Frustrated,
Consummated) Cannot Be Applied To Offenses Punished By Special
Laws
Special laws are mala prohibita which means you either commit
them or you dont.
Examples
o Special law prohibiting interest in municipal contracts
by councilors.
US v. Basa
Acquitted because a mere attempt is
not punishable by the special law.
o Remember that under the
Revised Penal Code Article 6,
attempts are punishable.
Navarra v. People
Convicted because the deal was
approved by the municipal board thus
the offense was committed.
VI. Special Law Has To Fix Penalties For Attempted And Frustrated
Crime Before They Can Be Punished
Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine legit.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
38
The special law does not provide for a penalty one or two
degrees lower than that provided for that consummated stage.
If the special law covers the mere attempt to commit the crime
defined by it, then the mere attempt is punishable.
o Law prohibiting the any attempt to export gold.
Had this act been consummated, the exporter
would already have been outside our
jurisdiction thus he is able to get away with the
offense.
VII. Article 10 Is Not Applicable To Punish An Accomplice Under The
Special Law
Unless expressly provided, the penalty imposed is clearly
intended only for the one committing the offense.
o People v. Padaong (dissenting opinion)
If the special law does not prescribe a penalty
for accomplices, it would be a legal
impossibility to determine what their penalty
would be.
VIII. Revised Penal Code Supplementary To Special Laws
People v. Moreno
o Accused was convicted of homicide through reckless
imprudence and violation the Motor Vehicle Law.
Motor Vehicle Law is silent about indemnity to
heirs of the deceased (art. 100) and subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency (art. 39).
Court rules that Article 39 and Article 100 can
be applied as supplementary to the Motor
Vehicle Law.
People v. Lardizabal
o Article 39 of the Revised Penal Code was applied if and
when the person convicted could not pay the offended
party the indemnity that was awarded to the latter.
IX. Example Of Article 12 Par. 3 Of The Revised Penal Code Being
Applied In A Special Law
People v. Navarro
o 13 year old girl sells cocoa for 11 cents more than the
price fixed by government
Article 12 par. 3 was used as a basis
Prosecution failed to show that the
accused acted with discernment
o Accused could not have been
able to act with intelligence
because of her age
o For crimes that are mala
prohibita, offense must be
done voluntarily
o Accused could not have been
able to act voluntarily because
of lack of intelligence
X. Suppletory Application Of The Revised Penal Code
Only applies if the provisions of the special law is silent on the
matter
o Subsidiary Penalty (Article 39) imprisonment if
cannot pay fine.
o Civil Liability (Article 100) every person criminally
liable for a felony is also civilly liable.
o Rules on service of sentence (Article 70).
o Definitions on Principals, Accomplices, Accessories
(Article 17-19) was used when the special laws cited
but did not on their own provide a definition for
principals, accomplices, and accessories.
o Principle of conspiracy (Article 8) was used when the
special laws cited but did not on their own provide a
definition for conspiracy.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
39
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
40
Basis
o Article 11 expressly states the following do not incur
criminal liability
Article 11.
The following do not incur 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 of 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 by the person attacked, that the one making defense
had no part therein.
3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a
stranger provided that the first and second requisites
mentioned in the first circumstance of this article are present
and that the person defending be not induced by revenge,
resentment, or other evil motive.
4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an
act which causes damage to another, provided that the
following requisites are present:
First, that the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
41
III. Elements 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
IV. FIRST ELEMENT: Unlawful Aggression
A. Meaning Of Unlawful Aggression
Unlawful aggression is equivalent to assault or at least
threatened assault of an immediate or imminent kind.
o There is unlawful aggression when the peril to ones
life, limb, or right is either actual or imminent.
o There must be an actually physical assault upon a
person, or at least a threat to inflict real injury.
o In case of threat, the same must be offensive and
positively strong, showing the wrongful intent to cause
an injury.
o When there is no peril to ones life, limb or right, there
is no unlawful aggression.
o Cases
People v. Flores
The act of the deceased in preventing
the accused from inflicting a retaliatory
blow is not unlawful aggression
US v. Padilla
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
42
B. Unlawful Aggression Is An Indispensable Requisite
There can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete, unless
the victim has committed an unlawful aggression against the
person defending himself.
For the right of defense to exist, it is necessary that we be
assaulted or that we be attacked, or at least that we be
threatened with an attack in an immediate and imminent
manner.
If there is no unlawful aggression, there is nothing to prevent or
repel.
The unlawful aggression must have come from the person who
was either injured or killed.
C. Aggression Must Be Unlawful
Two kinds of aggression:
o Unlawful see Meaning of unlawful
D. Peril To Ones Life And Limb
Peril to ones life: must be ACTUAL and IMMINENT.
o Actual peril the danger must be present, that is,
actually in existence.
US v. Jose Laurel
Facts: A kisses Bs sweetheart and runs
away. At a later date, B confronts A. B
eventually hits A with a cane. After
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
43
E. What Constitutes Unlawful Aggression
If there is no imminent and real danger to the life or limb of the
accused, there is no unlawful aggression
o People v. Riduca
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
44
F. Retaliation Does Not Amount To Self-Defense
Retaliation is not self-defense.
Retaliation is not a justifying circumstance
Retaliation is done after the aggression has ended.
o The aggression has already ceased thus the imminent
and real danger to the life or limb of the accused has
also ceased
In order to justify homicide on the ground of self defense, it is
essential that the killing of the deceased by the defendant be
simultaneous with the attack made by the deceased, or at least
both acts succeeded each other without appreciable interval of
time
o People v. Ferrer
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
45
G. Source Of Unlawful Aggression
Unlawful aggression must have come from the person who
attacked the accused.
o If the unlawful aggression came from the accused, the
accused could not have been acting in self-defense.
Improbability of the deceased being the aggressor belies the
claim of self-defense.
o People v. Diaz
Fact: Accused is armed with a gun and a bolo.
Deceased had nothing but a pig, which he
refused to give up.
Ruling: It is improbable that the deceased
would have began assaulting the accused given
the situation.
o People v. Ardisa
Fact: Deceased is a 55 year old man with ulcer
who had already lost his right hand in the
conflict with the accused.
Ruling: It is hard to believe that the deceased
would have continued attacking the accused
given the circumstances
When the aggressor flees, unlawful aggression no longer exists
o When the unlawful aggression no longer exists because
the aggressor runs away, the one defending no longer
has a right to wound or kill the aggressor
o People v. Alconga
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
46
J. Stand ground when in the right
The law does not require people to retreat when an assailant is
rapidly advancing upon them
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
47
The reason for this is because those who flee incur the
risk of getting attacked from behind
Better to stand your ground and defend
yourself than run away
K. When The Accused Declines To Give Any Statement To The Police
When He Surrenders, His Acts Are Inconsistent With The Plea Of Self
Defense
People v. Manansala
o A protestation of innocence or justification is the logical
and spontaneous reaction of a man who finds himself
in such an unculpatory predicament as that in which
the policemen came upon him still clutching the death
weapon and his victim dying before him.
People v. De la Cruz
o The accused did not act in self defense because if he
had, he would have reported it to the police whom he
passed as he fled from the scene of the incident
L. Physical Fact May Determine Whether The Accused Acted In SelfDefense
People v. Dorico
o Fact: Accused said that deceased was stabbed as he
lunged forward for the bolo accused was holding.
o Ruling: The court did not believe him because the
evidence showed that the deceased was stabbed from
the back.
People v. Perez
o Ruling: Accused did not act in self-defense because the
deceased was shot 13 times despite his gun still being
tucked inside his waistband. Deceased was defenseless
when shot
M. Unlawful Aggression In Defense Of Other Rights
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
48
V. SECOND REQUISITE: Reasonable Necessity Of The Means Employed
To Prevent Or Repel It
Presupposes the existence of unlawful aggression which is
either imminent or actual
o If there is unlawful aggression, there is a need to
prevent or repel it because we are either in actual or
imminent danger
US v. Batungbacal
The law protects not only the person
who repel aggression but also the
person who tries to prevent an
aggression that is expected.
This requisite of self-defense entails necessity.
o There be a necessity of the course of action taken by
the person making a defense.
o There be a necessity of the means used.
o The necessity to take a course of action and to use a
means of defense
US v. Molina
The person attacked is not duty bound
to expose himself to be wounded or
killed.
While the danger to his person or life subsists,
he has a perfect and indisputable right to repel
such danger by wounding his adversary, and if
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
49
A. Necessity Of The Course Of Action Taken
In emergencies where the person or life of another is imperiled,
human nature does not act upon processes of formal reason
but in obedience to the instinct of self-preservation
o People v. Ocana
Fact: Accused is attacked by deceased while
the former is unarmed. Accused manages to
find a lead pipe and strikes the deceased in a
vital part of the body. Deceased is
subsequently killed.
Ruling: Accused acted reasonably given the
circumstances. There was no time for Accused
to aim for a less vital part of the body because
his life was in danger
There is no necessity when there is no unlawful aggression
o People v. Masangkay
After the accused disarmed the deceased, he
was no longer acting reasonably in self-defense
when he stabbed and killed him.
o People v. Narvaez
Facts: Deceased is chiseling the walls of the
house of the accused. Accused gets a shotgun
and kills the deceased.
Ruling: The means used was not reasonable
because his resistance was disproportionate to
the attack.
Context of the assault matters
o US v. Ah Chong
When the aggressor is disarmed
o If aggressor when disarmed still shows intent to reclaim
the weapon, the aggressor is still showing aggression
(People v. Datinguinoo), but if after being disarmed, the
aggressor shows a refusal to continue fighting, any
attack on the aggressor by the defendant is no longer
justified (People v. Alviar).
When only minor physical injuries are inflicted after the
unlawful aggression has ceased to exist, there is still selfdefense if mortal wounds were inflicted at the time the
requisites of self-defense were present.
o People v. Del Pilar
Minor wounds inflicted after the aggression
ceased to exist are permitted as long as the
major wounds that led to the death of the
aggressor took place when the aggression had
not yet ceased.
This is because the proximate cause of death
would be the major wounds and not the minor
wounds.
This ruling cannot be applied if the defendant
inflicts a mortal would on the aggressor after
the unlawful aggression has ceased.
Person defending is not expected to control his blow.
o Brownell v. People
One is not required to draw fine distinctions as
to the extent of the injury which a reckless and
infuriated assailant might probably inflict upon
him.
o U.S. v. Macasaet
The accused, in the heat of the encounter at
close quarters, was not in a position to reflect
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
50
B. Necessity Of The Means Used
The means employed by the person making a defense must be
rationally necessary to prevent or repel an aggression.
Instances wherein there was no rational necessity to employ
means used:
U.S. v Apego
A sleeping woman, who was awakened by her
brother-in law grasping her arm, was not
justified in using a knife to kill him as the latter
did not perform any other act which could be
construed as an attempt against her honor.
o People v. Montalbo
When a person was attacked with fist blows
only, there was no reasonable necessity to
inflict upon the assailant a mortal wound with
danger.
o People v. Jaurigue
When a man placed his hand on the upper
thigh of a woman seated on a bench in a
chapel, there was no reasonable necessity to
kill him with a knife because there was no
danger to her chastity or honor at that
moment.
The test of reasonableness of the means used.
o Whether the means employed is reasonable will
depend upon the nature and quality of the aggressors
weapon, physical condition, character, size, other
circumstances and the place and occasion of the
assault.
o Perfect equality between the weapon used by the
defender and the aggressor is not required. What the
law requires is rational equivalence, the imminent
danger and the instinct that moves or impels the
defense.
o The reasonableness of the means employed will
depend upon:
The nature and quality of weapons
The use of a knife when attacked by a
club, rod or stick is reasonable if it cant
o
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
51
Ruling:
Under
such
circumstances, the use of the
shotgun was justified.
Reasonable necessity of means employed to prevent or repel
unlawful aggression is to be interpreted in favor of law-abiding
citizens.
Rule regarding the reasonableness of the necessity of the
means employed when the one defending himself is a peace
officer.
o While the law on self-defense allows a private
individual to prevent or repel an aggression, the duty of
the peace officer requires him to overcome his
opponent.
o A police officer is not required to afford a person
attacking him, the opportunity for a fair and equal
struggle.
o US v. Mojica
A policeman is justified in using his revolver
against one who is armed with a knife.
o US v. Mendoza
It was held that it is NOT reasonable for a
policeman to kill his assailant who was using a
Calicut
o
VI. THIRD ELEMENT: Lack Of Sufficient Provocation On The Part Of The
Person Defending Himself.
A. Reason For The Third Requisite Of Self Defense.
To be entitled to the benefit of the justifying circumstance of
self-defense, the one defending himself must not have given
cause for the aggression by his unjust conduct.
B. Cases In Which 3rd Requisite Is Considered Present
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
52
Vii. Battered Woman Syndrome As A Defense
Republic Act No. 9262- Anti-Violence Against Women and
their Children Act of 2004 provided that:
o Sec 26- Battered Woman Syndrome (BWS) as a
Defense- victim survivors suffering from BWS do not
incur criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the
absence of any of the elements for justifying
circumstances of self-defense (courts shall be assisted
by psychiatrists)
Battered woman syndrome, explained
o Battered woman- a woman who is repeatedly
subjected to any forceful physical or psychological
behavior by a man in order to coerce her to do
something he wants her to do without concern for her
rights.
o Personality traits of a battered woman-
Low self-esteem
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
53
Iii. Elements Of Defense Of Relatives
1. Unlawful aggression
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or
repel it
3. In case of provocation was given by the person attacked, the
one making a defense had no part therein
IV. Defense Of Relatives Also Requires That There Be Unlawful
Aggression.
Of the 3 requisites of defense of relatives, unlawful aggression
is a sine qua non, for without it any defense is not possible or
justified.
When two persons are getting ready to strike each other, there
can be no unlawful aggression (People v. Moro Munabe).
V. Unlawful Aggression Can Be Made To Depend Upon The Honest
Belief Of The One Making A Defense.
When A attacked and wounded B with a dagger but B defended
himself and seriously wounded A. (note: A is the unlawful
aggressor) Then the sons of A came and believed in good faith
that their father was the victim of an unlawful aggression. If
they kill B, they are justified by a mistake of fact.
Vi. Third Element Of Defense Of Relative
Reason for the rule that although the provocation prejudices
the person who gave it, its effects do not reach the defender
who took no part therein, because the latter was prompted by
some noble or generous sentiment in protecting and saving the
relative.
The fact that the relative defended gave provocation is
immaterial.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
54
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
55
When the accused was not avoiding any evil, he cannot invoke
the justifying circumstance of avoidance of a greater evil or
injury.
o People v. Ricohermoso
Facts: Pio and Severo attacked Geminiano who
was wounded. Nearby, Juan embraced
Marianito, Geminianos son, who had a gun
and grappled with him. Geminiano died. Pio,
Severo and Juan were persecuted for murder.
Issue: Can Juan validly invoke the justifying
circumstance of avoidance of greater evil?
Held. No. His reliance on that justifying
circumstance is erroneous. He was not avoiding
any evil when he sought to disable Marianito.
The evil which brought about the greater evil must not result
from a violation of law by the actor.
There is civil liability under this paragraph. The civil liability is
borne by the persons benefited.
PAR. 5: FULFILLMENT OF A DUTY OR LAWFUL EXERCISE OF RIGHT OR
OFFICE
I. Elements Fulfillment Of A Duty Or Lawful Exercise Of Right Or
Office:
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.
II. Fulfillment Of A Duty
People v. Felipe Delima
o Facts: Felipe Delima pursued and shot Lorenzo Napilon
who escaped from prison a few days prior to the
III. Lawful Exercise Of Right Or Office
Of Right
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
56
IV. The Actual Invasion Of Property May Consist Of A Mere
Disturbance Of Possession Or Of A Real Dispossession
If its mere disturbance of possession, force may be used
against it at any time as long as it continues, even beyond the
prescriptive period of an action of forcible entry.
PAR. 6: OBEDIENCE TO AN ORDER ISSUED FROM SOME LAWFUL
PURPOSE
I. Elements:
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.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
57
Belief of the accused
Facts: Friend who played a trick on you by grabbing you at
night, and you thinking that it was a threat to your person
hit the person and he died.
Ruling: You are justified in your acts because you did not have
the intent to kill the person, and (assuming) you did not act
negligently.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
58
III. To Constitute Insanity There Must Be Complete Deprivation Of
Intelligence Or That There Be A Total Deprivation Of The Freedom Of
The Will
Complete deprivation of intelligence- the accused is deprived of
reason and without the least discernment.
Mere abnormality of mental faculties is NOT enough, especially
if the offender has not lost consciousness of his acts.
IV. Procedure When The Imbecile Or The Insane Committed A Felony
Court shall order his confinement in one of the hospitals or
asylums established for persons afflicted.
Court has no power to permit the insane to leave such facility
without first obtaining the opinion of the Director of Health
that he may be released.
V. Insanity At The Time Of The Commission Of The Felony
Distinguished From Insanity At The Time Of The Trial
When a person is insane at the time of the commission of the
felony, he is exempt from criminal liability.
When he becomes insane only at the time of the trial, he is
criminally liable.
VI. Who Has The Burden Of Proof To Show Insanity?
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
59
The defense must prove the insanity of the accused at the time
of the commission of the crime.
The presumption is always in favor of sanity.
How much evidence is necessary to overthrow the presumption
of sanity?
o In order to ascertain a persons mental condition at the
time of the act, it is permissible to receive evidence of
the condition of his mind during a reasonable period
both before and after that time.
o Direct testimony is not required.
A. Evidence Of Insanity
The evidence of insanity must refer to the time preceding the
act under prosecution of to the very moment of its execution.
If the insanity is only occasional or intermittent in its nature,
the presumption of its continuance does not arise.
Where it is shown that the defendant had lucid intervals, it will
be presumed that the offense was committed in one of them.
B. When A Defense Of Insanity Is Not Credible:
People v. Renegado Where appellant, Loreto, testified that
he was acting sanely that morning before he killed Lira after
being confused and losing his senses. Moreover, he was able
to recall most of the incidents that morning. The defense of
insanity is incredible.
People v. Ambal Being able to recall significant events in the
weeks prior to the crime, he was declared sane.
People v. Magallano Where psychiatrists who observed the
accused for a month attested that he did not manifest any odd
behavior and it was evident that he was coherent and
intelligent, the presumption of sanity holds.
People v. Puno In spite of his schizophrenic reaction, his
symptoms were not socially incapacitating and he could
adjust to his environment. He is not legally insane.
VII. Coverage of the terms
A. Dementia Praecox (Schizophrenia) Is Covered By The Term Insanity
When a person is suffering from a form of psychosis (a type of
dementia pracox) homicidal attack is common because of
delusions. During the period of excitement, such person has
not control whatever of his acts.
People v. Bonan An irresistible homicidal impulse was
considered embraced in the term insanity. It may be said that
a person who has lost the power of his will, at the moment,
also lost consciousness of his acts.
B. Schizophrenia, Formerly Called Dementia Praceox
It is a chronic mental disorder characterized by inability to
distinguish between fantasy and reality and often accompanied
by hallucinations and delusions.
Schizophrenic reactions are recognizable through odd and
bizarre behavior apparent in aloofness or periods of impulsive
destructiveness and immature and exaggerated emotionality,
often ambivalently directed.
C. Kleptomania
If the unlawful act of the accused is due to mental disease or a
mental defect, producing an irresistible impulse, as when the
accused has been deprived or has lost the power of his will the
irresistible impulse should be considered covered by insanity.
On the other hand, if the mental defect only diminishes the
exercise of his will-power then kleptomania is only a
mitigating circumstance.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
60
II. Age Of Absolute Irresponsibility Raised To Fifteen Years Of Age
Republic Act No. 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act) raised
the age of absolute irresponsibility from 9 to 15.
Absolute irresponsibility exempts the offender from criminal
liability
PAR. 3: A PERSON OVER 9 AND UNDER 15, 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
I. Basis Of Paragraph 3
Absence of Intelligence
II. Par. 3, Art. 12 Of The Revised Penal Code Impliedly Repealed By
Republic Act No. 9344
The age bracket for conditional responsibility is now 15-18
years of age instead of 9-15.
The child is exempted from criminal liability, but not from civil
liability.
It is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that a minor has
acted with discernment, in order for him to be deprived of this
exempting circumstance.
III. Periods Of Criminal Responsibility
Period
Age
ABSOLUTE
IRRESPONSIBILITY 15 years and below
(infancy)
CONDITIONAL
RESPONSIBILITY 15 years and 1 day to 18 years
(Child in conflict with the law)
FULL RESPONSIBILITY
18 years or over (adolescence) to
70 (maturity)
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
61
Senility the age over 70 years, although said to be the
second childhood is only a mitigated responsibility. It cannot be
considered as similar to infancy which is exempting.
IV. Meaning Of Discernment
Capacity of the child to understand the difference between
right and wrong and its consequences.
A. Determination Of Discernment
The determination of discernment shall take into account the
ability of a child to understand the moral and psychological
components of criminal responsibility and the consequences of
the wrongful act.
B. Discernment & Intent Distinguished
Intent refers to the desired act of the person
Discernment the moral significance that a person ascribes to
the said act.
C. Discernment May Be Shown By:
1. Manner of committing the crime (e.g. minor committed the
crime during nighttime to avoid detection).
2. Conduct of the offender (e.g. a minors perverted character and
satisfaction upon the accomplishment of the act).
D. The Allegation Of With Intent To Kill In The Information Is
Sufficient Allegation Of Discernment
People v. Neito
o Facts: Alleged accused, with intent to kill, did then and
there willfully, criminally and feloniously push 8-year-
V. Burden Of Proof Of Age
Any person alleging the age has the burden of proof.
A. Presumption Of Minority
A child shall enjoy all the presumption of minority and all the
rights of a child until proven to be eighteen years or older at
the time of the commission of the offense.
B. Determination Of Age
A childs age shall be determined according to the ff rules:
1. Original or certified true copy of birth certificate.
2. Similar authentic documents (baptismal certificates, school
records)
3. Testimony of a member of the family related to the child by
affinity or consanguinity, testimonies of other persons, physical
appearance of the child and other relevant evidence.
PAR. 4: ANY PERSON WHO, WHILE PERFORMING A LAWFUL ACT WITH
DUE CARE, CAUSES INJURY BY MERE ACCIDENT WITHOUT FAULT OR
INTENTION.
I. Basis Of Paragraph 4
Lack of negligence and intent
Under this circumstance, the person does not commit either an
intentional felony or a culpable felony.
II. Elements:
1. A person is performing a lawful act
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
62
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
63
C. Accident And Negligence, Intrinsically Contradictory
Jarco Marketing Corporation v. Court of Appeals
o Accident and negligence are intrinsically contradictory.
One cannot exist with the other.
People v. Ayaya
o Court held that the absence of any reasonable motive
to prompt said defendant to injure her husband
compelled the court to conclude that in thrusting her
umbrella in the opening of the door, she did so to free
her son from imminent danger of having his head
crushed or being strangle; the injury was caused by a
mere accident.
D. When Claim Of Accident Not Appreciated:
1. People v Taylaran Repeated blows negate claim of wounding
by mere accident.
2. People v. Reyes Accidental shooting is negated by
threatening words preceding it.
PAR. 5: ANY PERSON WHO ACTS UNDER THE COMPULSION OF AN
IRRESISTIBLE FORCE
I. Basis Of Paragraph 5
Complete absence of freedom, an element of voluntariness.
Presumption: person is compelled by means of force or
violence to commit a crime.
II. Elements:
1. Compulsion is by means of physical force
2. Physical force must be irresistible
o Before a force can be considered 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 (reason why hes incapable of committing
the crime)
o In spite of all resistance, it compels the person to obey
or act upon it.
3. Physical force must come from a third person
Example: US v. Caballeros
Facts: Baculi, one of the accused but is not part of the band
which murdered the American school-teachers, was at the
scene of the crime and was made to bury the bodies because
he was struck with the butts of the bands guns.
Held: Baculi was not criminally liable because an outside
irresistible force compelled him to do the said act.
III. FIRST & SECOND ELEMENT: Compulsion Of Irresistible Force
NO Compulsion of irresistible force
People v Sarip
o Pretension of an accused to be threatened with a gun
by a friend doesnt hold when the accused has a rifle at
hand.
IV. THIRD ELEMENT: Physical Force Must Come From A Third Person
Passion or obfuscation cannot be irresistible force
Irresistible force can never consist in an impulse or passion or
obfuscation. Irresistible force must consist of an extraneous
force from a third party.
V. Nature Of Force Required
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
64
PAR. 6: ANY PERSON WHO ACTS UNDER THE IMPULSE OF AN
UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR OF AN EQUAL OR GREATER INJURY
I. Basis of Paragraph 6
Based on the complete absence of freedom; actus me invite
factus non est meus actus (an act done by me against my will
is not my act.).
Presumption: a person is compelled to commit a crime by
means of intimidation or threat.
II. Elements:
1. Threat which causes the fear is an evil greater than or at least
equal to that which he is required to commit.
2. It promises an evil of such gravity and imminence that the
ordinary man would have succumbed to it.
III. Elements:
1. Existence of an uncontrollable fear.
2. Fear must be real or imminent.
3. Fear of an injury is greater than or at least equal to that
committed.
Example: (US v. Exaltacion)
Facts: Liberato Exaltacion and Buenaventura Tanchinco swore
allegiance to the Katipunan because of fear of death.
IV. Nature Of Duress As A Valid Defense (People v. Quilloy)
Should be based on real, imminent, or reasonable fear for ones
life or limb.
Should not be speculative, fanciful, or remote fear.
V. The Accused Must Not Have Opportunity For Escape Or SelfDefense
Compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no
opportunity to the accused for escape or self-defense in equal
combat.
Duress is unavailing where the accused had every opportunity
to run away or resist when he wanted to because he was
armed
When several opportunities are present but accused did not act
upon it, defense of being under intimidation is untenable.
When the accused carries a much stronger weapon that the
one intimidating him, its held that accused did not act under
impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.
Command of Hukbalahap killers cause of uncontrollable fear
because of their ruthless killing nature (People v. Regala)
In treason nothing will excuse that act of joining an enemy,
but the fear of imminent death.
VI. Speculative, Fanciful, And Remote Fear Is Not Uncontrollable Fear
Threat must be of a serious character and imminence as to
create in the mind of the defendant an uncontrollable fear and
an infliction of an equal or greater evil would be done upon him
on non-compliance.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
65
VII. Real, Imminent Or Reasonable Fear
Case of US v. Exaltacion as an example
Threat of future injury is not enough it must be clearly
shown that the compulsion must be of such character as to
leave NO opportunity to escape
VIII. Distinction Between Irresistible Force And Uncontrollable Fear
Irresistible force (par. 5) uses violence or physical force
Uncontrollable fear (par. 6) uses intimidation or threat
PAR. 7: ANY PERSON WHO FAILS TO PERFORM AN ACT REQUIRED BY
LAW, WHEN PREVENTED BY SOME LAWFUL OR INSUPERABLE CAUSE
I. Basis Of Paragraph 7
Accused acts without intent.
II. Elements:
1. Act is required by law to be done.
2. Person fails to perform such act.
3. His failure to perform such act was due to some lawful or
insuperable cause
III. When Prevented By
A. Some Lawful Cause
(Vide, Sec. 24[d], Rule 130, Rules of Court)
A confessed to a Filipino priest that theres an ongoing
conspiracy against the government, which he is a part of. Under
the law, one is required to tell the government about the said
act. Non-compliance of this law by the Filipino priest exempts
him from criminal liability because he is bound by his
professional capacity for non-disclosure of confessions.
B. Some Insuperable Cause
Municipal president detained the offended party for three days
and was not able to comply with the 18-hour requirement
because of the no means of transportation (US v. Vicentillo)
insuperable cause is the no transportation.
A mother who was overcome by severe dizziness and extreme
debility left her child in a thicket who subsequently died is not
liable for infanticide because of the impossibility to take the
child home. (People v. Bandian) insuperable cause is the
severe dizziness and extreme debility.
OTHER MATTERS
I. In All The Exempting Circumstances, Intent Is Wanting In The Agent
Of The Crime
Intent presupposed the exercise of freedom and the use of
intelligence.
II. Distinction Between Justifying And Exempting Circumstances
Justifying circumstances
o Person does not transgress the law, he does not
commit any crime in the eyes of the law.
o There is nothing unlawful in the act as well as the
intention.
o Act is in itself just and lawful.
o There is neither a crime nor a criminal.
o No civil liability except for par. 4 (causing damage to
another in state of necessity).
Exempting circumstances
o There is a crime but NO criminal liability.
o Act is not justified but the actor is not criminally liable.
o There is civil liability except in pars. 4 and 7(causing
injury by mere accident; failing to perform an act
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
66
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
67
D. Entrapment And Instigation Distinguished
Instigation
o Instigator practically induces he would-be accused into
the commission of the offense and instigator becomes
a co-principal.
o Bar to prosecution and conviction of lawbreaker.
o Law enforcer conceives the commission of the crime
and suggests to the accused who adopts the idea and
carries it into execution.
o Exempts the criminal from liability.
o An absolutory cause.
Entrapment
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
68
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
69
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
70
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
POINTS
PAR. 1: THOSE MENTIONED IN THE PRECEDING CHAPTER, WHEN ALL
THE REQUISITES NECESSARY TO JUSTIFY OR EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL
LIABILITY IN THE RESPECTIVE CASES ARE NOT ATTENDANT.
I. Important Words And Phrases
Those mentioned in the preceding chapter
o This clause has reference to (1) justifying circumstances
and (2) exempting circumstances.
II. When All The Requisites Necessary To Justify An Act Are Not
Attendant
1. Incomplete self-defense, defense of relatives and defense of
stranger.
o Article 13, par. 1 is applicable ONLY when unlawful
aggression is present but the other two requisites (in
the cases referred to in Article 11, par. 1,2,3) are not
present.
If there is no unlawful aggression, there could
be no self-defense or defense of a relative,
whether complete or incomplete.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
71
1 Article 69. Penalty to be imposed when the crime committed is not wholly excusable. A penalty
lower by one or two degrees than that prescribed by law shall be imposed if the deed is not wholly
excusable by reason of the lack of some of the conditions required to justify the same or to
exempt from criminal liability in the several cases mentioned in Article 11 and 12, provided that
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.
III. When All The Requisite Necessary To Exempt From Criminal
Liability Are Not Attendant
1. Incomplete exempting circumstance of minority over 15 and
under 18 years of age.
o If the minor is over 15 and under 18, but acted with
discernment, he is entitled only to a mitigating
circumstance.
2. Incomplete exempting circumstance of accident.
o There are 2 requisites for Article 12, par. 4.
o If the 2nd requisite (done with due care) and the first
part of the 4th requisite (no fault) are ABSENT, case will
fall under Article 365, which punishes a felony by
negligence or imprudence mitigating because the
penalty is lower than that which punishes intentional
felony.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
72
PAR. 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
ARTICLE 80.
I. Basis Of Paragraph 2
The diminution of intelligence, a condition of voluntariness.
II. Article 13, Par. 2 Of Revised Penal Code Impliedly Repealed By
Republic Act No. 9344
Under R.A 9344, a child above 15 but below 18 years of age
shall be exempt from criminal liability unless he acted with
discernment.
If the child acted with discernment, he shall undergo diversion
programs.
III. Diversion Programs (Republic Act No. 9344)
If the child acted with discernment, he shall undergo diversion
programs.
o Diversion alternative child-appropriate process of
determining the responsibility and treatment of a child
in conflict with the law on the basis of his/her social,
cultural, economic, psychological, or educational
background without resulting to formal court
proceedings.
A. System Of Diversion
Children in conflict with the law shall undergo diversion
programs without undergoing court proceedings
Penalty
Procedure
Imposable penalty Mediation, family conferencing and conciliation
for the crime is not and, where appropriate, adopt indigenous modes
more than 6 years of conflict resolution in accordance with the best
imprisonment.
interest of the child with a view to accomplishing
the objectives of restorative justice.
Involves:
(1) Law enforcement office/Punong Barangay
(2) Local social welfare and development
officer/other members of the Local Councils
for the Protection of Children (LCPC)
(3) Child and his/her family
Victimless crime Develop appropriate diversion and rehabilitation
where imposable program.
penalty is not
more than 6 years Involves:
imprisonment.
(1) Coordinate with Barangay Council for the
Protection of Children (BCPC)
(2) Local social welfare development officer
(3) Child and his/her parents or guardians
Imposable penalty Diversion measure may be resorted only by the
exceeds 6 years court.
imprisonment
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
73
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
74
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
75
E. When Not Appreciated
Not appreciated in murder qualified by treachery.
Not applicable to felonies by negligence.
o The reason is that in felonies through negligence, the
offender acts without intent. The intent in intentional
felonies is replaced by negligence, imprudence, lack of
foresight, or lack of skill in culpable felonies.
Not applicable to felonies like defamation or slander (People v.
Galang de Bautista). Applicable ONLY to offenses resulting in
physical injuries or material harm.
IV. Is Article 13, Par. 3 Applicable To Felonies Where Intention Of The
Offender Is Immaterial?
People v. Cristobal where the resulting abortion was not
intended by the offender, this mitigating circumstance is not
applicable.
People v. Flameo where the accused pulled the hair of the
complainant with the intention to maltreat her, but thus
caused her to fall on her buttocks resulting into unintentional
abortion, mitigating circumstance was given in favor of the
accused.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
76
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
77
IV. Provocation v. Vindication
Provocation
Vindication
Made directly only to the person The grave offense may be
committing the felony.
committed also against the
offenders relatives.
The cause that brought about the The offended party must have
provocation need not be a grave done a grave offense to the
offense.
Provocation
or
threat
immediately preceded the act i.e.
no interval time in between.
Reason for difference This greater leniency in the case of
vindication is due undoubtedly to the fact that it concerns the
honor of a person, an offense which is more worthy of
consideration than mere spite against the one giving the
provocation or threat.
V. Basis To Determine Gravity Of Offense In Vindication
Considerations in determining whether a certain personal
offense was grave:
o Social standing of the person.
o Place where the insult was made.
o Time when the insult was made.
Considered grave offenses:
o Sarcastic remark implying the accused was a petty
tyrant.
o Remark of the injured party before the guests that the
accused lived at the expense of his wife
consideration of place.
o Just after the American forces reoccupied Manila, the
offended party told the accused that the latter was a
Japanese spy consideration of time.
The provocation should be proportionate to the damage
caused by the act and adequate to stir one to its commission.
Grave offense must be directed to the accused.
o The supposed grave offense done by the victim was an
alleged remark made in the presence of the accused
that the Civil Service Commission is a hangout of
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
78
IV. FIRST ELEMENT: The Act Of The Offended Party Must Be Both
Unlawful And Sufficient To Produce Such A Condition Of Mind.
Unlawful or unjust act of the offended party
o People v. Ancheta, et al. mitigating circumstance
considered in favor of the owner who, upon seeing the
person who stole his carabao, shoots the supposed
thief.
o People v. Samonte Deceased created trouble during
the wake of the departed father of the defendant.
Considering the trouble created by the accused was
both unlawful and sufficient to infuriate accused, his
guilt is mitigated by passion or obfuscation.
Exercise of a right or fulfillment of a duty is not proper source
of passion or obfuscation.
o People v. Noynay, et al. Where the accused killed
the deceased when the latter was going to take his
carabao to the barrio lieutenant after the accused
refused to pay for the sugar cane destroyed by his
carabao. The deceased was within the rights of the
deceased, and thus there is not mitigating
circumstance.
o US v. Taylor Accused was making a disturbance on a
public street when a policeman came to arrest him. The
anger and indignation of the accused resulting from the
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
79
V. SECOND ELEMENT: That Said Act Which Produced The Obfuscation
Was Not Far Removed From The Commission Of The Crime By A
Considerable Length Of Time During Which The Perpetrator Might
Recover His Normal Equanimity.
No passion or obfuscation when:
o 24 has elapsed between the alleged insult and the
commission of the felony.
o Several hours passed between the cause of passion or
obfuscation and the commission of the crime.
VI. May Passion Or Obfuscation Lawfully Arise From Causes Existing
Only In The Honest Belief Of The Offender? YES
US v. Ferrer belief of the defendant that the deceased had
caused his dismissal from his employment is sufficient to
confuse his reason and impel him to commit the crime.
US v. Macalintal belief entertained in good faith by the
defendants that the deceased cast upon their mother a spell of
withcraft which was the cause of serious illness is sufficient.
VII. Other Notes
Provocation and obfuscation when arising from one and the
same cause should be treated as only one mitigating
circumstance (p.309).
Vindication of grave offense cannot co-exist with passion and
obfuscation.
o Exception: when there are other facts, although closely
connected i.e. where there are other facts, although
closely connected with the fact upon which one
circumstance is premised, the other circumstance may
be appreciated as based on the other fact (People v.
Diokno)
o Example: Two facts which are closely connected
Elopement, which is a grave offense of a family
of old customs vindication as mitigating.
Refusal to deal with him, a stimulus strong
enough to produce in his mind a fit of passion
passion as a mitigating circumstance.
Vindication and obfuscation cannot be considered when the
person attacked is not the one who gave cause therefore.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
80
PAR. 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
I. Basis Of Paragraph 7
Lesser perversity of the offender.
II. Two Mitigating Circumstances In Paragraph:
1. Voluntary surrender to a person in authority or his agents.
2. Voluntary confession of guilt before the court prior to the
presentation of the evidence for the prosecution.
Under Article 13, when both are present, they should have the
effect of mitigating as two independent circumstances.
When they mitigate the penalty, when both are present, they
should produce this effect to a greater extent.
III. Elements For Voluntary Surrender
Requisites for paragraph 7:
o Offender had not been actually arrested
o Offender surrendered himself to a person in authority
of to the latters agent
o Surrender is voluntary
Requisites of voluntariness:
o
o
IV. FIRST ELEMENT: Offender Had Not Been Actually Arrested And
Surrendered Himself.
Cases of voluntary surrender
o People v. Tenorio Upon seeing a policeman, the
accused surrendered and admitted he did the crime.
There was intent and desire on his part to surrender.
o People v. Dayrit Accused hid in the hotel not
because of the police but because of the relatives of
the deceased. Upon seeing policemen, he readily
admitted ownership of the weapon and went with the
policemen.
o People v. Benito Instead of escaping, the accused
called the police, voluntarily approached them when
they came though not revealing his identity, and said
that he will help the police find the suspect. Later on,
he admitted that he was voluntarily surrendering
himself.
o People v. Magpalay Accused made several attempts
to surrender but somehow it got delayed because of
various reasons and so he only got to surrender after a
week. No defiance of law was present.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
81
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
82
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
83
VII. Confession Of Guilt Before A Court Prior To The Presentation Of
Evidence By The Prosecution
A. Plea Of Guilty
Three requisites
a. Offender spontaneously confessed his guilt.
b. Confession made in open court that is, before the
competent court.
c. Confession of guilt made prior to the presentation of
evidence for the prosecution.
When it must be made:
o The plea must be made before trial begins.
o Plea of guilty on appeal, not mitigating when:
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
84
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
85
Considers the fact that one suffering from physical defect does
not have complete freedom of action, and therefore there is a
diminution of that element of voluntariness.
II. Physical defect must restrict means of actions, defense, or
communication with fellow beings
Physical defect in this paragraph: armless, cripple, or a
stutterer, whereby his means to act, defend himself or
communicate with his fellow beings are limited.
Paragraph does not distinguish between educated and
uneducated deaf-mute or blind persons. The Code considers
them as being on equal footing.
PAR. 9: SUCH ILLNESS OF THE OFFENDER AS WOULD DIMINISH HIS
EXERCISING OF THE WILL-POWER OF THE OFFENDER WITHOUT
HOWEVER DEPRIVING HIM OF CONSCIOUSNESS OF HIS ACTS.
I. Basis Of Paragraph 9
The circumstance in paragraph 9 of Article 13 is mitigating
because there is a diminution of intelligence and intent.
II. Elements Of Illness That Diminishes Will-Power:
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.
III. Complete Loss Of Will-Power May Be An Exempting Circumstance.
A person with dementia praecox or manic depressive psychosis
has no control over his acts during periods of excitement.
This may be an exempting circumstance if the accused is
demented at the time he perpetrated the crime.
IV. Illness Of The Mind Is Included
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
86
V. Examples Where Illness Of The Offender Considered Mitigating
People v. Balneg
o The mistaken belief of the accused that the killing of a
witch was for the public good may be considered a
mitigating circumstance for the reason that those who
have obsession (that witches are to be killed) does not
have real control over his will.
People v. Amit
o Although being mentally sane, the appellant is suffering
from a mild behavior disorder, which the court
regarded as a mitigating circumstance.
People v. Carpenter
o One suffering from acute neurosis, which diminished
exercise of will power, is entitled to this mitigating
circumstance.
People v. Formigones
o One who is feebleminded warrants the finding in his
favor of the mitigating circumstance.
People v. Antonio
o One suffering from schizo-affective disorder or
psychosis, which diminishes the exercise of his willpower but does not deprive him of the consciousness
of his acts, may be credited with this mitigating
circumstance.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
87
Similar to passion
obfuscation
Similar to passion
obfuscation
Similar to passion
obfuscation
Similar
to
surrender
and Par. 6
and
and
voluntary Par. 7
Restitution in malversation case is only a mitigating circumstance
Payment or reimbursement is not a defense for exoneration in
malversation; it may only be considered as a mitigating
circumstance because damage is not an element of
malversation.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
88
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
89
CHAPTER 4: CIRCUMSTANCE
CRIMINAL LIABILITY
WHICH
AGGRAVATE
Article 14. Aggravating circumstances.
The following are aggravating circumstances:
1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public
position.
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.
4. That the act be committed with abuse of confidence or
obvious ungratefulness.
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.
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.
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.
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 his Code.
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.
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 use of any other
artifice involving great waste and ruin.
13. That the act be committed with evident premeditation.
14. That craft, fraud, or disguise is employed.
15. That the advantage be taken of superior strength, or means
be employed to weaken the defense.
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.
17. That means be employed or circumstances brought about
which add ignominy to the natural effects of the act.
18. That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry.
There is unlawful entry when an entrance is effected by a way
not intended for the purpose.
19. That as a means to the commission of a crime a wall, roof,
floor, door, or window be broken.
20. That the crime be committed with the aid of persons under
fifteen years of age, or be means of motor vehicle, airships, or
other similar means.
21. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be
deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not necessary
for its commission.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
90
the nature of
the crime is
changed (along
with the
corresponding
penalty)
charged but
guides the court
in imposing the
proper penalty
Article 62
abuse of
public position
inherent in
crime of
falsification of
document by
public
authority.
IV. Republic Act No. 7692
Republic Act No. 7659 added a new aggravating circumstance
of organized/syndicated group in Article 62 (1a).
o Its a special aggravating circumstance because Art 14
(which are generally generic) was not correspondingly
amended.
o An organized/syndicated crime group means a
group of 2 or more persons collaborating,
confederating or mutually helping one another for
purposes of gain in the commission of any crime (not
exclusive to robbery as long as there is profit, so
estafa, kidnapping for ransom, etc).
PAR 1: THAT ADVANTAGE BE TAKEN BY THE OFFENDER OF HIS PUBLIC
POSITION.
I. Basis Of Paragraph 1:
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
91
II. Applicable Only When The Offender Is A Public Officer
Public position points to a public officer. Paragraph 1 is
applicable only to a public officer who takes advantage of such
public position.
III. Meaning Of Advantage Be Taken By The Offender Of His Public
Position.
Public officer must use the influence, prestige, or ascendancy
which his office gives him as a means to attain his desired
purpose (US v. Rodriguez).
o There must be an intimate connection between the
offense and office of the accused.
TEST: Did the accused abuse his office in order to commit the
crime? question to ask to know the essence of the matter.
A. Examples Where This Aggravating Circumstance Is Present
He could not have maltreated the victim if he was not a
policeman on guard duty. Because of his position, he had
access to the cell where the victim, who was under his custody,
was confined (People v. Ural).
A police officer in the course of investigation of a charge
against him for grave threats shot the complainant in a
treacherous manner (People v. Reyes).
Used their authority as members of the police and constabulary
to disarm the victim before shooting him (People v. Asuncion).
This aggravating circumstance is present when a councilor
collects fines and misappropriates them US v. Torrida:
o Facts: The accused is a councilor of Aparri. After
entering upon his duties, he ordered that deaths of
large animals must be reported to him as a councilman.
B. Examples Where This Aggravating Circumstance Is Not Present
This aggravating circumstance is not present when a
Congressman offered resistance to a peace officer People v.
Veloso
o Reason: Congressman did not take advantage of the
influence or reputation of his office.
When the public officer did not take advantage of the
influence of his position, this aggravating circumstance is not
present US v. Dacuycuy
o Facts: 39 people requested the accused who was a
councilor, to purchase cedulas for them at P39. He only
bought 16, and spent the rest of the money.
o Ruling: When a public officer commits a common crime
independent of his official functions and does acts that
are not connected with the duties of his office, he
should be punished as a private individual without this
aggravating circumstance. (Note: in the case, Dacuycuy
did not use the influence, prestige, or ascendancy of his
position when he committed estafa in the abuse of
confidence. He received the money in his private
capacity.)
Peace officers taking advantage of their public positions.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
92
o
o
C. There Must Be Proof That The Accused Took Advantage Of His
Public Position.
What needs to be proven? Taking advantage of public position
or using the influence, prestige, or ascendancy of said public
position.
In the absence of proof of advantage, the aggravating
circumstance of abuse of public position could not be properly
appreciated.
IV. Failure In Official Duties Is Tantamount To Abusing Of Office.
If it is proven that one has failed in his duties as a public officer,
this circumstance would warrant the aggravation of his penalty.
Examples:
o The fact that the defendant was the vice president of a
town at the time he voluntarily joined a band of
brigands made his liability greater (US v. Cagayan).
V. Not Aggravating When
A. It Is An Integral Element Of, Or Inherent In, The Offense.
Where taking advantage is an integral element of the crime:
o Article 217: Malversation
o Article. 171: falsification of document committed by
public officers
o Article. 19, par. 3: Taking advantage of public position
is inherent in the case of accessories and in crimes
committeed by public officers.
o Articles. 203-245: Crimes committed by public officers.
B. If The Accused Could Have Perpetrated The Crime Even Without
Occupying His Position, There Is No Abuse Of Public Position.
Not aggravating if accused could have perpetrated the crime
without occupying police position. People v. Herrera mere
fact that the accused-appellant is a policeman and used his
government issued .38 caliber revolver to kill is not sufficient to
establish that he misused his public position in the commission
of the crime.
The offenders being a public officer does not ipso facto make it
aggravating. If the public officer could have committed the
crime without the use of public position, it is not aggravating.
Thus, using ones service firearm in shooting someone does not
fall under this aggravating circumstance (People v. Villamor).
PAR. 2: THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED IN CONTEMPT OF OR WITH
INSULT TO THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
93
IV. FIRST and SECOND ELEMENT: The Crime Should Not Be Committed
Against The Public Authority.
If the crime is committed against a public authority while he is
in the performance of his official duty, the offender commits
direct assault (Article 148) without this aggravating
circumstance, because it is not a crime committed in
contempt of or with insult to him, but a crime directly
committed against him.
People v. Santok did not follow this where it was held that
homicide was committed with this aggravating circumstance
since the deceased was shot while in the performance of his
official duty as barrio lieutenant.
o The accused should have been prosecuted for and
convicted of a complex crime of homicide with direct
assault WITHOUT this aggravating circumstance.
V. THIRD ELEMENT: Knowledge That A Public Authority Is Present Is
Essential.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
94
VI. FOURTH ELEMENT: Presence Of Public Authority Has Not
Prevented Offender From Committing The Crime.
An offense may have been said to be committed in contempt
when the offender proceeds with the criminal act even with the
full knowledge of a public authoritys presence.
Remember: Not applicable when crime is committed in the
presence of an agent only.
PAR. 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.
I. When All The Four Aggravating Circumstances (Age, Sex, Rank,
Dwelling) Are Present, Must They Be Considered As One?
Can be considered single or together.
If all the 4 circumstances are present, they have the weight of
one aggravating circumstance only.
BUT see People v. Santos in Article 14(6).
II. Basis of Paragraph 3:
On the greater perversity of the offender, as shown by the
personal circumstances of the offended party and the place of
the commission of the crime.
III. Applicable Only To Crimes Against Persons Or Honor, Not Property
IV. Meaning Of With Insult Or In Disregard.
It is necessary to prove the specific fact or circumstance in
order that it may be considered as aggravating circumstance
(People v. Valencia).
There must be evidence that in the commission of the crime,
the accused deliberately intended to offend or insult the sex or
age of the offended party (People v. Mangsant).
The circumstance of old age cannot be considered aggravating.
V. With Insult Or In Disregard Of The Respect Due The Offended Party
On Account Of The
A. Rank Of The Offended Party
Meaning of rank refers to a high social position or standing
as a grade in the armed forces; or to a graded official standing
or social position or station; or to the order or place in which
said officers are placed in the army and navy in relation to
others; or to the designation or title of distinction conferred
upon an officer in order to fix his relative position in reference
to other officers in matters of privileges, precedence, and
sometimes of command or by which to determine his pay and
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
95
B. Age Of The Offended Party
The circumstance of lack of respect due to age applies in cases
where the victim is of tender age as well as of old age.
Deliberate intent to offend or insult required.
Disregard of old age not aggravating in robbery with homicide.
Robbery with homicide is primarily a crime against property
and not against persons. Homicide is a mere incident of the
robbery.
C. Sex Of The Offended Party
Refers to the female sex.
No disregard of respect due to sex
o Example: A and B (f) were sweethearts. B broke up with
A so A killed her. Held: it was not proved or admitted
by the accused that when he committed the crime, he
had the intention or disregarded the sex of the victim.
Disregard of sex is not aggravating in the absence of evidence
that the accused deliberately intended to offend or insult the
sex of the victim or showed manifest disrespect to her
womanhood.
o Killing a woman is not attended by the aggravating
circumstance if the offender did not manifest any
specific insult or disrespect towards the sex.
VI. Not applicable in certain cases
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
96
A. Basis Of This Circumstance
Greater perversity of the offender, as shown by the place of the
commission of the offense and also because of the sanctity of
privacy the law accords to human abode.
B. What Dwelling Includes
When the deceased had two houses where he used to live, the
commission of the crime in any of them is attended by the
aggravating circumstance of dwelling
Includes dependencies, the foot of the staircase and enclosure
under the house.
If victim was only about to step on the first rung of the ladder
when he was assaulted, the aggravating circumstance of
dwelling will not be applicable (People v. Sespene).
Room in a boarding house (People v. Daniel)
Room of stay-in laundrywoman in house of amo (People v.
Sapinoso)
o Compare with People v. Punzalan, where this wasnt
appreciated because accused and victim lived together.
House of a squatter since law does not distinguish validity of
title
Little rooms separated by curtains (e.g. dormitory).
C. What Aggravates The Commission Of The Crime In Ones Dwelling:
1. Abuse of confidence which the offended party reposed in the
offender by opening the door to him;
2. Trespassing therein with violence or against the will of the
owner.
VIII. Offended Party Must Not Give Provocation
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
97
A. Meaning Of Provocation In The Aggravating Circumstance Of
Dwelling
The provocation must be:
a. Given by the owner of the dwelling
b. Sufficient
c. Immediate to the commission of the crime.
If any of these conditions is not present, the offended party is
deemed not to have given provocation, and the fact that the
crime is committed in the dwelling of the offended party is an
aggravating circumstance.
B. There Must Be Close Relation Between Provocation And
Commission Of Crime In The Dwelling
Aggravating circumstance not applicable if provocation given by
the offended party true only when there exists a close
relation between the provocation and the commission of the
crime in the dwelling of the person from whom the provocation
came.
Because the provocation is not immediate, dwelling is
aggravating.
o People v. Dequina
Facts: Defendant learned that the deceased
and defendants house were maintaining illicit
relations. One night, he went to the house of
the deceased and killed him there. During the
trial, defendant claimed that deceased gave
provocation because of the illicit affair with his
wife.
Held: Provocation (illicit relations) not
immediate to the commission of the crime and
hence, dwelling is still aggravating. Provocation
IX. Even If The Offender Did Not Enter The Dwelling, This
Circumstance Applies
It is enough that the victim was attacked inside his own house,
although the assailant may have devised means to perpetrate
the assault from without.
Even if the killing took place outside the dwelling, it is
aggravating provided that the commission of the crime began
in the dwelling
o The act performed cannot be divided or the unity
resulting from its details be broken up.
Dwelling is aggravating in abduction or illegal detention
o Example: victim was taken from his or her house and
carried away to another place (dwelling is aggravating).
o But not aggravating when deceased was called down
from his house and he was murdered in the vicinity of
the house.
X. Whether Or Not Dwelling Is Aggravating
A. Dwelling Not Aggravating In The Following Cases:
Both offender and offended party are occupants of the same
house; true even if offender is a servant of the house.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
98
B. Dwelling Was Found Aggravating In The Following Cases Although
The Crimes Were Committed Not In The Dwelling Of The Victims
Boarding house where victim is a bedspacer.
Paternal home where they were guests at the time and did not
reside there.
C. Dwelling Is Aggravating When The Husband Killed His Estranged
Wife In The House Solely Occupied By Her In Case Of Adultery
When adultery is committed in the dwelling of the husband,
even if it is also the dwelling of the unfaithful wife, it is
aggravating because besides the latters breach of the fidelity
she owes her husband, she and her paramour violated the
respect due to the conjugal home and they both thereby
injured and committed a very grave offense against the head of
the house.
Dwelling not aggravating in adultery when paramour also lives
there
o Defendants had a right to be in the house
o Aggravating circumstance present in such case is abuse
of confidence
XI. Treachery
Aggravating circumstance of age, sex and rank are not
absorbed in the crime of treachery.
o People v. Lapaz aggravating circumstances of
disregard of sex and age are not absorbed in treachery
because treachery refers to the manner of the
commission of the crime, while disregard of sex and
age pertains to the relationship of the victim.
o BUT SEE People v. Malolot, where accused hacked to
death an 11-month old child and the SC considered age
absorbed by treachery. Sir doesnt agree with this case,
but its the later case, so it should prevail.
Age, sex, rank and dwelling can be appreciated separately from
treachery.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
99
PAR. 4: THAT THE ACT BE COMMITTED WITH (1) ABUSE OF
CONFIDENCE OR (2) OBVIOUS UNGRATEFULNESS
Note: There are 2 aggravating circumstances in this paragraph.
I. Basis Of Paragraph 4:
Greater perversity of the offender, as shown by the means and
ways employed.
II. FIRST AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE: Abuse Of Confidence
This circumstance exists only when offended party has given
trust to offender who later abuses this trust by committing a
crime.
Abuse of confidence must be a means of facilitating the
commission of the crime. Offender taking advantage of the
offended partys belief that the former would not abuse said
confidence.
A. Elements:
1. Offended party had trusted the offender.
2. Offender abused such trust by committing a crime against the
offended party.
3. Abuse of confidence facilitated the commission of the crime.
B. FIRST ELEMENT: Offended Party Trusted The Offender
Where confidence does not exist
People v. Luchico
Facts: Master made advances to his female
servant. She refused, fled, and the master
caught up with her and committed the crime of
rape. When the master raped the victim, she
had already lost her confidence in him from the
moment he made an indecent proposal and
offended her with a kiss.
Held: The confidence must facilitate the
commission of the crime, the culprit taking
advantage of offended partys belief that the
former would not abuse said confidence. No
aggravating circumstance in this case.
Special relation of confidence between accused and victim
o Betrayal of confidence is not aggravating
People v. Crumb Parents left to the care of
the abused their daughter. One day, accused
led the daughter to an isolated place and
threatened her with a knife to have sexual
intercourse with him. Though accused betrayed
the confidence reposed to him by the parents
of the girl, it did not facilitate the commission
of the crime and hence, its not aggravating.
o Killing of a child by an amah is aggravated by abuse of
confidence
People v. Caliso Killer of the child is the
domestic servant of the family and sometimes
the deceased childs amah. Aggravating
circumstance of abuse of confidence is present.
o Difference between the Crumb and Caliso case
Crumb case: the offended girl could resist,
although unsuccessfully, the commission of the
crime.
o
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
100
III. SECOND AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE: Ungratefulness Must Be
Obvious i.e. Manifest And Clear
For obvious ungratefulness, the offended received favors from
the victim but still committed the crime (e.g. kupal).
Examples where this aggravating circumstance is present:
o Accused killed his father-in-law whose house he lived
and who partially supported him (People v. Floresca).
o Accused was living in the house of the victim who
employed him as an overseer and in charge of
carpentry work, and had free access to the house of the
victim who was very kind to him, his family, and who
helped him solve his problems (People v. Lupango).
o Security guard killed a bank officer and robbed the
bank (People v. Nismal).
o Victim was suddenly attacked while in the act of giving
the assailants their bread and coffee for breakfast
(People v. Bautista).
Example where this aggravating circumstance is not present:
o Mere fact that the accused and offended party lived in
the same house is not enough to prove abuse of
PAR. 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
I. Basis Of Paragraph 5:
Greater perversity of the offender, as shown by the place of the
commission of the crime, which must be respected.
II. Place Where Public Authorities Are Engaged In The Discharge Of
Their Duties (Par. 5), Distinguished From Contempt Or Insult To Public
Authorities (Par.2)
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 2
Public authorities in the performance of their duties
Public authorities in the
Public authorities in the
performance of their duties must performance of their duties
be in their office
outside of their office
Public authority may be the
Public authority should not be the
offended party
offended party
III. Important Words And Phrases
A. That The Crime Be Committed In The Palace Of The Chief
Executive Or In His Presence Official Or Religious Functions, Not
Necessary.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
101
B. Where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their
duties Other public authorities must be actually engaged in the
performance of duty
As regards to the place where the public authorities are
engaged in the discharge of their duties, there must be some
performance of public functions.
This aggravating circumstance was appreciated in a crime of
murder in an electoral precinct during election day as it is a
place where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of
their duties on such day (People v. Canoy)
C. Or in a place dedicated to religious worship
Cemeteries are not such place, however respectable they may
be, as they are not dedicated to the worship of God.
This aggravating circumstance was appreciated in a case where
the accused shot the victim inside the church or in a case of
unjust vexation where the accused kissed a girl inside a church
when a religious service was being solemnized (People v.
Aonuevo).
IV. Offender must have intention to commit a crime when he entered
the place (lack of respect!)
People v. Jaurigue
o Facts: At the time of the commission of the crime, both
deceased and defendant were inside the chapel.
PAR. 6: THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED (1) IN THE NIGHTTIME OR IN
(2) AN UNINHABITED PLACE, OR (3) BY A BAND, WHENEVER SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES MAY FACILITATE THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE
I. Basis Of Paragraph 6:
On the time and place of the commission of the crime and
means and ways employed.
II. Should These Circumstances Be Considered As One Only Or Three
Separately?
People v. Santos (April 27, 1897) Former ruling of only one
aggravating circumstance not an absolute and general rule
which would exclude the possibility of their being considered
separately when their elements are distinctly perceived and can
subsist independently, revealing a greater degree of perversity.
o People v. Cunanan nighttime and band were
considered separately.
General Rule: If all 3 circumstances are present, you should
consider them as one.
o Exception: When the 3 can be distinctly perceived and
can subsist independently of each other, revealing
greater perversity. (People v. Librando)
III. When Aggravating
Nighttime, uninhabited place or band is aggravating when
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
102
IV. Test to determine when such circumstance may facilitate the
commission of the offense
A. Paragraph 6 Requires Only That Nighttime, Uninhabited Place, Or
Band May Facilitate The Commission Of The Offense
Test fixed by the stature is an objective one.
Nighttime may facilitate the commission of the crime crime
can be perpetrated unmolested, or interference can be avoided
or there would be greater certainty in attaining the ends of the
offender (People v. Matbagon).
Example: Nighttime facilitated the commission of the crime to
such an extent that the defendant was able to consummate it
with all its details without anyone nearby becoming aware of
its occurrence (People v. Villas).
B. Meaning Of Especially Sought For, For The Purpose Of
Impunity, And "Took Advantage Thereof.
These are other tests for the application of this aggravating
circumstance.
Especially sought for
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
103
VI. Uninhabited Place (Desplobado)
A. What Is Uninhabited Place?
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
104
B. It Is The Nature Of The Place That Is Decisive (People v. Bangug).
Aggravating circumstance should not be considered when the
place where the crime was committed could not be seen and
the voice of the deceased could be heard from a nearby house.
(People v. Laoto)
How aggravating circumstance should be determined: whether
or not in the place of the commission of the offense there was
a reasonable possibility of the victim receiving some help.
o It is not the distance, but the possibility or impossibility
of immediate aid to be obtained (People v. Ostia and
People v. Cabiles). If the distance is not so great, but
you have to climb a hill to reach the house to render
aid, despoblado is considered.
Open sea is considered as uninhabited place as no help can be
expected by the victim from other persons and the offenders
could easily escape punishment (People v. Nulla).
o The purely accidental circumstance that on the day in
question, another banca, namely, that of the witnesses
for the prosecution, was also at see, is not an argument
against the consideration of such aggravating
circumstance (People v. Rubia).
When the victims are the occupants of the only house in the
place, the crime is committed in an uninhabited place.
o A place about a kilometer from the nearest house or
another inhabited place is considered an uninhabited
place (People v. Aguinaldo).
Solitude must be sought to better attain the criminal purpose
o It must appear that the accused sought the solitude.
o The offenders must choose the place as an aid either
(1) to an easy and uninterrupted accomplishment of
VII. By a band
A. What Is A Band?
Whenever more than three armed malefactors shall have acted
together in the commission of an offense (Article 14(6), par.2).
The armed men must act together in the commission of the
crime.
o Stated in the definition of armed men that they shall
act together.
o There must be more than 3 armed men Even if there
are 20 persons, but only 3 are armed, this aggravating
circumstance by a band cannot be considered.
o If one of the four armed persons is a principal by
inducement, they do not form a band.
All the armed men, at least 4 in number, must
take direct part in the execution of the act
constituting the crime (Article. 17, par. 1,
Revised Penal Code).
Stone is included in the term arms
o There is intention to cause death if the accused throws
a stone at the victims (People v. Bautista).
B. When This Aggravating Circumstance Is Applicable:
Abuse of superior strength and use of firearms, absorbed in
aggravating circumstance of by a band.
o Aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of their
superior strength and with the use of firearms is
absorbed by the generic aggravating circumstance of
the commission of the offense by a band.
By a band is aggravating in robbery with homicide
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
105
VIII. When Nighttime, Uninhabited Place, Or By A Band Did Not
Facilitate The Commission Of The Crime, Was Not Especially Sought
For, Or Was Not Taken Advantage Of.
Facts: 4 armed men casually met another group in an
uninhabited place at nighttime. They quarreled and in the heat
of anger, one from the other group was killed. Nighttime,
uninhabited place, and by a band are not aggravating
circumstances here.
Reason: When the offenders attacked the group of the
deceased in the heat of anger, they could not have taken
advantage of such circumstances, and such circumstances
could not have facilitated the commission of the crime as well.
PAR. 7: THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED ON THE OCCASION OF A
CONFLAGRATION, SHIPWRECK, EARTHQUAKE, EPIDEMIC, OR OTHER
CALAMITY OR MISFORTUNE.
I. Basis Of Paragraph 7:
Reference to the time of the commission of the crime, not the
means.
II. Reason For The Aggravation
III. The Offender Must Take Advantage Of The Calamity Or Misfortune
If accused was provoked by the offended party to commit the
crime during the calamity or misfortune, this aggravating
circumstance may not be taken into consideration for the
purpose of increasing the penalty because the accused did not
take advantage of it.
IV. Chaotic Condition As An Aggravating Circumstance
Or other calamity or misfortune conditions of distress
similar to those enumerated, that is conflagration, shipwreck,
earthquake, or epidemic.
Chaotic conditions after liberation is not included in this
paragraph (People v. Corpus). But in the case of People v.
Penjan), the chaotic condition resulting from the liberation of
San Pablo was considered a calamity.
Development of engine trouble at sea is a misfortune but not
within the context of the phrase other calamity or misfortune
(People v. Arpa).
PAR. 8: THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED WITH THE AID OF ARMED
MEN OR PERSONS WHO INSURE OR AFFORD IMPUNITY.
I. Basis Of Paragraph 8:
Means and ways of committing the crime.
II. Elements:
1. Armed men or persons took part in the commission of the
crime, directly or indirectly.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
106
III. Rule For The Application Of This Circumstance
Accused must have availed himself of the aid of armed men.
o Casual presence of armed men near the place where
the crime was committed does not constitute an
aggravating circumstance when it appears that the
accused did not avail himself of their aid or rely upon
them to commit the crime.
A. The Armed Men Must Take Part Directly Or Indirectly.
Accused stabbed the deceased to death alone, without
assistance from anyone, even though there were ten men
armed with daggers, and five without, but these men took no
part, directly or indirectly, in the commission of the crime. The
accused therefore did not avail himself of their aid or rely upon
them to commit the crime (US v. Abaigar).
B. Examples Of With Aid Of Armed Men
A secured the services of 3 armed Moros to kill her husband.
During the act, A held the light and supplied the men with rope
while the 3 men clubbed her husband to death. A was charged
with parricide with the aid of armed men (People v. Hane).
O and L were prosecuted for robbery with rape. They had
companions who were armed when they committed the crime.
It was held that they were guilty of robbery with rape with
aggravating circumstance of aid of armed men (People v. Ortiz).
Exceptions:
o Aggravating circumstance shall not be considered when
both the attacking party and the party attacked were
equally armed.
o Aggravating circumstance not present when the
accused as well as those who cooperated with him in
IV. With The Aid Of Armed Men (Par. 8), Distinguished From By A
Band. (Par. 6)
Paragraph 8 (Aid Of Armed Men)
Paragraph 6 (By A Band)
Aid of armed men is present even By a band requires more than
if one of the offenders merely three armed malefactors have
relied on their aid. Actual aid is acted together in committing the
not necessary.
offense.
A. Aid of armed men is absorbed by employment of a band
It is improper to be separately take into account against the
accused the aggravating circumstance of (1) the aid of armed
men, and (2) employment of a band in appraising the gravity if
the offense, in view of the definition of band which includes
any group of armed men, provided they are at least 4 in
number.
B. Distinguished From Article 62 (Organized Crime Syndicate)
By A Band
Article 62
Aid of Armed Men
Liability
All principals
All principals
Armed men are
accomplices
Number
4 or more
2 or more
2 or more
Specificity Crime not
Crime for GAIN
Crime not
specified
specified
Nature
Generic
Special
Generic
aggravating;
cant be offset
V. Aid Of Armed Men Includes Armed Women
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
107
PAR. 9: THAT THE ACCUSED IS A RECIDIVIST.
I. Basis Of Paragraph 9:
Greater perversity of the offender, as shown by his inclination
to crimes.
II. Who Is A Recidivist?
One who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been
previously convicted by final judgment of another crime
embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code (Article
14(9), Paragraph 2).
o No requirement that it be consummated. Can be
attempted or frustrated. Law does not distinguish.
III. Elements:
1. Offender is on trial for an offense.
2. He was previously convicted by final judgment of another
crime.
3. Both the first and second offenses are embraced in the same
title of the Code.
4. Offender is convicted of the new offense.
IV. FIRST ELEMENT: At the time of his trial for one crime.
What is controlling is the time of trial, not the time of the
commission of the crime.
o It is not required that at the time of the commission of
the second crime, the accused should have been
V. SECOND ELEMENT: Previously Convicted By Final Judgment
Section 7 of Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure except where the death penalty is imposed, a
judgment in a criminal case becomes final.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
108
VI. THIRD ELEMENT: The Present Crime And The Previous Crime Must
Be Embraced In The Same Title Of This Code.
When one offense is punishable by an ordinance or special law
and the other by the Revised Penal Code, the two offenses are
not embraced in the same title of the Code.
But recidivism was considered aggravating in a usury case
where the accused was previously convicted of the same
offense.
o Article 10 Revised Penal Code as supplementing
special laws of a penal character.
A. Examples Of Crimes Embraced In The Same Title Of The Revised
Penal Code
Robbery and theft (Title 10)
Homicide and physical injuries (Title 8)
The felonies defined and penalized in Book II of Revised Penal
Code are grouped in different titles.
VI. Pardon Does Not Obliterate The Fact That The Accused Was A
Recidivist; But Amnesty Extinguished The Penalty And Its Effects
This is the ruling in the case of US v. Sotelo.
Pardon does not prevent a former conviction form being
considered as an aggravating circumstance.
PAR. 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.
I. Basis of Paragraph 10:
Same as that of recidivism, i.e, the greater perversity of the
offender as shown by his inclination to crimes.
II. Elements:
1. Accused is on trial for an offense.
2. He previously served sentence for another offense to which the
law attaches an equal or greater penalty, or for two or more
crimes to which it attaches lighter penalty than that for the
new offense.
3. He is convicted of the new offense.
III. Reiteracion or Habituality
In reiteracion or habituality, it is essential that the offender be
previously punished, that is, he has served sentence, for an
offense in which the law attached, or provides for an equal or
greater penalty than that attached by law to the second
offense, or for two or more offenses, in which the law attaches
a lighter penalty.
People v. Villapando The records did not disclose that the
accused has been so previously punished. Reiteracion or
habituality is not attendant.
IV. SECOND ELEMENT: Has been previously punished
Means that the accused previously served sentence for another
offense or sentences for other offenses before his trial for the
new offense.
Second requisite is present:
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
109
A. Punished For An Offense To Which The Law Attaches An Equal X X
X Penalty.
A served sentence for forcible abduction punishable by
reclusion temporal then committed homicide after being
released, which is also punishable by reclusion temporal.
B. Punished For An Offense To Which The Law Attaches X X X Greater
Penalty.
A served sentence for homicide punishable by reclusion
temporal then committed falsification after punishable by a
penalty ranging from 6 years and 1 day to 12 years.
Suppose its falsification first then homicide after? No
habituality, because the penalty for the first offense is less than
that for the second offense. The penalty for the first offense
must at least be equal to that for the second offense.
Homicide before and homicide after? There is recividism,
because the first and the second offenses are embraced in the
same title of the Code.
C. Punished Xxx For Two Or More Crimes To Which It Attaches A
Lighter Penalty.
The previous two offenses, the law provides lesser penalties.
V. It Is The Penalty Attached To The Offense, Not The Penalty Actually
Imposed.
Article 14, Par. 10 speaks of penalty attached to the offense,
which may have several periods.
VI. Reiteracion Or Habituality, Not Always Aggravating.
If penalty is death and the offenses for which the offender has
been previously convicted are against property and not directly
against persons, courts should exercise its discretion in favor of
the accused by not taking this circumstance into account.
VII. The Four Forms Of Repetition:
1. Recidivism (Article 14, Par. 9)
2. Reiteracion or habituality (Article 14, Par. 10)
3. Multi-recidivism or habitual delinquency (Article 62, par. 5)
4. Quasi-recidivism (Article 160)
A. Recidivism And Reiteracion Distinguished
Recidivism
Reiteracion
Enough that a final judgment has Necessary that the offender shall
been rendered in the first offense have served out his sentence for
the first offense
Requires that the offenses be Previous and subsequent offenses
included in the same title of the must not be embraced in the
Code
same title of the Code.
Always to be taken into Not always an aggravating
consideration in fixing the penalty circumstance
to be imposed upon the accused
No requirement as to penalty Prior crime must have been
imposed on the prior conviction
penalized with an equal or greater
penalty or 2 or more crimes with
lighter penalty
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
110
B. Habitual Delinquency
There is habitual delinquency when a person, within a period of
10 years from the date of his release or last conviction of the
crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robbery,
theft, estafa, or falsification, is found guilty of any of said
crimes a third time of oftener.
o There is a need for 3 convictions, with the third being
committed within 10 years from the second.
In habitual delinquency, he is either a recidivist or punished for
habituality (two or more crimes).
o An offender can be a recidivist and habitual delinquent
at the same time.
He shall suffer an additional penalty for being a habitual
delinquent (special aggravating circumstance).
Recidivism
Habitual Delinquency
Convictions Two are enough
Three are required
Crimes
Must be both under the Serious or less serious
covered
same title of the Code
physical injuries, robbery,
theft,
estafa,
or
falsification
Prescription None as no time limit given Prescribes if the 10-year
by law between the 1st and limit between the second
2nd convictions
and third convictions are
exceeded
Nature
Generic, can be offset
Special, cant be offset
Penalty
Increase is to the max Entails additional penalty,
period
which increases with the
number of convictions
C. Quasi-recidivism
Any person who shall commit a felony after having been
convicted by final judgment, before beginning to serve such
sentence, or while serving the same, shall be punished by the
maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new
felony. (Article 160)
This is a special aggravating circumstance that cant be offset,
and penalizes the offender with the max period of the new
felony committed.
o Example: Accused is serving sentence for homicide.
Then kills someone in prison. Hell get the max period
for his second homicide.
PAR. 11: THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED IN CONSIDERATION OF A
PRICE, REWARD, OR PROMISE
I. Basis For Paragraph 11
Greater perversity of the offender, as shown by the motivating
power itself.
II. This Aggravating Circumstance Presupposed The Concurrence Of
Two Or More Offenders
There must be 2 or more principals, the one who gives or offers
the price or promise, and the one who accepts it.
Both of whom are principals to the former, because he
directly induces the latter to commit the crime, the latter
because he actually commits it.
A. Is This Paragraph Applicable To The One Who Gave The Price Or
Reward?
YES. It affects not only the person who received the price of the
reward but also the person who gave it (US v. Parro). The
aggravating circumstance of price, reward or promise thereof
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
111
III. Application Of This Paragraph: Price Reward Or Promise Must Be
For The Purpose Of Inducing Another To Perform The Deed
For this aggravating circumstance to be considered against the
person, inducement must be primary consideration for the
commission of the of the crime by him (People v. Paredes).
Evidence must show that one of the accused used money or
other valuable consideration for the purpose of inducing
another to perform the deed (US v. Gamao).
o Services can constitute valuable consideration.
If without previous promise it was given voluntarily after the
crime has been committed as an expression of his appreciation
for the sympathy and aid shown by other accused, it should not
be taken into consideration for the purpose of increasing the
penalty (US v. Flores).
A. Effect Of Mistake In Identity Of The Victim
The aggravating circumstance will only be considered for the
case of the acceptor and not the one who made the offer.
PAR. 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,
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
112
IV. Par. 12 Distinguished From Par. 7
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 7
The crime is committed by means The crime is committed on the
of any of such acts involving great occasion of a calamity or
waste or ruin
misfortune
PAR. 13: THAT THE ACT BE COMMITTED WITH EVIDENT
PREMEDITATION
I. Basis of Paragraph 13
Ways of committing the crime, because it implies a deliberate
planning of the act before executing it.
II. Illustration Of Deliberate Planning
A planned to kill B, where his plan could be deduced from the
following outward circumstances:
o He caused his co-accused, C, to be drunk.
o He remarked that he had a grudge against B.
o He supplied ammunition to C.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
113
VI. FIRST REQUISITE: The Date And Time When The Offender
Determined To Commit The Crime Essential
This is because the lapse of time for the purpose of the 3rd
requisite is computed from that date and time.
VII. SECOND REQUISITE Necessary: Manifest Indication Of Clinging To
Culprits Determination
The premeditation must be based upon external acts and not
presumed from mere lapse of time.
o The criminal intent must be notorious and manifest and
the purpose and determination must be plain and have
been adopted after mature consideration on the part
of the persons who conceived and resolved upon the
perpetration of the crime, as a result deliberation,
meditation and reflection sometime before
commission.
The rule is that the qualifying circumstance of premeditation is
satisfactorily established only if it is proved that the defendant
had deliberately planned to commit the crime, and had
persistently and continuously followed it, notwithstanding that
he had ample time to allow his conscience to overcome the
determination of his will, if he had so desired after meditation
and reflection (People v. Sarmiento).
A. Second Requisite Exists
It can be said that the offender clung to their determination when:
Was carefully planned by the offenders.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
114
B. Mere Threats Without The Second Element Does Not Show Evident
Premeditation
A threat to kill, unsupported by other evidence which would
disclose the criminal state of mind of the accused is not a
resolution involved in evident premeditation (People v.
Fernandez).
The mere fact as soon as the accused heard that the deceased
had escaped from stockade he prepared to kill him is
insufficient to establish evident premeditation. The proposition
was nothing but an expression of his own determination to
commit the crime differ from premeditation (People v.
Carillo).
There is no showing that, between the day the threat was given
and the day the killing actually occurred, the appellant made
plans or sought the deceased to accomplish the killing. The
killing happened when the appellant was plowing the field and
the deceased unexpectedly appeared (People v. Sarmiento).
VIII. THIRD REQUISITE: Sufficient Lapse Of Time
Law does not give formula. Case to case basis. (People v. Rodas)
When the act was not prompted by the impulse of the
moment.
A. Existence Of Ill-Feeling Or Grudge Alone Is Not Proof Of Evident
Premeditation
A grudge or resentment is not a conclusive proof of evident
premeditation.
B. Reason Why Sufficient Time Is Required
To give the offender an opportunity to coolly and serenely
think and deliberate on the meaning and the consequences of
what he planned to do, an interval long enough for his
conscience and better judgment to overcome his evil desire
and scheme.
C. There Must Be Sufficient Time Between The Outward Acts And The
Actual Commission Of The Crime
The mere fact that the accused was lying in wait before the
attack is NOT sufficient to sustain a finding of evident
premeditation, in the absence of proof that he had been lying
in wait for a substantial period of time.
IX. Conspiracy generally presupposes premeditation
When conspiracy is directly established, the existence of
evident premeditation can be taken for granted.
Exception: When conspiracy is only implied, evident
premeditation my not be appreciated (in the absence of proof
as to how and when the plan to kill was hatched).
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
115
XII. Evident Premeditation, While Inherent In Robbery, May Be
Aggravating In Robbery With Homicide IF The Premeditation
Included The Killing Of The Victim.
If the killing is only incidental because the original plan was only
to rob, this aggravating circumstance should be disregarded.
Thus:
o If in addition to the crime of robbery, the accused
intended to kill a person (robbery with homicide),
evident premeditation is aggravating.
o But if he had no plan to kill a person, but ends up killing
a person in the house who put up some form of
resistance, no evident premeditation (People v
Curachia).
PAR. 14: THAT (1) CRAFT, (2) FRAUD, OR (3) DISGUISE BE EMPLOYED.
I. Basis of Paragraph 14
Means employed in the commission of the crime
II. Application Of This Paragraph
This circumstance is characterized by the intellectual or mental
rather than the physical means to which the criminal resorts to
carry out his design.
These cannot be appreciated when it did not facilitate the
commission of the crime, or when it was not taken advantage
of by the offender in the course of the assault.
If they were used to insure the commission of the crime against
persons without risk to offender, absorbed by treachery
(usually absorbed by treachery)
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
116
III. Craft (Involves intellectual trickery and cunning on the part of the
accused)
It is chicanery resorted to by the accused to aid in the execution
of the crime.
Example:
o When the accused pretended to be bona fide
passengers in the taxicab driven by the diseased in
order to not arouse his suspicion and then killing him,
there is craft (People v. Daos).
o Accused lures victim out of his house (People v.
Barbosa) or into a false sense of security to make him
unmindful of the tragedy that would befall him (People
v. Rodriguez)
o Craft was used in rape when the accused offered a
drugged but innocent looking chocolate to the victim,
which did not arouse her suspicion, in order to weaken
and prevent her from resisting (People v. Guy, CA).
A. Craft, When Not An Aggravating Circumstance.
Where craft partakes of an element of the offense, the same
may not be appreciated independently for the purpose of
aggravation.
Craft is not clearly established where accused and his
companions did not camouflage their hostile intentions and
even announced their presence with shouts and gunshots
(People v. Cunanan).
IV. Fraud (Insidious words or machinations used to induce the victim to
act in a manner which would enable the offender to carry out his
design)
Example: Where the defendants induced their victims to give
up their arms upon a promise that no harm would befall them
(US v. Abelinde).
A. Hairline Distinction Between Craft And Fraud
There is craft OR fraud (either can be used) when by trickery,
accused gained entrance in the victims house by pretending
they had pacific intentions (People v. Saliling).
B. How Is Craft Distinguished From Fraud?
Craft
Fraud
When the act of the accused was When there is a direct inducement
done in order not to arouse the by
insidious
words
or
suspicion of the victim
machinations
VI. Disguise (Resorting to any device to conceal identity)
Example:
o Defendant blackened his face in order that he should
not be recognized (US v. Cofrada).
o The fact that the mask subsequently fell down thus
paving the way for identification does not render the
aggravating circumstance of disguise inapplicable
(People v. Cabato).
o Use of an assumed name in publication (People v.
Adamos).
A. Disguise, Not Considered
When the disguise was not effective in concealing identity.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
117
B. The Purpose Of The Offender In Using Any Device Must Be To
Conceal His Identity
Muslim turbans are not disguises, since it is not intended to
conceal ones identity (US v. Rodriguez).
Disguise did not facilitate the consummation of the killing, nor
taken advantage of by the malefactors in the course of the
assault. Their mode of attack i.e. arriving with shouts and
gunshots counteracted whatever deception might have arisen
from their disguise (People v. Cunanan).
PAR. 15: THAT (1) ADVANTAGE BE TAKEN OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH,
OR (2) MEANS BE EMPLOYED TO WEAKEN THE DEFENSE
I. Meaning Of Advantage Be Taken
Means to use purposely excessive force out of proportion to the
means of defense available to the person attacked.
II. Illustrations
A. Illustrations Of No Advantage Of Superior Strength
One who attacks another with passion and obfuscation does
not take advantage of his superior strength.
When a quarrel arose unexpectedly and the fatal blow was
struck at a time when the aggressor and his victim were
engaged against each other as man to man.
When the attack was made on the victim alternately, there is
no abuse of superior strength (People v. Narciso).
B. Illustrations Of Abuse Of Superior Strength
When a strong man has ill-treated a child, an old decrepit
person, or one weakened by disease or where a persons
C. Abuse Of Superior Strength When A Man Attacks A Woman With A
Weapon
An attack made by a man with a deadly weapon upon an
unarmed and defenseless woman constitutes abuse of
superiority which his sex and the weapon used afforded him,
and which the woman is unable to defend herself.
No abuse of superior strength in parricide against the wife.
That the victim is a woman is inherent in parricide.
III. Evidence Of Relative Physical Strength Necessary
There must be evidence that the accused were physically
stronger and that they abused such superiority.
The mere fact of being a superiority of numbers is not sufficient
to bring the case within aggravating circumstance.
IV. When Abuse Of Superior Strength Is Aggravating
This aggravating circumstance depends on the age, size, and
strength of the parties.
It is considered whenever there is a notorious inequality of
forces between the victim and the aggressor which is taken
advantage of him in the commission of the crime.
A. Number Of Aggressors, If Armed, May Point To Abuse Of Superior
Strength
There is no abuse of superior strength where the accused did
not cooperate in such a way as to secure advantage from their
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
118
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
119
A. Intoxicating The Victim To Weaken Defense
This is for the purpose of materially weakening the latters
resisting power.
If the state of intoxication is such that the victim cannot put
up any sort of defense, treachery may be considered.
VII. Applicable Only To Crimes Against Persons, Etc.
This circumstance is applicable only to crimes against persons,
and sometimes against person and property, such as robbery
with physical injuries or homicide (i.e. robbery with homicide).
A. Means To Weaken The Defense Absorbed In Treachery
In People v. Guy, employing means to weaken the defense is
not the aggravating circumstance. It is craft.
PAR. 16: THAT THE ACT BE COMMITTED WITH TREACHERY
(ALEVOSIA).
I. Basis Of Paragraph 16
Means and ways employed in the commission of the crime.
II. Meaning Of 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.
It means that the offended party was not given opportunity to
make a defense.
Treachery is present when the attack is:
o Sudden
Unexpected
Without warning
Without giving the victim an opportunity to defend
himself or repel the aggression
o Made when the deceased did not sense any danger as
there was no grudge or misunderstanding
Essence: swiftness and the unexpectedness of the attack
However, the suddenness of the attack must be preconceived
by the accused, unexpected by the victim and without
provocation on the part of the latter.
III. Rules Regarding Treachery
RULE 1: Applicable Only To Crimes Against Persons
Based on the phrase crime against the person.
RULE 2: It Is Not Necessary That The Mode Of Attack Insures The
Consummation Of Offense
It is necessary only to insure its execution NOT
accomplishment.
o It is sufficient that it tends to an intended end.
The treacherous character of the means employed does not
depend upon its consummation otherwise there would be no
attempted or frustrated murder qualified by treachery.
Treacherous character of the offense is dependent on the
MEANS itself, in connection with the aggressors purpose.
Treachery cannot be presumed
o It is necessary that the existence of this qualifying or
aggravating circumstance should be proven as fully as
the crime itself in order to aggravate the liability or
penalty incurred by the culprit.
Illustrations NO treachery in the following cases:
o When no particulars are known to the commission of
the crime as the wound which resulted into the death
of victim could have been accidental (US v. Perdon).
o
o
o
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
120
IV. Where The Meeting Between The Accused And The Victim Is
Casual And The Attack Impulsively Done, There Is NO Treachery
Treachery cannot be appreciated where there is nothing in the
record to show that the accused had pondered upon the mode
or method to insure the killing of the deceased or remove or
diminish any risk to himself that might arise from the defense
that the deceased might make.
Main characteristics: deliberate, sudden and unexpected
o Mere suddenness of the attack is not enough to
constitute treachery. Such method or form of attack
must be deliberately chosen by the accused.
Where the meeting between the accused and the victim is
casual and the attack impulsively done, there is not treachery
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
121
VII. Instances where treachery may or may not exist:
When the accused gave the deceased a chance to prepare,
there was no treachery.
No treachery where the attack is preceded by a warning.
o Calling attention of the victim not necessarily a
warning.
o Thus, treachery may be appreciated even when the
victim is warned of the danger to his person, for what is
decisive is that the attack made it impossible for the
victim to defend himself or retaliate
No treachery where shooting is preceded by heated
discussion
o This allows the victim to insure their safety before the
attack of the defendants.
o Killing unarmed victim whose hands are upraised is
committed with treachery.
o Killing a woman asking for mercy is committed with
treachery.
There is treachery in killing a child
o This is so because the weakness of the victim due to his
tender age.
Intent to kill is not necessary in murder with treachery.
o There is no incompatibility, moral or legal, between
aleviosa and the mitigating circumstance of not having
intended to cause so great an injury (Article 13)
o But intent to kill is necessary in murder committed by
means of fire.
Treachery may exist even if the attack is face to face
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
122
X. In Treachery, It Makes No Difference Whether Or Not The Victim
Was The Same Person Whom The Accused Intended To Kill
The purely accidental circumstance that as a result of the shots,
a person other than the one intended was killed, does NOT
modify the nature of the crime nor lessen his criminal
responsibility.
Treachery may be taken into account despite mistake in
identity.
The reason for this rule is that when there is treachery, it is
impossible for either the intended victim or the actual victim to
defend himself against the aggression
XI. When Treachery Is Not To Be Considered As To The Principal By
Induction
When it is NOT shown that the principal induced the killer to
adopt the means or methods actually used, because the former
left to the latter the details as to how it was to be
accomplished, treachery CANNOT be taken into consideration
as to the principal by induction.
It shall aggravate the liability of the actual killer ONLY.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
123
PAR. 17: THAT MEANS BE EMPLOYED OR CIRCUMSTANCES BROUGHT
ABOUT WHICH ADD IGOMINY TO THE NATURAL EFFECTS OR THE ACT.
I. Basis Of Paragraph 17:
Means employed
II. Definition Of Ignominy
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
124
III. Applicability:
1. Crimes against chastity,
2. Less serious physical injuries,
3. Light or grave coercion, and
4. Murder
IV. Important Words And Phrases
A. That Means Be Employed
Example: wrapping the genital with cogon before rape to
increase pain (People v. Torrefiel, et al., CA)
B. That x x x Circumstances Be Brought About.
Example: Where one rapes a married woman in the presence of
her husband (US v. Iglesia) or betrothed (US v. Casaas).
C. Which Add Ignominy To The Natural Effects Of The Act
Means that the means or circumstances make the crime more
humiliating or to put the offended party to shame.
It is incorrect to appreciate adding ignominy to the offence
where the victim is already dead when his body was
dismembered (People v. Carmina).
No ignominy when a man is killed in the presence of his wife.
Because no means was employed nor did any circumstance
surround the act tending to make the effects of the crime more
humiliating (US v. Abaigar).
Rape as ignominy in robbery with homicide.
o Though it is not specifically enumerated in Article 14,
rape, wanton robbery for personal gain, and other
forms of cruelties are condemned and their
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
125
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
126
C. Or Other Similar Means
The expression should be understood as referring to motorized
vehicles or other efficient means of transportation similar to
automobile or airplane.
Vehicles that are motorized (bicycles are not included)
PAR. 21: THAT THE WRONG DONE IN THE COMMISSION OF THE
CRIME BE DELIBERATELY AUGMENTED BY CAUSING OTHER WRONG
NOT NECESSARY FOR ITS COMMISSION.
I. Basis Of Paragraph 21:
Ways employed in committing the crime.
II. 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.
It is essential that the wrong done was intended to prolong the
suffering of the victim.
Test: whether accused deliberately and sadistically augmented
the wrong by causing another wrong not necessary for its
commission or inhumanly increased the victims suffering or
outraged or scoffed at his person or corpse.
o People v. Sitchon where bad common-law dad beat
to death his 2-year old son for spreading his poo
around the floor. The Court did not consider cruelty
because no proof that common-law dad enjoyed the
beating.
III. Elements Of Cruelty:
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
127
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
128
2. Intoxication
3. Degree of Instruction and education of the offender
FIRST ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCE: RELATIONSHIP
I. When Considered
The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into
consideration when the offended party is:
1. Spouse
2. Ascendant
3. Descendant
4. Legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister, or
5. Relative by affinity in the same degree of the offender
Other relatives included
6. Stepfather or stepmother and stepson or stepdaughter
included by analogy as similar to that of ascendant and
descendant.
o Generally, for a step relationship to exist, the stepparent and the biological parent of the child must be
legally married.
o HOWEVER, Article 266-B includes common-law
spouses. This is but a special qualifying circumstance.
7. Adoptive parent and adopted child similar to ascendant and
descendant.
BUT uncle, niece and cousin are not covered.
II. When Mitigating And When Aggravating
A. Mitigating
General Rule: the relationship is mitigating in crimes against
property:
o Robbery (Article 294-302)
o Usurpation (Article 312)
o Fraudulent insolvency (Article 314)
o Arson (Article 321-322, 325-326)
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
129
B. Aggravating
General Rule: It is aggravating in crimes against persons in
cases where the offended party is a relative of a higher degree
than the offender, or when the offender and the offended
party are relatives of the same level, as killing a brother,
brother-in-law, a half-brother, or adopted brother.
In crimes against chastity, relationship is always aggravating.
o In crimes against chastity, like acts of lasciviousness,
relationship is always aggravating, regardless of
whether the offender is a relative of a higher or lower
degree of the offended party.
o This is because of the nature and effect of the crime
committed. However, the rule may differ depending on
attending circumstances.
US v. Ancheta brother-in-law killed due to
his adulterous relationships with the wife of
the accused relationship mitigating although
the general rule is that such relationship is
supposed to be aggravating.
US v. Velarde with the desire to subdue his
brother-in-law who was then suffering an
attack of insanity, accused struck him with a
club and exceeded the limits of his discretion in
the heat of the struggle relationship is
mitigating.
In child abuse cases, relationship is aggravating because of
Section 31(c) of Republic Act No. 7610.
If the crime against persons is any of the serious physical injuries, the
fact that the offended party is a descendant of the offender is NOT
mitigating.
When the crime against the persons is any of the serious
physical injuries (Article 263), even if the offended party is a
descendant of the offender, relationship is aggravating.
o Article 263 provides a higher penalty for the
commission of serious physical injuries against persons
enumerated in Article 264 (father, mother, or child
whether legitimate or illegitimate, any of his
ascendants or descendants, or spouse).
When the crime is less serious physical injuries or slight physical
injuries, the ordinary rule applies.
o Mitigating if the offender is of lower degree.
o Aggravating if the offender is of higher degree.
BUT when the crime against persons is homicide or murder,
relationship is aggravating even if the victim of the crime is a
relative of lower degree.
o Relationship is aggravating when the stepmother killed
her stepdaughter (People v. Portento).
Relationship is neither mitigating nor aggravating, when relationship
is an element of the offense.
Parricide, adultery, concubinage.
C. Exempting
Accessories are exempted (Article 20)
Legally married spouse catching spouse having sex with
another (Article 247)
No criminal but only civil liability shall result from the
commission of the crime of (1) Theft, (2) Swindling (3) Malicious
mischief, if committed or caused mutually by spouses,
ascendants, descendants, or relatives by affinity in the same
line; brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law,
if living together (Article 332).
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
130
SECOND ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCE: INTOXICATION
I. Reasons For The Alternative Circumstance Of Intoxication
As a mitigating circumstance, it finds its reason in the fact that
when a person is under the influence of liquor, his exercise of
will power is impaired.
As an aggravating circumstance, because it is intentional, the
reason is that the offender resorted to it in order to bolster his
courage to commit a crime.
o It is aggravating when habitual because the constant
use of intoxicating liquor lessens the individual
resistance to evil thoughts and undermines the will
power making himself a potential evildoer against
whose activities, society has the right for its own
protection to impose a more severe penalty.
II. When Mitigating And Aggravating
General Rule:
o Mitigating: (1) if intoxication is not habitual or (2) if
intoxication is not subsequent to the plan to commit
the felony.
Under Republic Act No 9262 (Anti-Violence
Against Women and their Children Act of
2004), intoxication may not be used as a
defense by the accused, but may it be
mitigating?
o Aggravating: (1) if intoxication is habitual; or (2) if it is
intentional (subsequent to the plan to commit a
felony).
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
131
B. High Degree Of Instruction As Aggravating
General Rule: High degree of learning may be aggravating,
never mitigating.
Degree of instruction is aggravating when the offender availed
himself or took advantage of it in committing the crime.
o The high degree of learning should be taken in relation
to the crime committed whether his education puts
him into a better position than the ordinary offenders.
Example:
o Doctor using his knowledge prepared a certain kind of
poison that would avoid detection would make his
education an aggravating circumstance. In contrast, if a
lawyer punches an annoying person, high degree of
learning should not be considered aggravating.
o High degree of learning should also not be considered
aggravating for abortion practiced by a physician or
midwife, since their skills are already inherent in that
crime.
OTHER MATTERS
I. Non-Habitual Intoxication, Lack Of Instruction And Obfuscation Are
Not To Be Taken Separately
As non-habitual intoxication implies a disturbance of the
reasoning powers of the offender, his lack of instruction cannot
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
132
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
133
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
134
B. Passive Subject (Injured Party)
The passive subject of a crime is the holder of the injured right:
the man, the juristic person, and the state.
General Rule: Corpse or animal cannot be passive subject. As
such, the dead and animals have no rights that may be injured.
o Exception: Article 353, the crime of defamation may be
committed if the imputation tends to blacken the
memory of one who is dead.
V. Anti-Hazing Law (Republic Act No. 8094)
A. Principals
Those who actually participated in the hazing.
Parent of a frat/sorority member who owned the place where
the hazing occurred, knew of it but still did not do anything to
stop it.
Officers, former officers, alumni who planned it, even if they
werent there.
Fraternity or sorority advisor who was present but didnt stop
it.
Anyone present who did not prevent it.
B. Accomplices
Owner of the place where the hazing occurred and who knew
of the hazing and did not stop it.
School authorities who actually knew and consented to it.
VI. Command Responsibility
A. Philippine Context
General Rule: There is not command responsibility in Philippine
law.
Article 17. Principals.
The following are considered principals:
1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act;
2. Those who directly force or induce others to commit it;
3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by
another act without which it would not have been
accomplished.
POINTS
I. Two Or More Persons Participating In The Crime
Single individual committing a crime is always a principal by
direct participation (take direct part in the execution of the
act).
(Par 1.) Principal by direct participation
(Par 2.) Principal by induction
(Par 3.) Principal by indispensible cooperation
II. Difference Between A Principal Under Any Of The Three Categories
Enumerated In Article 17 And A Co-Conspirator
Principal in Article 17: criminal liability is limited to his own acts
Co-conspirator: (His) responsibility includes the acts of his
fellow conspirators (People v. Peralta)
PAR 1: THOSE WHO TAKE A DIRECT PART IN THE EXECUTION OF THE
ACT. (PRINCIPALS BY DIRECT PARTICIPATION.)
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
135
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
136
B. Existence Of Conspiracy
Existence of conspiracy does not require an agreement for an
appreciable length of time prior to the execution of its purpose.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
137
C. Proof Of Conspiracy
Direct evidence of conspiracy: interlocking judicial confessions
of several accused and the testimony of one accused who is
discharged and made a witness against his co-accused who did
not make any confession.
o In the absence of any collusion among the declarants,
their confessions may form a complete picture of the
whole situation and may be considered collectively as
corroborative and/or confirmatory of the evidence
independent therefrom (People v. Castelo)
o Two or more extrajudicial confessions given separately,
untainted by collusion, and which tally with one
another in all material respects, are admissible as
evidence of the conspiracy of the declarants. (People v.
bernardo)
o To establish conspiracy, it is not essential that there be
proofs to the previous agreement and decision to
commit the crime it is sufficient that the malefactors
shall have acted in concert pursuant to the same
objective. (People v. San Luis)
Formal agreement or previous acquaintance among several
persons not necessary in conspiracy.
o In conspiracy, no formal agreement among the
conspirators is necessary, not even previous
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
138
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
139
D. Unity Of Purpose And Intention In The Commission Of The Crime Is
Shown In The Following Cases: (Evidences Of Joint Responsibility)
1. Spontaneous agreement at the moment of the commission of
the crime sufficient to create joint responsibility.
o Example: Acceptance of two accused of the challenge
posted by the deceased and their concert attack on the
same clearly showed a community of purpose and
design. (People v. Ibanez)
2. Active cooperation by all the offenders in the perpetration of
the crime.
o Example: A struck deceased, B whipped lips of
deceased, C seized deceaseds left hand while D held
the right, E stabbed deceased with knife.
Held: No proof of anterior conspiracy but the manner
in which accused cooperated in the perpetration of the
homicide shows they were moved by a common motive
and their intention was to kill deceased
Dissenting: Only individual responsibility in this case for
only E gave the fatal blow
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
140
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
141
G. Liability Of Participants Where There Is Conspiracy
When there is conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.
Collective criminal responsibility
U.S. v. Bundal Defendants after conspiring together to kill
deceased, went to his house for purposes of carrying out their
intent and prepared to cooperate to that end (even though
having different roles in the commission) all will be held equally
guilty as principals irrespective of the individual participation of
each in the material act of the murder
Conspiracy adequately proven = all conspirators liable as coprincipals. The degree of actual participation by each of the
conspirators is immaterial. As conspirators, each is equally
responsible for the acts of their co-conspirators. (People v. De
la Cruz)
Where there is conspiracy to commit a felony, all the
conspirators are liable for its consequences.
o People v. Villamora There was no conspiracy to kill
deceased and Barauel only hit him with an iron bar.
Held: Since there was conspiracy to punish Acuna, with
resulted to his death, ALL the conspirators are
responsible for the consequences that arose from the
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
142
H. Liability Of A Conspirator For Another Conspirators Acts Which
Differ Radically And Substantially From That Which They Intended To
Commit.
Conspirator should necessarily be liable for the acts of another
conspirator even though such acts differ radically or
substantially from that which they intended to commit. (People
v. Enriquez)
Boyd v. U.S. Wound made with the knife on leg of person
assaulted was the primary cause of death and the author of this
injury has not been identified (the attorneys of the accused
defended that the infliction of injury by means of a cutting
instrument was not within the scope of the agreement and that
the one who should be held liable is the one who inflicted the
wound). Held: The Court did not agree. Accused had
undoubtedly conspired to do so grave personal injury to the
deceased which have resulted in death, the accused cannot
escape from the legal effects of their acts that a wound was
inflicted in a different way from that which they intended.
As has been said by the U.S. Supreme Court: If a number of
persons agree to commit, and enter upon the commission of a
crime which will probably endanger human life such as robbery,
all of them are responsible for the death of a person that
ensues as a consequence
o U.S. v. Patten Conspirators who join in a criminal
attack on a defenseless man with dangerous weapons
victim knocked down tries to escape pursues him
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
143
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
144
There could be no conspiracy to commit an offense through
negligence.
Conspiracy presupposes an agreement and a decision to
commit a felony, when it appears that the injuries inflicted on
the offended party were due to the reckless imprudence of two
or more persons, it is not proper to consider conspiracy
between or among them.
In cases of criminal negligence or crimes punishable by special law,
allowing or failing to prevent an act to be performed by another,
makes one a co-principal.
People v. Santos professional driver of passenger truck let
his conductor drive the truck and they had an accident with a
jeepney which resulted to the death of one its passengers
Held: Both the driver and the conductor were held liable as coprincipals of homicide and damage to property through
reckless imprudence under Act. No 3992 and Article 365 of
RPC.
U.S. v. Siy Cong Bieng and Co Kong a storeowners employee
sold adulterated coffee and the storeowner did not know that
the coffee was sold by his employee
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
145
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
146
C. When The Second Requisite Is Lacking, There Is Only Conspiracy To
Commit A Crime
IF this 2nd requisite is lacking: there is, at most, only conspiracy
among several defendants who participated in criminal
resolution; if the crime they agreed and decided to commit is
not treason, rebellion or sedition, they are not criminally liable.
Example:
o People v. Asaad Four accused merely attended
conferences and assented out of respect and fear and
after commission of murders they joined other accused
in celebrating with a fiesta, by way of custom, they
were neither co-principals nor accomplices
o People v. Timbol Dalmacio Timbol was acquitted of
the charge of murder because he merely conspired
with his co-accused to kill deceased but left the place
before they began shooting him.
o People v. Pelagio Gs participation in the first
meeting involved him in the conspiracy because he told
the other the location of the house to be robbed, this
however is inadequate to make him criminally liable as
a conspirator. This because conspiracy alone without
execution of its purpose is not a crime punishable by
law except in special instances which does not include
robbery. (Article 8)
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
147
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
148
D. Elements To Hold Person Liable As Principal By Inducement
Through The Use Of Commands
All five requisites must be present in order that a person using
words of command be held liable as principal by inducement:
1. That the one uttering the words of command must have the
intention of procuring the commission of the crime.
2. That the one who made the command must have an
ascendancy or influence over the person who acted.
o U.S. v. Ganao When B (a very influential figure in
their community) selected A (his nephew who was poor
and depended on him) to commit the crime the
influence exercised by B over A was so great and
powerful that the latter could not resist it.
3. That the words used must be so direct, so efficacious, so
powerful as to amount to physical or moral coercion.
o Efficacious a person who makes accused believe that
the person to be killed was the one who stole the
accuseds property = guilty as principal by inducement;
even though the accused seem to have a personal
reason, it was the inductor who made him believe so.
o Powerful U.S. v. Ganao.
4. The words of command must be uttered prior to the
commission of the crime.
o This requisite is lacking when the commission of the
crime has already been commenced when the words of
inducement are uttered.
o A son who was already in combat with another was
told by the father Hit him the father was not
responsible for the injuries inflicted after advice given
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
149
People v. Alcontin
o (First requisite) A married woman suggested to her
paramour that he kill her husband; Held: the
proposition of the woman constituted something more
than mere counsel or advice that her co-defendant was
entirely free to accept or not.
o (Second requisite) The married womans promise of
being able to freely live together with the paramour
was the determining cause of the commission of the
crime
People v. Caimbre
o Facts: Appellant was being prosecuted for uttering you
had better kill him when his co-accused was attacking
the victim.
o Held: Appellant was acquitted because he lacked the
first requisite because there was nothing to show that
appellant had any reason to have Olipmo killed; lacked
second requisite because he had no sufficient moral
influence over co-accused to make him obey blindly;
and fourth requisite was lacking because his co-accused
had already boloed the victim before he uttered the
words
VI. FIRST ELEMENT: That The Inducement Be Made Directly With The
Intention Of Procuring The Commission Of The Crime
The principal by inducement should be obeyed.
A. A Thoughtless Expression Without Intention To Produce The Result
Is Not An Inducement To Commit A Crime
A chance word spoken without reflection/ a wrong
appreciation of a situation/ an ironical phrase/ a thoughtless
act may give birth to a thought or resolution to commit a crime
in the mind of one without the one who spoke the word or
performed the act having any expectation that his suggestion
VIII. SECOND ELEMENT: That Such Inducement Be The Determining
Cause Of The Commission Of The Crime By The Material Executor
The inducement must precede the act induced and must be so
influential in producing the criminal act that without it, the
act would not have been performed.
o It is necessary that the inducement be the determining
cause of the commission of the crime by the principal
by direct participation that, without such inducement
the crime would not have been committed (Decision of
SC of Spain).
o Inducement exists if the nature of the command or
advice is that without its concurrence the crime
would not have materialized (People v. Cruz).
Price given to the principal by direct participation after the
commission of the crime, without prior promise to give a price
or reward, could not be an inducement.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
150
C. One Who Planned The Crime Committed By Another Is A Principal
By Inducement
Persons who planned the crime committed by other persons
are guilty as authors by inducement.
If The Crime Committed Is Not Contemplated In The Order
Given, The Inducement Is Not Material And Not The
Determining Cause Thereof. People v. Lawas
o Facts: Accused Lawas was head of the home guards in a
barrio in Lanao and he orderd his men to shoot at
Moros suspected of having killed 11 Christian residents.
Some of the home guards fired at women and children
at the second floor of the house.
o Held: Lawas is not guilty of murder for the killing of the
women and children as principal by induction because
his order was to fire at Moros on the ground and
clearly did not intend for women and children to be
fired at.
IX. Principal By Induction In Falsification
People v. Po Giok To The employee did the overt act of
entering false facts on the residence certificate of the accused
because the accused induced him to do so by supplying him
those facts. Held: Accused was a principal by inducement. The
employee was a mere innocent agent of performing the act
constituting the crime hence employee was not criminally liable
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
151
XII. Possessor Of Recently Stolen Property Is A Principal
Possessor of a recently stolen article is considered a principal,
not an accessory or accomplice, unless he proves otherwise
satisfactorily and that another person who gave him the article
was the one who stole it (Section 5(j), Rule 131, Rules of Court)
PAR. 3: THOSE WHO COOPERATE IN THE COMMISSION OF THE
OFFENSE BY ANOTHER ACT WITHOUT WHICH IT WOULD NOT HAVE
BEEN ACCOMPLISHED. (Principals By Indispensible Cooperation)
I. Meaning Of The Term Cooperate
To cooperate means to desire or wish in common a thing. The
common will or purpose does not necessarily mean pervious
understanding because it can be explained or inferred from the
circumstances of each case (People v. Apelgido).
II. Elements To Be Liable As Principal By Indispensable Cooperation:
1. Participation in the criminal resolution.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
152
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
153
B. Liability Of Conspirators Who Took Turns In Raping A Girl.
People v. Villa Four persons took turns in raping a girl; others
held her while one had intercourse with her.
Held: Each of them is responsible for his own act of rape and
also for the acts of the others. Four sentences were imposed on
each accused.
V. A Principal By Indispensable Cooperation May Commit A Crime
Different From A Principal By Direct Participation
Example:
OTHER MATTERS
To be liable as principals, the offender must fall under any of the
three concepts defined in Article 17.
A person who assists one who commits the crime of arson and
who knows the latters purpose (but whose participation in the
arson is not known) may not be considered as a principal
because his acts were neither direct nor absolutely necessary
for the commission of the offense nor did it induce the said
commission (SC of Spain decision)
Collective criminal responsibility.
Present when offenders are criminally liable in the same
manner and to same extent; penalty imposed must be same for
all.
Who has collective criminal responsibility?
o Principals by direct participation.
o Principal by induction with the principal by direct
participation (EXCEPT the principal by induction who
directly forced another to commit a crime).
o Principal by indispensible cooperation with the
principal by direct participation.
Individual Criminal responsibility.
If there is no previous conspiracy/ unity of criminal purpose and
intention immediately before commission of crime/ community
of criminal design = criminal responsibility arising from different
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
154
II. The Participation Of An Accomplice Presupposes The Commission
Of The Crime By The Principal By Direct Participation
Principal element of complicity: concurrence of will of
accomplice with the will of the author of the crime (principal).
o He is not a principal (so he must not be part of the
conspiracy), but he supplies material or moral aid to
the principal in an efficacious way.
The accomplice cooperates by previous or simultaneous acts in
the execution of the offense by the principal.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
155
III. Not being included in Article 17.
An accomplice does not fall under any of the three concepts
defined in Article 17.
Those who cooperated by previous or simultaneous acts cannot
be held liable as principals but as accomplices.
A. In Case Of Doubt As To Whether Principal Or Accomplice
In case of DOUBT participation of offender is considered as
accomplice rather than principal.
o Quantum of proof lacking = milder form of criminal
liability: as accomplice.
o People v. Celemente eyewitness unable to assert if
appellants hit the fallen man (uncertain participation in
homicide) and there was no conspiracy shown. Held:
appellants declared accomplices only.
Mere presence at scene, knowledge of plan, and acquiescence
is insufficient ground to hold a person as conspirator therefore
will be held liable only as accomplice.
B. When The Participation Of An Accused Is Not Disclosed, He Is Only
As Accomplice
In criminal cases, the participation of accused must be proved
by positive and competent evidence (beyond reasonable
doubt) BY the prosecution. It can't be presumed.
People v. Ubina: If a person assists in arson because he knows
the purpose of the principal, but his participation is
undisclosed. Held: His actions are neither direct nor absolutely
necessary for the commission of the offense nor induce the
crime.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
156
Community of Design
A. Community of design.
The accomplice intends by his acts, to commit or take part in
the execution of the crime Carino v. People
o Facts: Appellant was the close friend of Dr. Lava (the
accused in crime of rebellion). Lava has been helping
appellants family in terms of health services and in
return when accused Dr. Lava asked for shelter and
food from appellant, he provided the same for Lava not
knowing that he was helping a rebel. Lava was part of
the Huks and appellant helped Lava open bank
accounts and assisted them with money matters.
Held: Appellant was not considered an accomplice to
rebellion because his acts of helping did not fall under
the definition of rebellion in RPC nor does he fall under
Art 18s definition of accomplice because his intent to
rebel against the government was not proven and his
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
157
B. How An Accomplice Acquires Knowledge Of The Criminal Design Of
The Principal.
1. Principal informs or tells the accomplice of the formers
criminal purpose.
o U.S. v. Sotto Master told his servant that he would
abduct the a girl under 18 years and he prompted said
servant to induce the girl to leave her home and the
servant did.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
158
C. Concurrence With The Criminal Purpose Of Another May Make One
A Co-Principal
Even if only one of the accused originated the criminal design
and the other merely concurred BUT BEFORE the actual
commission of the crime BOTH of them agreed and decided to
commit it, then the other will now be held a principal and not
an accomplice because he has become a co-conspirator.
o BASICALLY, you are an accomplice if the original person
will commit the crime with or without your help. You
are dispensable! Replaceable!
VII. SECOND ELEMENT: Cooperates In The Execution Of The Offense
The accomplice cooperates with the principal by direct
participation BUT his cooperation is only necessary and not
indispensable.
However if there is conspiracy: the nature of the cooperation
becomes immaterial.
A. Examples Of Cooperation By Accomplice
1. By previous acts.
o Lending of a dagger or pistol to murderer knowing his
criminal purpose.
o U.S. v. Flores Pharmacist (knowing the criminal
purpose) furnishes the accused with the drug which he
used in order to help him rape the victim.
o When the owner of the gun knew that it would be
used to kill a particular person, and the principal used
it to kill another person, the owner of the gun is not
an accomplice as to the killing of the victim.
People v. De la Cerna Serapio borrowed the
rifle of Sulpicio in order to kill Rafael (as per
their agreement) but then Serapio used it to kill
Casiano. There was no evidence that Sulipicio
was aware that Serapio would do so. Held:
Sulpicio acquitted for the killing of Casiano
2. By simultaneous acts.
o People v. Escarro No previous agreement or
understanding with co-defendant but defendant held
hand of victim and tried to take away his revolver while
co-defendant attacked victim.
o People v. Crisostomo No conspiracy among the 6
persons three detained offended woman were
principals in crime of illegal detention and three others
held victims companion to prevent latter from helping
victim were accomplices.
A. The Cooperation Of An Accomplice Is Not Due To A Conspiracy
People v. Francisco Facts: Francisco (then Mayor in Isabela)
was accompanied by Berganio, Badua, Dasalla, and Tagasa
when he brought Corpus from the municipal building to the
constabulary and wanted the Corporal to detain him there. But
Corporal refused because they didnt have a detention cell and
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
159
D. Wounds Inflicted By An Accomplice In Crimes Against Persons
Should Not Have Caused The Death Of The Victim
Accomplice should not have inflicted a mortal wound (or else
liable as principal).
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
160
VIII. THIRD ELEMENT: Relation Between The Acts
A. An Accomplice May Be Liable For A Crime Different From That
Which The Principal Committed
People v. Babiera It was not shown that C and D knew of the
manner A attacked B but they knew that A had unlawfully
attacked B. Held: C and D were guilty as accomplices in crime of
homicide (A was guilty of murder qualified by treachery)
People v. Valdellon NARIC guard A asked C to help him (A)
get some sacks of rice from the NARIC warehouse then A sold
them to D. Held: C is only guilty as accomplice in commission of
simple theft. A guilty of qualified theft because of the qualifying
circumstance of grave abuse of confidence (this did not apply
to C because he wasnt affiliated with NARIC).
People v. Doble Appellants joined in plan to rob by providing
banca for the robbery but there was killing committed in the
course of the robbery by the principals (others). Held:
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
161
B. Accomplice v. Principal by Indispensable Cooperation
Accomplice
Principal by Indispensable Cooperation
Participation of offender in a Case of a co-principal by cooperation
case of complicity indispensible.
necessary only.
Examples: One lends dagger or pistol knowing borrower is
going to commit murder cooperation with a previous act but
not indispensable cause offender could have borrowed or
gotten weapon from someone/somewhere else
People v. Templonuevo Accused (with knowledge of
intention of other accused to kill the deceased) struck deceased
on forehead with piece of wood facilitating subsequent slaying
of deceased because it made him unconscious. Held: Accused is
guilty as accomplice
People v. Geronimo Romeo held the victim while the others
boloed him (without conspiracy among them) Held: Romeo is
only an accomplice because others could have hacked
deceased even without him holding
C. Accomplice v. Principal By Direct Participation
Accomplice
Principal By Direct Participation
Person entertained owner of a If the person was in the same
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
162
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
163
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
164
B. Assisting The Offender To Profit By The Effects Of The Crime
Examples:
o A person knowing the item was stolen, sells it for the
thief (U.S. v. Galanco).
o Those who acted as runner or couriers in kidnapping
for ransom (People v. Magsino).
An accessory should not be in conspiracy with the principal
(otherwise he would also be punished as principal).
o U.S. v. Tan Tiap Co
o Facts: A conspired with others to steal goods, and
agreed to pay upon delivery of goods.
o Held: A is guilty of the crime of theft as principal, not
just accessory.
PAR. 2: BY CONCEALING OR DESTROYING THE BODY OF THE CRIME TO
PREVENT ITS DISCOVERY
I. Note:
The crime committed by the principal in this paragraph may be
any crime, but it must not be a light felony.
II. Important Words And Phrases
A. Body Of The Crime
Corpus Delicti the body/substance of the offense or crime.
o This is proof that a specific offense was in fact
committed by someone.
o Made up of 2 things: (1) Existence of a certain act or
result forming the basis of the criminal charge (criminal
event), and (2) Existence of a criminal agency as the
cause of this actor result (criminal responsibility).
There must be an attempt to hide the body of the crime.
o People v. De la Cruz Facts: Accused was ordered to
board the jeep not knowing or even suspecting the
reason for it. He did not take part in the killing, nor
profit, nor try to help conceal it as the bodies were
merely thrown in the ditch. Held: Accused must be
acquitted.
Concealing or destroying the effects or instruments of the
crime to prevent its discovery.
o Accused is an accessory has he helped hide the weapon
used to kill. The pistol or knife is the instrument of the
crime.
Examples:
o Assisting in the burial of the victim (U.S. v. Leal).
o Making it appear that the victim had to be killed
because he resisted by placing a gun in his hand when
already dead (U.S. v. Cuison).
o The mere act of carrying the cadaver of one unlawfully
killed when it was buried to prevent the discovery of
the crime, is sufficient to make him responsible as an
accessory (People v. Galleto)
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
165
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
166
Principal
Accomplice
Takes direct part or cooperate or
induce in the commission of the
crime
Cooperates in the commission of
the offense prior, during or after.
Accessory
Does not take direct part or
cooperate in or induce the
commission of the crime
Does not cooperate in the
commission of the offense by
acts either prior thereto or
simultaneous therewith.
Participation takes place prior, Participation always takes place
during and after
AFTER the commission of the
crime.
Knows the criminal design of the Knows the commission of the
principal
offense
No exemption
Exempted under Article 20 and
for light felonies under Article 16
Provides direct or Provides
Acts in the 3 ways enumerated
indispensable
material
or under Article 19
participation, or moral aid in an
was liable for efficacious way
inducement.
but not in a
manner
indispensable
to the offense
Full penalty
1 degree lower 2 degrees lower than principal
Article 20. Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability.
The penalties prescribed for accessories shall not be imposed upon
those who are such with respect to their spouses, ascendants,
descendants, legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and sisters, or
relatives by affinity within the same degrees, with the single
exception of accessories falling within the provisions of paragraph 1 of
the next preceding article.
POINTS
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
167
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
168
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
169
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
170
A. Must Necessarily Relate:
1. To penal laws existing prior to the Revised Penal Code, in which
the penalty was less severe than those of the code OR
2. To laws enacted subsequent to the Revised Penal Code, in
which the penalty is more favorable to the accused.
B. Courts Can Apply This Provision, Even If Not Invoked By The
Accused
II. Rule
General Rule: Give criminal laws prospective effect.
o People v. Changco Facts: Before Article 365 (RPC)
was amended, slight physical injuries through reckless
imprudence was not punishable. On September 21,
1954, accused committed such act. On June 21, 1957,
RA 1790 was approved thus making the amendments.
Issue: Can accused be punished?
Held: The amended Article 365 punishing the act
cannot be given retroactive effect such as to punish the
accused.
o Giving a law retroactive effect, if unfavorable to the
accused will violate the constitutional inhibition as to
ex post facto law. (See Criminal Law in General)
Exception: To give criminal laws retroactive effect when
favorable to the accused.
o Lapuz v. Court of Appeals Facts: Bus driver convicted
separately of (1) homicide with serious physical injuries
through reckless imprudence and (2) damage to
property through reckless imprudence for the
destruction caused to the other bus. RA 587 amending
III. Reason For The Exception
The sovereign in enacting a subsequent penal law more
favorable to the accused has recognized that the greater
severity of the former law is unjust.
However, the new law may provide otherwise
o Republic Act No. 4661 decreasing the prescription of
libel from 2 years to 1 year provides that it shall not
apply to cases of libel already filed in court at the time
of its approval.
o Republic Act No. 9346 prevents the imposition of the
death penalty, and could be apply retroactively
because it favors the accused.
Even if no more death penalty, the
classification of heinous crimes still remains
because of the possibility that it will once again
be revived. Moreover, civil liability is still
dependent on the nature of heinous crimes
(People v Bon).
Even if the offender is a habitual delinquent,
this law will still benefit him. Congress intended
it to benefit even the habitual delinquent.
IV. Revised Penal Code Was Not Given Retroactive Effect
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
171
V. Important Words And Phrases
A. Although At The Time Of The Publication Of Such Laws A Final
Sentence Has Been Pronounced And The Convict Is Serving The Same
Provision of Article 22 that penal laws shall have retroactive
effect insofar as they favor the person guilty of a felony is
applicable even if the accused has already started or is serving
his sentence.
The favorable retroactive effect of a new law may find the
defendant in one of these three situations:
o The crime has been committed and prosecution begins.
o Sentence has been passed but service has not begun.
o The sentence is being carried out.
In any case, the favorable new statute benefits him and should
apply to him.
Example: case of Robin Padilla where his sentence was
shortened after the passing of a new law that decreased the
penalty of illegal possession of firearms.
B. Who Is Not A Habitual Criminal?
Habitual criminals are not entitled to benefit of the provisions
of the new favorable statute.
A person shall be deemed to be a 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, robbery, theft, estafa, or falsification, he is found guilty
of any said crimes a third time or oftener (Rule 5, Article 62)
VI. In Connection To Civil Liability
A. Retroactive Effect Not Applicable To Civil Liability
B. A New Law Increasing Civil Liability Cannot Be Retroactive
Thus, Commonwealth Act No. 284 which increased the
minimum indemnity for the death of a person by reason of the
commission of a crime from P1,000 to P2,000 was not given
retroactive effect (People v. Panaligan).
VII. Article 22 v. Article 3661
The two articles mean that while felonies and misdemeanors
committed prior to the date of effectiveness of the Revised
Penal Code shall be punished in accordance with the Code or
Acts in force at the time of their commission, the same should
not be the case IF such Code or Acts are unfavorable to the
guilty party for the general principle on the retroactivity of
favorable penal laws, recognized in Article 22, should then
apply.
VIII. Repeal Of Laws
A. Lagrimas Case v. Tamayo Case
Lagrimas
Tamayo
Facts Petitioner convicted for Accused was convicted for
assault upon a public official violating
a
municipal
and penalized under Article ordinance.
251 of the old penal code.
Pending his appeal, the
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
172
Held
Ratio
The
repeal
(completely
eliminating the section of the
ordinance under which the
accused was being prosecuted)
was absolute.
B. Criminal Liability Under Repealed Law Subsists:
1. When the provisions of the former law are reenacted; or
2. When the repeal is by implication; or
3. When there is a saving clause
Right to punish offenses committed under an old penal law is
not extinguished if the offenses are still punished in the
repealing law.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
173
The ONLY act that can extinguish the penal action after
institution of criminal action is marriage between offender and
offended party.
Pardon under Article 344 is only a bar to criminal prosecution
Article 89 providing for the total extinction of criminal liability
does not mention pardon by the offended party as one of the
causes of totally extinguishing criminal liability.
C. But Civil Liability With Regard To The Interest Of The Injured Party
Is Extinguished By His Express Waiver
Two classes of injury:
o Social injury disturbance and alarm resulting from
the offense.
o Personal injury caused to the victim who suffered
damage either to his person, property, honor or her
chastity.
Social injury is sought to be repaired by imposition of penalty.
The state has an interest and therefore cannot be extinguished
by pardon of offended party.
Personal injury is repaired through indemnity, which is civil in
nature, and can thus be EXPRESSLY waived. The State has not
reason to insist on its payment.
Article 24. Measures of prevention or safety which are nor
considered penalties.
The following shall not be considered as penalties:
1. The arrest and temporary detention of accused persons, as
well as their detention by reason of insanity or imbecility, or
illness requiring their confinement in a hospital.
2. The commitment of a minor to any of the institutions
mentioned in Article 80 and for the purposes specified
therein.
3. Suspension from the employment of public office during the
trial or in order to institute proceedings.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
174
POINTS
I. As Well As Their Detention By Reason Of Insanity Or Imbecility
Refers to accused persons who are detained by reason of
insanity or imbecility.
THEIR in the second clause of paragraph 1 refers to accused
persons.
II. They are not considered penalties
Because they are not imposed as a result of judicial
proceedings
Paragraphs 1, 3 and 4 are preventive measures.
Paragraph 2 is not a penalty because it is not imposed by the
court. The imposition of the sentence in such case is
suspended.
o Note: This has been repealed by the Juvenile Justice
Act.
Fines mentioned in Paragraph 4 should not be imposed by the
court, or else they will constitute a penalty.
Paragraph 5 is illustrate in the case of parents who are stripped
of their parental authority if found guilty of the crime of
corruption of their minor children.
III. Relevant Special Penal Laws
PNP Act (Republic Act No. 6975) preventive suspension of
policemen during criminal trials (Sections 41 and 47).
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019)
suspension of public official after filing of a valid information.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
175
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
176
2.
3.
4.
5.
C. Classification Of Penalties According To Their Gravity
1. Capital
2. Afflictive
3. Correctional
4. Light
Corresponds to Article 9: Grave, less grave, light felony
D. Public Censure Is A Penalty
Being a penalty, not properly imposed in acquittal.
The court may only impose a penalty if the accused is found
guilty. The power to mete out punishments; a finding of guilt
must precede the punishment.
IV. Court Acquitting The Accused May Criticize His Acts Or Conduct
The court, while acquitting an accused, may permit itself
nevertheless to criticize or reprehend his acts or conduct in
connection with the transaction out of which the accusation
arose.
V. Reclusion Perpetua
Court should use proper Revised Penal Code nomenclature
Indivisible penalty (Reclusion Perpetua, Perpetual absolute or
special disqualification, public censure)
o Not affected by mitigating or aggravating
circumstances. The penalty is imposed in its entirety,
even if there is special aggravating or two mitigating, it
will not be affected.
o But if PRIVILEGED mitigating, it may be reduced by 1 or
2 degrees.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
177
VI. Disqualification And Suspension
A. Dual Personality Of Disqualification And Suspension
It can be a principal penalty
o Temporary disqualification 6years, 1 day to 12 years.
o Suspension 6 months, 1 day to 6 years.
It can also be an accessory penalty
o Follow the period of the principal penalty.
o Court cannot extend the disqualification or suspension
if it merely follows the principal penalty, cant extend
beyond principal penalty.
B. Suspension
All prisoners whether under preventive detention or serving
final sentence, cannot practice their profession or engage in
any business or occupation, or hold office, elective or
appointive, while in detention.
VII. Bond To Keep The Peace
Bond to keep the peace is a principal penalty yet there is no
crime in Book II that imposes it. No occasion to mete this
penalty on a convict.
Compare with bond for good behavior (Article 248 for grave
and light threats only). Failure to post bond for good behavior
means destierro for accused. Failure to post bond to keep the
peace.
VIII. Instances When Lesser Offense Absorbs Graver Offense
Rebellion (RT) absorbs murder (RP)
Forcible abduction (RT) absorbs illegal detention of a woman
(RP)
Slavery involving kidnapping of a person (PM) absorbs
kidnapping (RP)
Article 26. When afflictive, correctional, or light penalty.
A fine, whether imposed as a single of 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 less than 200 pesos.
POINTS
I. Whether Imposed As A Single Or As An Alternative Penalty
Example: Article 144 punishing disturbance of proceedings, the
penalty is arresto mayor or a fine ranging from P200 to P1,000.
A. Penalties Cannot Be Imposed In The Alternative
The law does not permit any court to impose a sentence in the
alternative, its duty being to indicate the penalty imposed
definitely and positively.
Fine is not a substitute for imprisonment. Its completely
independent.
II. Article 26 Merely Classifies Fines And Has Nothing To Do With The
Definition Of Light Felony
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
178
A. Fine Is:
1. Afflictive over P6,000
2. Correction P200 to P6,000
3. Light penalty less than P200
B. Bond To Keep The Peace Is By Analogy:
1. Afflictive over P6,000
2. Correctional P200 to P6,000
3. Light penalty less than P200
III. Who Receives The Fines
Fine is not given to the complainant; it is given to the State.
Fine is for vindication!
Accused can use his cash bail bond to pay his fine, if he is
convicted. Law does not prohibit him from using his cash bail
bond to pay his fine. It is only meant to ensure his attendance
during the process.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
179
POINTS
I. Duration Of Each Different Penalties
1. Reclusion perpetua 20 yrs. and 1 day to 40 yrs.
2. Reclusion temporal 12 yrs. and 1 day to 20 yrs.
3. Prision mayor and temporary disqualification 6 years. and 1
day to 12 yrs, except when disqualification is accessory penalty,
in which case its duration is that of the principal penalty.
4. Prision correctional, suspension, and destierro 6 months and
1 day to 6 yrs, except when suspension is an accessory penalty
in which case its duration is that of the principal penalty.
5. Arresto mayor 1 month and 1 day to 6 months.
6. Arresto menor 1 day to 30 days
7. Bond to keep the peace the period during which the bond
shall be effective is discretionary on the court.
II. Temporary Disqualification And Suspension When Imposed As
Accessory Penalties, Have Different Durations They Follow The
Duration Of The Principal Penalty.
III. In What Cases Is Destierro Imposed?
1. Serious physical injuries or death under exceptional
circumstances (Article 247).
2. In case of failure to give bond for good behavior (Article 284).
3. As a penalty for the concubine in concubinage (Article 334).
4. In cases where after reducing the penalty by one or more
degrees, destierro is the proper penalty.
IV. Bond To Keep The Peace Is Not Specifically Provided So As A
Penalty For Any Felony And Therefore Cannot Be Imposed By The
Court.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
180
Bond for good behavior under Article 284 of the Code is only
required of a person making a grave or light threat, and not in
other cases or crimes.
Article 28. Computation of penalties.
If the offender shall be in prison, the term of the duration of the
temporary penalties shall be computed from the day on which the
judgment of conviction shall have become final.
If the offender be not in prison, the term of the duration of the
penalty consisting of deprivation of liberty shall be computed from
the day that the offender is placed at the disposal of the judicial
authorities for the enforcement of the penalty. The duration of the
other penalties shall be computed only from the day on which the
defendant commences to serve his sentence.
POINTS
I. Rules In Computation Of Penalties:
1. When the offender is in prison: the duration of temporary
penalties is from the day on which the judgment of conviction
becomes final.
o Reason for Rule 1 Computation begins from the date
conviction becomes final and not from the day of his
detention, because under Article 24 the arrest and
temporary detention is not considered a penalty.
o An accused who appealed will commence serving his
sentence from the date the appellate court
promulgated its decision, NOT when the trial court
promulgated it (Ocampo v. Court of Appeals).
2. When the offender is not in prison: the duration of penalties
consisting in deprivation of liberty, is from the day that the
offender is placed at the disposal of judicial authorities for the
enforcement of the penalty.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
181
III. The Credit Is Given In The Service Of Sentences Consisting Of
Deprivation Of Liberty
Destierro constitutes deprivation of liberty.
o Although destierro is not imprisonment, a person
penalized with such may still be credited with the time
he underwent preventive imprisonment.
o If destierro is the maximum penalty to which the
accused may be sentenced, he must still be released
after serving whatever prison sentence (for example
arresto menor) is required, since destierro is not served
in prison (See p.634).
A. Credit When Punished Only With A Fine
If the offense for which the offender is undergoing preventive
imprisonment is punishable by imprisonment or a fine, and
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
182
B. Credit When Punished With Imprisonment
1. The convict is to be released immediately if the penalty
imposed after trial is less than the full time or four-fifths of the
time of the preventive imprisonment.
o The accused is to be released immediately whenever
he has undergone preventive imprisonment for a
period equal to or more than the possible maximum
imprisonment for the offenses charged.
o In such case, file a petition for habeas corpus to secure
your release if youre not released.
2. Offenders not entitled to the full time or four-fifths of the time
of preventive imprisonment:
a. Recidivists or those previously convicted twice or more
of any crime (Habitual delinquent is included).
b. Those who, upon being summoned for the execution of
their sentence, failed voluntarily to surrender.
C. Credit When Punished With Imprisonment And Fine
What if the accused is detained, then sentenced to
imprisonment and fine, and he has already served his sentence
but has not yet paid the fine, may he be released? No. He has
to pay the fine first.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
183
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
184
3.
4.
5.
6.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
185
I. Effects Of Pardon By The President
1. A pardon shall not restore the right to hold public office or the
right of suffrage.
2. It shall not exempt the culprit from the payment of the civil
indemnity. The pardon cannot make an exception to this rule.
II. Limitation Upon The Exercise Of The Pardoning Power:
1. That the power can be exercised only after conviction.
o Any application of pardon should not be accepted until
the appeal is withdrawn.
o Agencies and instrumentalities of the govt. must require
proof (e.g. certification of the court regarding
withdrawal of such appeal).
2. That such power does not extend to cases of impeachment
III. Pardon Granted In General Terms Does Not Include Accessory
Penalties
Only the effect of the principal penalty is extinguished.
Exception: Where facts show that the purpose of the Chief
Executive is precisely to restore lost rights.
o When an absolute pardon is granted AFTER the term of
imprisonment has expired it removes all that is left of
the consequences of conviction.
Suppose a pardon is granted after the convict served 30 years of
imprisonment. Does it also pardon the perpetual absolute
disqualification?
o No, because Article 30 is silent about the length and
Article 36 requires that such restoration be EXPRESS.
IV. Pardon Of Chief Executive v. Pardon Of Offended Party
Chief Executive
Offended Party
Extinguishes criminal liability
Doesnt extinguish criminal liability
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
186
1.
2.
3.
4.
POINTS
I. Order For Pecuniary Liability
1. The reparation of the damage caused
2. Indemnification of the consequential damages
3. Fine (a pecuniary penalty under Article 25)
4. Cost of proceedings
Note: 1 and 2 pertain to the offended party. 3 and 4 pertain to the
government.
A. What If Guilty Of Several Offenses?
Follow the chronological order of the dates of final judgment
rendered against the convict, beginning with the first final
judgment.
II. When Is Article 38 Applicable?
It is applicable in case the property of the offender should not
be sufficient for the payment of all his pecuniary liabilities. The
order of payment is provided in this article, and must be
observed.
There is reparation in the crime of rape when the dress of the
woman was torn. This is distinct from indemnity (U.S. v.
Yambao).
Article 39. Subsidiary penalty.
If the convict has no property with which to meet the fine mentioned
in paragraph 3 of the next 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:
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
187
II. Judgment of conviction must impose subsidiary imprisonment
That the accused will undergo subsidiary imprisonment in case
of insolvency can only be imposed if specifically imposed in the
judgment of conviction.
Subsidiary imprisonment is not an accessory penalty.
The decision need not state that there should not be any
subsidiary imprisonment when the law forbids it.
III. If Accused Has No Property With Which To Meet The Fine
Article 39 applies only when the accused has no property with
which to meet the fine. If the accused has enough property, he
cannot choose subsidiary imprisonment instead of paying.
IV. The Word Principal Should Be Omitted
Spanish: cuando la pena impuesta when the penalty imposed
Spanish text should be controlling.
V. Rules:
1. Prision Correcional or arresto and fine Subsidiary
imprisonment not to exceed 1/3 of the term of the sentence
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
188
2.
3.
4.
5.
VI. The Penalty Imposed Must Be (1) Prision Correccional, (2) Arresto
Mayor, (3) Arresto Menor, (4) Suspension, (5) Destierro Or (6) Fine
Only
If the penalty imposed by the court is not one of them,
subsidiary penalty cannot be imposed. There is no subsidiary
penalty, if the penalty imposed by the court is prision mayor,
reclusion temporal, or reclusion perpetua.
o If imprisonment is 6 years and 1 day, it is prision mayor,
and therefore no subsidiary imprisonment can be
imposed.
Penalty not to be executed by confinement, but has a fixed
duration (e.g. suspension, destierro) can impose subsidiary.
Penalty not to be executed by confinement, but has no fixed
duration (e.g. public censure) cannot impose subsidiary.
VII. Additional Penalty For Habitual Delinquency Should Be Included In
Determining Whether Or No Subsidiary Penalty Should Be Imposed
Even if the penalty imposed is not higher than prision
correctional, if the accused is a habitual delinquent who
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
189
XII. Subsidiary Imprisonment, Like Accessory Penalties, Not Essential In
Determining Jurisdiction
What determines jurisdiction of the Court in criminal cases is
the extent of the penalty, which the law imposes for the crime
charged in the information or complaint.
It is settled rule that subsidiary imprisonment, like accessory
penalties, is not essential in the determination of the criminal
jurisdiction of a court.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
190
Article 44. Arresto. Its accessory penalties.
The penalty of arresto shall carry with it that of suspension of the
right to hold office and the right of suffrage during the term of the
sentence.
POINTS
I. Outline Of Accessory Penalties INHERENT In Principal Penalties:
1. Death, when not executed by reason of commutation or
pardon (a) Perpetual absolute disqualification, (b) Civil
Interdiction for 30 years
2. Reclusion Perpetua and Reclusion Temporal (a) Civil
Interdiction for life or during the sentence, (b) Perpetual
absolute disqualification
3. Prision Mayor (a) Temporary absolute disqualification, (b)
perpetual special disqualification from suffrage
4. Prision Correcional (a) Suspension fro Public office,
profession or calling, (b) perpetual disqualification from
suffrage if the duration of the imprisonment exceeds 18
months
5. Arresto (a) suspension of the right to hold public office and
the right of suffrage during the term of the sentence
6. Destierro has no accessory penalty
When the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua as a penalty
next higher in degree, the accessory penalty shall be that under
Article 40 but the offender shall not be given the benefit of the
provision of Article 27 until 40 years have elapsed, otherwise,
there could be no difference at all between reclusion perpetua
when imposed as a penalty next higher in degree and when it is
imposed as a penalty fixed by law (People v. Bago).
II. Unless Expressly Remitted In The Pardon
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
191
III. Persons Who Served Out The Penalty May Not Have The Right To
Exercise The Right To Suffrage:
General Rule:
o Absolute pardon for any crime for which one-year
imprisonment or more was meted out restores the
prisoner his political rights.
o Where the penalty is less than one year, the
disqualification does not attach, except when the crime
committed is one against property.
A was prosecuted for physical injuries and
condemned to 10 months imprisonment.
Though not pardoned, he is not disqualified.
B was convicted of theft and served 10 months.
Unless given an absolute pardon, B cant vote.
C was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment for
physical injuries or estafa. Unless pardoned, he
cannot exercise the right to suffrage.
Nature of the crime is immaterial when the penalty imposed is
one-year imprisonment or more.
IV. Accessory Penalties Are Deemed Imposed
Accessory penalties are understood to be ALWAYS imposed
upon the offender by the mere fact that the law fixes a certain
penalty for a given crime (See Article 73).
Article 45. Confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds or
instruments of the crime.
Every penalty imposed for the commission of a felony shall carry with
it the forfeiture of the proceeds of the crime and the instruments or
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
192
US v. Filart
Facts: The accused planned to sell 450 tickets
for an automobile raffle. The court ordered the
confiscation of the automobile and the money
obtained from selling the tickets. None of these
were in the possession of the parties or the
court that the time the order of confiscation
was made.
Held: The court had not jurisdiction to order
the confiscation of the property not in the
possession of either the court itself or the
parties involved.
III. Articles Which Are Forfeited When The Order Of Forfeiture Is
Already Final, Cannot Be Returned Even In Case Of An Acquittal
Commissioner of Customs v. Encarnacion
o Facts: Article brought by a crew member of PAL were
confiscated by Customs for not having declared it. The
order of forfeiture became final while the crew
member was charged with violation of the RPC. The
crew member was later acquitted, and the court
ordered the return of the articles.
o Held: The court erred in ordering the release of the
articles because such articles already belong to the
government.
IV. Confiscation And Forfeiture Are Additional Penalties
Where the penalty imposed did not include the confiscation of
the dollars involved, the confiscation and forfeiture sought
would be an additional penalty and would amount to an
increase of the penalty already imposed thereby placing the
accused in double jeopardy. Thus, it cannot be allowed (People
v. Alejandro Paet y Velasco).
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
193
194
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
195
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
POINTS
I. At Least Two Crimes Must Be Committed
The commission of at least two crimes. But two or more grave
or less grave felonies must be the result of a single act, or an
offense must be a necessary means for committing the other.
In Complex Crime, When The Offender Executes Various Acts,
He Must Have A Single Purpose
o People v. Gallardo
to commit estafa, the accused
had to commit 17 falsifications.
o Gonzalez v. City Fiscal 27 vouchers were falsified not
for the single purpose of estafa. One or more offenses
not necessary means for committing others.
II. A Complex Crime Is Only One Crime
Although two or more crimes are committed, they constitute
only one crime in the eyes of the law one criminal intent.
This is actually for the benefit of the offender since even if two
crimes are committed, the law only punished the offender for
one, although it is in the maximum. In the eyes of the law, the
two crimes stem from one criminal intent this is less perverse
in the crimes of the law compared to punishing him for two
crimes. This applies to both compound crimes and complex
crime proper.
o The reason for the single penalty is that the basis of the
felony is the singularity of the act.
Only one information must be filed charging the complex
felony.
o If you want to charge someone with forcible abduction
with rape, you have to allege the elements of both
forcible abduction and rape.
o If one is not proven, then the accused can be convicted
of the other (Boado).
196
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
197
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
198
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
199
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
200
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
201
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
202
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
Article 48
The penalty for the more or most
serious crime shall be imposed
The same to be applied in its
maximum period
frustrated felony.
Article 51. Penalty to be imposed upon principals of attempted
crime.
The penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the
consummated felony shall be imposed upon the principals in an
attempt to commit a felony.
Article 52. Penalty to be imposed upon accomplices in a
consummated crime.
The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the
consummated felony shall be imposed upon the accomplices in the
commission of a consummated felony.
Article 53. Penalty to be imposed upon accessories to the
commission of a consummated felony.
The penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the
consummated felony shall be imposed upon the accessories to the
commission of a consummated felony.
Article 54. Penalty to be imposed upon accomplices in a frustrated
crime.
The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the
frustrated felony shall be imposed upon the accessories to the
commission of a frustrated felony.
Article 55. Penalty to be imposed upon accessories of a frustrated
crime.
The penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the
frustrated felony shall be imposed upon the accessories to the
commission of a frustrated felony.
Article 56. Penalty to be imposed upon accomplices in an attempted
crime.
203
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
A. Examples:
1. Facts: A convicted of attempted homicide A shot B with intent
to kill but without inflicting a mortal wound.
o Penalty for consummated homicide: reclusion
temporal.
o To find the penalty that is lower by one or more
degrees: look in Scale No. 1 of Article 71.
Held: Because A only committed attempted homicide: penalty
to be imposed is that which is lower by two degrees than
reclusion temporal which is prision correccional.
o Penalty for frustrated homicide: one degree lower than
reclusion temporal
which is prision mayor in the
same Scale No. 1 of Article 71
2. Facts: A (principal), B (accomplice), C (accessory) convicted of
consummated homicide.
Held:
o As penalty reclusion temporal (as principal)
o Bs penalty prision mayor (as accomplice: penalty
next lower in degree than prescribed for consummated
homicide)
o Cs penalty prision correccional (as accessory: two
degrees lower than that prescribed for consummated
homicide)
In the examples, penalties shall be imposed in the proper
period and shall be subject to the provisions of the
Indeterminate Sentence Law.
II. Exceptions To The Rules Established In Articles 50 To 57
Article 60
Articles 50-57 shall not apply to cases where the
law expressly prescribes the penalty for a frustrated or
204
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
205
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
II. Basis For Imposition Of Proper Penalty: (1) Social Danger; And (2)
Degree Of Criminality Shown By The Offender
Court must take into consideration the social danger and the
degree of criminality shown by the offender (Article 59).
o Example: Person fired revolver upon enemy 1 kilometer
away shows stupidity rather than dangerousness.
206
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
Article 162
Knowingly using counterfeited seal or forged
signature or stamp of the President.
Article 168 Illegal possession and use of a false treasury note
or bank note.
Article 173(3) Using a falsified document.
Article 173(2) Using a falsified dispatch.
Article 61. Rules for graduating penalties.
For the purpose of graduating the penalties which, according to the
provisions of Articles 50 to 57, inclusive, of this Code, are to be
imposed upon persons guilty as principals of any frustrated or
attempted felony, or as accomplices or accessories, the following
rules shall be observed:
1. When the penalty prescribed for the felony is single and
indivisible, the penalty next lower in degrees shall be that
immediately following that indivisible penalty in the
respective graduated scale prescribed in Article 71 of this
Code.
2. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of
two indivisible penalties, or of one or more divisible penalties
to be impose to their full extent, the penalty next lower in
degree shall be that immediately following the lesser of the
penalties prescribed in the respective graduated scale.
3. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of one
or two indivisible penalties and the maximum period of
another divisible penalty, the penalty next lower in degree
shall be composed of the medium and minimum periods of
the proper divisible penalty and the maximum periods of the
proper divisible penalty and the maximum period of that
immediately following in said respective graduated scale.
4. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of
several periods, corresponding to different divisible penalties,
the penalty next lower in degree shall be composed of the
period immediately following the minimum prescribed and of
207
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
II. The Lower Penalty Shall Be Taken From The Graduated Scale In
Article 71.
Scale No. 1 in Article 71 (penalties in order):
a. Death
b. Reclusion perpetua,
c. Reclusion temporal,
d. Prision mayor,
e. Prision correccional,
f. Arresto mayor,
g. Destierro,
h. Arresto menor,
i. Public censure,
j. Fine.
Indivisible penalties: (1) death, (2) reclusion perpetua, (3) public
censure
Divisible penalties: reclusion temporal down to arresto menor
Divisible penalties divided into 3 periods: (1) minimum, (2)
medium, (3) maximum
ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE RULES
I. FIRST RULE: When the penalty is single and indivisible.
Ex. Reclusion perpetua penalty for kidnapping and failing to
return a minor (Article 270)
In Scale No. 1 of Article 71 penalty immediately following
reclusion perpetua is reclusion temporal (therefore it is the
penalty next lower in degree).
II. SECOND RULE:
A. Penalty is composed of two indivisible penalties.
Indivisible penalties: reclusion perpetua to death
They are the penalties for parricide (Article 246)
Penalty immediately following lesser of the penalties (or
reclusion perpetua) reclusion temporal
208
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
Prision Mayor
3. Minimum
1. Maximum
accomplice;
or
penalty
for
the
principal in frustrated
felony.
2. Medium
3. Minimum
B. When the penalty is composed of one indivisible penalty and the
maximum period of a divisible penalty.
Ex: Reclusion temporal in max period to reclusion perpetua
Same rule observed in lowering penalty by 1-2 degrees
IV. FOURTH RULE: When the penalty is composed of several periods.
Several mean consisting in more than 2 periods
Fourth rule: contemplates penalty composed of at least 3
periods.
Several periods MUST correspond to different divisible
penalties
Penalty composed of several periods corresponding to different
divisible penalties
prision mayor (medium period) TO
reclusion temporal (minimum period)
Period immediately following minimum (= prision mayor in
medium period) is prision mayor in minimum period
Two periods next following are: max and med periods of prision
correccional (=penalty next following scale in Article 71 since it
cannot be taken from penalty prescribed)
Illustration:
Illustration:
DEATH
Reclusion Perpetua
Reclusion temporal
1. Maximum
Reclusion Temporal
2. Medium
Prision mayor
1. Maximum
2. Medium
3. Minimum
1. Maximum
2. Medium
3. Minimum
209
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
Prision correccional
1. Maximum
2. Medium
accomplice;
or
penalty
for
the
principal in frustrated
felony.
3. Minimum
V. FIFTH RULE: By analogy, because not specifically provided for in
the four preceding rules
A. When the penalty has two periods.
Certain offenses in Revised Penal Code: punished with penalty
composed of two periods:
o Either of same penalty: For abduction (Article 343)
prision correccional in its minimum and medium
periods.
o Or of different penalties: For physical injuries (Article
263, subsec. 4) arresto mayor in max period to
prision correccional in minimum period
In these cases: penalty lower by one degree
is formed by 2
periods taken from the same penalty prescribed (if possible) OR
from periods of penalty numerically following the lesser of the
penalties prescribed
These cases not covered by fourth rule (cause penalty
contemplated in 4th rule must contain at least 3 periods)
Penalty under fifth rule (by analogy) contains 1 or 2 periods
only
Example:
Penalty next lower than prision correccional in its min and med
periods is arresto mayor in its med and max periods
Maximum
Prision correccional
Medium
Penalty prescribed for
the felony
Minimum
Maximum
Penalty next lower
Arresto mayor
Medium
Minimum
210
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
211
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
212
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
213
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
I. Examples:
A. Material Execution Of The Crime
214
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
Date of Conviction
June 1915
May 1920
July 1928
August 1937
October 1946
Date of Release
July 1916
October 1922
August 1930
September 1940
Explanation:
The 10-year period should be counted from the date of LAST
conviction or release from the crime charged, which is August
1937 (conviction) or September 1940 (release).
o Note: Regardless of the gap between the first and
second crimes, the accused will be considered a
habitual delinquent if between the second and third
crimes, there is a gap or 10 years or below.
In the accusation of theft, only attempted robbery (conviction:
July 1928, release: August 1930) can be taken into consideration
for the determination of habitual delinquency since it is the last
crime for which he was convicted for.
215
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
216
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
POINTS
I. Inoperative Because Of Republic Act No. 9346
In light of this only reclusion perpetua is indivisible.
Cannot be affected by generic mitigating circumstances BUT it
can be affected by privileged mitigating circumstances (like
Article 68 & 69).
o Privileged mitigating always considered whether
divisible or indivisible penalty.
II. Outline Of The Rules
1. When penalty consists of 1 indivisible: applied regardless of any
mitigating or aggravating circumstances
2. When penalty is composed of 2 indivisible penalties:
a. Only 1 aggravating greater penalty shall be imposed
b. No aggravating nor mitigating lesser penalty imposed
c. A mitigating and no aggravating
lesser penalty
imposed.
d. Both mitigating and aggravating
court will allow
them to offset one another.
III. Article 63 Applies Only When The Penalty Prescribed By The Code Is
Either One Indivisible Penalty Or Two Indivisible Penalties
Article 63 does NOT apply if penalty prescribed: reclusion
temporal in max period to death (Because even if it includes 2
indivisible penalties = it has 3 periods of reclusion temporal
max-min, reclusion perpetua-med, Death-max)
Article 64
shall apply in this case)
A. Example Of Single And Indivisible Penalty
Reclusion Perpetua for:
o Kidnapping and failure to return a minor (Article 270)
o Rape (Article 266-B)
Death for:
217
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
218
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
4.
5.
6.
7.
maximum period.
When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances are
present, the court shall reasonably offset those of one class
against the other according to their relative weight.
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.
Whatever may be the number and nature of the aggravating
circumstances, the courts shall not impose a greater penalty
than that prescribed by law, in its maximum period.
Within the limits of each period, the courts shall determine the
extent of the penalty according to the number and nature of
the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the greater
or lesser extent of the evil produced by the crime.
POINTS
I. Article 64 applies only when the penalty has 3 periods.
Article 64 applies when penalty prescribed by law for offense
RT, PM, PC, AM, Am, PC to RT, etc. = because theyre divisible
into 3 periods (minimum, medium, maximum).
When law prescribes single divisible penalty (ex. RT for
homicide) as in Article 76 is distributed in 3 equal parts each
part forms a period called min, med and max.
If penalty made up of 3 diff penalties: PC to RT
Each forms a period according to Article 77
PC = min
PM = med
RT = max
PM is included bec. Its between PC and RT in Scale No. 1 Article
71
219
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
220
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
221
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
222
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
223
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
224
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
225
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
11. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted
for, the right to follow profession or calling, and
12. Public censure.
Notwithstanding the provisions of the rule next preceding, the
maximum duration of the convicts 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 of those imposed equals the said
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. (As
amended by Com. Act No. 217.)
POINTS
I. Outline Of The Provisions Of This Article:
1. When culprit has to serve 2 or more penalties
serve them
simultaneously (if nature of penalties permit).
2. Otherwise, order of their respective severity shall be followed.
3. Respective severity of penalties is as follows:
a. Death
b. Reclusion Perpetua
c. Reclusion Temporal
d. Prision Mayor
e. Prision Correccional
f. Arresto Mayor
g. Arresto menor
h. Destierro
i. Perpetual absolute disqualification
j. Temporary absolute disqualification
226
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
227
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
228
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
Death
Reclusion perpetua
Reclusion temporal
Prision mayor
Prision correccional
Arresto mayor
Destierro
Arresto menor
Public censure
Fine
POINTS
I. Death Shall No Longer Form Part Of The Equation In Article 71
Pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346
o This has the effect of appropriately downgrading the
proper penalties attaching to accomplices, accessories,
frustrated and attempted felonies to the level
consistent with the rest of the penal laws.
Since this law bars the application of the death penalty, such
effect necessarily extends to its relevance to the graduated
scale of penalties under Article 71.
o There can be no harmony between Republic Act No.
9346 and the Revised Penal Code unless the later
statute is construed as having downgraded those
Article 71
provides for the
scales which
should be
229
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
purpose of the
successive service
of sentences)
observed in
graduating
penalties in Article
61
Location of Destierro
is Destierro is below Destierro is above
Destierro
above arresto arresto menor
arresto menor
menor
230
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
231
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
o
o
o
232
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
POINTS
lightest of them shall be the minimum, the next the medium, and the
most severe the maximum period.
Whenever the penalty prescribed does not have one of the forms
specially provided for in this Code, the periods shall be distributed,
applying by analogy the prescribed rules
POINTS
I. Complex Penalty
Penalty composed of 3 distinct penalties, each forming a
period.
Example:
o Reclusion temporal to death (Article 114)
Maximum - Death
Medium - Reclusion Perpetua
Minimum - Reclusion Temporal
II. Application By Analogy Of Rules
1. Article 114(3), provides a penalty of prision mayor to death.
a. Max death (because its indivisible)
b. Medium reclusion perpetua (because its indivisible)
c. Minimum prision mayor to reclusion temporal
2. Article 294(2), provides penalty of reclusion temporal in its
medium period to reclusion perpetua.
a. Max reclusion perpetua (being indivisible)
b. Medium reclusion temporal in its maximum period
c. Minimum reclusion temporal in its medium period.
233
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
234
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
The court, in committing said minor as provided above, shall take into
consideration the religion of such minor, his parents or next of kin, in
order to avoid his commitment to any private institution not under
the control and supervision of the religious sect or denomination to
which they belong.
If the minor has been committed to the custody or care of any of the
institutions mentioned in the first paragraph of this article, with the
approval of the Director of Public Welfare and subject to such
conditions as this official in accordance with law may deem proper to
impose, such minor may be allowed to stay elsewhere under the care
of a responsible person.
If the minor has behaved properly and has complied with the
conditions imposed upon him during his confinement, in accordance
with the provisions of this article, he shall be returned to the court in
order that the same may order his final release.
235
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
Child below 18
Child in Conflict with the Law
alleged/accused
of/adjudged as having committed an offense under
Philippine Laws.
Presidential Decree No. 603
o Youthful Offender
child/minor/youth, above 9 but
below 18, at the time of the commission of the offense.
POINTS
236
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
4.
5.
V. COURT PROCEEDINGS
1. Bail
o Consider the privileged mitigating circumstance of
minority (Article 68).
2. Release on Recognizance
o Detained child:
Released on recognizance to parents
Release of Child in Conflict with Law with bail
Transfer of youth to rehab center
3. Detention of the Child Pending Trial
o May be released on BAIL or RECOGNIZANCE
o Institutionalization/Detention
last resort and with
the shortest possible time.
6.
7.
8.
237
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
6.
7.
8.
9.
238
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
239
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
240
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
POINTS
I. A convict sentenced to death may make a will.
He has the right to consult a lawyer and make a will for the
disposition of his property.
To know if the convict sentenced to death may dispose of his
property inter vivos, it must first be ascertained if the death
penalty was not executed by reason of commutation or pardon
(Article 40).
o Thus, if the death penalty is not executed because of
commutation or pardon, civil interdiction as an
accessory penalty of Article 40 can be applied, and
according to Article 34, shall deprive the offender to
dispose of his property by any act or conveyance inter
vivos.
Article 83. Suspension of the execution of the death sentence.
The death sentence shall not be inflicted upon a woman while she is
pregnant or within one (1) year after delivery, nor upon any person
over seventy years of age. In this last case, the death sentence shall
be commuted to the penalty of reclusion perpetua with the accessory
penalty provided in article 40.
In all cases where the death sentence has become final, the records of
the case shall be forwarded immediately by the Supreme Court to the
Office of the President for possible exercise of the pardoning power.
(As amended by Sec. 25, Republic Act No. 7659.)
POINTS
I. Death Sentence Shall Be Suspended When The Accused Is:
1. Woman, while pregnant
2. Woman, within one year after delivery (Republic Act No. 7659)
Article 47
When death penalty is NOT to be
executed
1. Guilty person is more than
70 y/o
2. Upon appeal/automatic
review of the SC, the
majority vote is not obtained
to impose death penalty
3. Convict is a minor (below
18)*
*This may be added in view of
Article 68
241
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
POINTS
I. The Burial Of The Body Of A Person Sentenced To Death Should
Not Be Held With Pomp.
This is to prevent anyone from making a hero out of a criminal.
Article 86. Reclusion perpetua, reclusion temporal, prision mayor,
prision correccional and arresto mayor.
The penalties of reclusion perpetua, reclusion temporal, prision
mayor, prision correccional and arresto mayor, shall be executed and
served in the places and penal establishments provided by the
Administrative Code in force or which may be provided by law in the
future.
Article 87. Destierro.
Any person sentenced to destierro shall not be permitted to enter the
place or places designated in the sentence, nor within the radius
therein specified, which shall be not more than 250 and not less than
25 kilometers from the place designated.
POINTS
Memorize this.
Destierro is a correctional penalty (6 months 6 years)
Violation of destierro will give rise to evasion of sentence
(Article 156-159).
Article 88. Arresto menor.
The penalty of arresto menor shall be served in the municipal jail, or
in the house of the defendant himself under the surveillance of an
officer of the law, when the court so provides in its decision, taking
into consideration the health of the offender and other reasons,
which may seem satisfactory to it.
242
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
86
(Reclusin Perpetua, Reclusin
Temporal, Prision Mayor, Prision
Correccional, Arresto Mayor)
87
(Destierro)
88
(Arresto Menor)
PLACE/S OF EXECUTION
OR SERVICE
Penintentiary
Bilid Prison
Municipal jail, or
*** House of the defendant
himself
WITNESSES
OTHER DETAILS
Priests
Offenders lawyers
Offenders relatives (not
exceeding 6, if so requested)
Physician
Necessary personnel of the
establishment
------
------
------
------
243
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
244
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
245
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
246
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
Offended Party
Cant pardon, except in Article
266-C and Article 344.
Before institution of criminal
action
Doesnt extinguish but can be
waived by offended party.
President
Any crime, including
private crimes.
After final judgment
Doesnt extinguish civil
liability.
247
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
248
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
249
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
250
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
Example: When the accused evaded arrest and the case has to
be archived by the court, the proceedings are stopped because
of the fault of the accused.
VI. Special Penal Laws
A. Act No. 3326 Applies
Section 1. Violations penalized by special acts shall, unless otherwise
provided in such acts, prescribe in accordance with the following
rules: (a) after a year for offenses punished only by a fine or by
imprisonment for not more than one month, or both; (b) after four
years for those punished by imprisonment for more than one month,
but less than two years; (c) after eight years for those punished by
imprisonment for two years or more, but less than six years; and (d)
after twelve years for any other offense punished by imprisonment
for six years or more, except the crime of treason, which shall
prescribe after twenty years. Violations penalized by municipal
ordinances shall prescribe after two months.
Section 2. Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the
commission of the violation of the law, and if the same be not known
at the time, from the discovery thereof and the institution of judicial
proceeding for its investigation and punishment.
The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are instituted
against the guilty person, and shall begin to run again if the
proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting jeopardy.
B. Article 91 May Apply When A Special Law (While Providing A
Prescriptive Period) Does Not Prescribe Any Rule For The Application
Of That Period.
In Act 3326, what does proceedings mean?
o It includes judicial proceedings, and
o It also includes executive proceedings. This means
investigation by the executive department.
251
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
252
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
253
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
II. Elements
1. That the penalty is imposed by final sentence.
2. That the convict evaded the service of the sentence by escaping
during the term of his sentence.
3. That the convict who escaped from prison has not given himself
up or been capture, or gone to a foreign country with which we
have no extradition treaty, or committed another crime.
4. That the penalty has prescribed, because of the lapse of time
from the date of the evasion of the service of the sentence by
the convict.
III. FIRST ELEMENT: The Penalties Must Be Imposed By Final Sentence
If the convict appealed and thereafter fled to the mountains,
the penalty imposed upon him would never prescribe because
pending appeal the sentence is not final.
IV. SECOND ELEMENT: Convict Evades Service Of Sentece
Evasion of the service of the sentence is an essential element of
prescription of penalties.
The defense of prescription of penalties will not prosper if one
received a conditional pardon because there was no evasion of
the service of the sentence. Evasion presupposed escaping
during the service of the sentence consisting in the deprivation
of liberty.
o Acceptance of a conditional pardon interrupts the
prescription period (it will stop running).
Period of prescription that ran during the time the convict
evaded service of sentence is not forfeited upon his capture.
o The prescription that ran in his favor should be taking
into account.
254
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
255
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
256
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
By Who
Statute
Involved
Penalty for The convict may be
violation
ordered rearrested or
reincarcerated by the
Chief Executive, or may
be prosecuted under
Article 159 of the Revised
Penal Code
II. Probation
III. Partial Repeal Of A Penal Law
Article 95. Obligation incurred by a person granted conditional
pardon.
Any person who has been granted conditional pardon shall incur the
obligation of complying strictly with the conditions imposed therein,
otherwise, his noncompliance with any of the conditions specified
shall result in the revocation of the pardon and the provisions of
Article 159 shall be applied to him.
POINTS
I. Outline Of The Provisions:
1. He must comply strictly with the conditions imposed in the
pardon.
2. Failure to comply with the conditions shall result in the
revocation of the pardon. Under Section 64(i), R.A.C., the Chief
Executive may order his arrest and reincarceration. (People v.
Aglahi)
257
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
258
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
POINTS
POINTS
I. What Is Special Time Allowance For Loyalty Of Prisoner?
It is a deduction of 1/5 of the period of the sentence of a
prisoner who, having evaded the service of his sentence during
the calamity or catastrophe mentioned in Article 158, gives
himself up to the authorities within 48 hours following the
issuance of the proclamation by the President announcing the
passing away of the calamity or catastrophe.
He must escape and then return. If he doesnt escape, just stays
put in the prison, he doesnt get any good conduct allowance.
o Lesson: escape, but return.
259
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
260
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
261
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
262
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
263
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
264
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
265
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
266
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
267
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
268
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
269
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
270
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
271
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
272
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
273
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
274
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
275
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
276
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
277
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
POINTS
I. Civil Liability In Criminal Cases
There are crimes where there is no civil liability. There are
crimes where only one or none at all of these civil obligations is
possible.
Example: Theft or robbery
when property is recovered, only
reparation, if it was damaged, will be allowed.
o Restitution return of property
o Reparation
pay the value of property stolen (if it
cant be recovered); payment of hospital bills of the
offended
o Indemnification for consequential damages
loss of
salary or earning.
II. When Property Taken Away Is Not Recovered, The Court Must
Order The Accused To Restore It To Its Owner Or, As An Alternative,
To Pay Its Just Value
278
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
279
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
A. Examples Of Indemnity
280
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
281
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
282
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
283
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
POINTS
POINTS
I. Apportionment Of Civil Liability
Civil liability is apportioned according to the degree of the
offenders liability, respective responsibilities and actual
participation.
The person with greater participation in the commission of the
crime should have a greater share in the civil liability than those
who played a minor role in the crime or those who had no
participation in the crime but merely profited from its effects.
Article 110. Several and subsidiary liability of principals, accomplices
284
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
no criminal liability.
285
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
286
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)